Which public-building geometries are intrinsically good (or bad) for CSI crowd sensing? (ArchCAD ensemble)
Current assessment (2026-09-15)
Converter smoke test completed; the public-building ensemble campaign still has no session in the current index.
A physically plausible render of one CAD slice establishes an input path, not the proposed geometry-versus-seed effect across public buildings. The linked campaign remains a design. The thesis can use it as a possible external-validity test, but it is not evidence that public-building sensitivity is geometry-dominated.
Next evidence needed: Only prioritize this ensemble if it tests a declared failure of the calibration model. Record geometry-level replication and uncertainty; keep the current independent-label work ahead of expanding the floorplan portfolio.
Basis: Thesis Narrative, the September 10 synthesis, and the September 15 register review. See the review record for evidence sources and outstanding checks.
Earlier protocol and dated results
The methods and observations below retain their original scope. Read their readiness statements and proposed next steps as historical. The current assessment above records what has changed; frozen thresholds have not been retrospectively revised.
The problem, in plain words
Wi-Fi people-counting works by reading how the room's echo changes as people move through it — so it is inseparably a property of the room. Almost everything we know about which rooms are easy or hard comes from apartments, because that is the geometry we could load. But the buildings that actually matter for crowd sensing — an open office floor, a lecture hall, a mall concourse, a stairwell, a parking deck — have completely different wall density, openness, and structural clutter. ArchCAD is the first corpus that lets us ask, at scale, "is CSI crowd-sensing intrinsically harder in some public buildings than others, and by how much?" — even if only in simulation, as a hypothesis generator for where a real deployment should worry.
What we are trying to prove
- H-A (variance split, falsifiable): the between-tile variance of the occupancy-sensitivity slope exceeds the between-seed variance by a factor whose bootstrap 95% CI lower bound clears ≥ 4× on ≥40 public-building tiles. A ratio near 1 would mean placement/fading noise, not geometry, drives the signal — refuting the geometry-bound premise on public buildings.
- H-B (archetype ranking, exploratory): occupancy-sensitivity differs by structural archetype (open vs partitioned vs column-dense vs stair/parking), with the per-archetype ranking carrying a bootstrap CI. A flat ranking (all archetypes equal within CI) is the informative null: "building type does not predict sensability."
- What a null means: if H-A fails (CI touches 1×), the residential geometry-dominance result does not generalise to public buildings — a genuinely useful negative. If H-B is flat, deployment need not stratify by building type.
How the experiment works (plain method)
Notebook-/pre-stage-driven, one sim family:
- Scene staging (Step 0, the one new plumbing).
09_archcad_sionna_scene.pyturns each tile'sarchcad.primitives(walls 20, glass 19, columns 21/22) into a runner-readyscene.json(×0.014→m, class→ITURadioMaterial, reusingmonad_knowledge.sim.scenegeom.SceneBundle). Room-aware device placement: Tx + Rx-cluster confined to one wall-bounded open region (a flood-fill over the wall raster), so a full-height party/shaft wall never trivially severs the link. - Occupancy protocol per tile (
sionna-csi-runner, static mode, frominputs/scene.json):n_agents ∈ {0,2,4,6,8}, K random body placements per level, band 2.4 GHz (5.0 GHz as a second arm if budget allows). Reduce per-tile CV(N) → the occupancy-sensitivity slope + monotonicity. - Analysis: (H-A) variance components (between-tile vs between-seed) with a floor/tile-bootstrap CI — the ratio is heavy-tailed, so bootstrap not normal approximation (the lesson from the ResPlan redo). (H-B) group tiles by archetype from
archcad.tilesflags + wall-density; rank + bootstrap CI, BH-FDR over contrasts.
Honest caveats (the standing gate)
- Sim-only, drafted geometry. ArchCAD walls are thin dielectric sheets (CAD double-line faces), no furniture, uncalibrated 5 dB body loss, unvalidated ITU coefficients. A real multipath field is richer and messier — real drift is often worse than sims (brunello2025_d781 ↗).
- Placement confound. One Tx/Rx cluster per tile; the archetype ranking can be contaminated by where in the tile the cluster lands. Report the ranking as conditional on the room-aware placement rule, and probe sensitivity to it.
- No magnitude travels. Every occupancy-sensitivity number is in-silico; the real-data cross-check (huang2025_060d ↗) is the gate before any deployment claim.
Key references
- csi-cross-geometry-generalization — the residential sibling; inherit its honesty fixes (bootstrap CI, floor-clustered unit, the phantom-session lesson).
- wang2026_2758 ↗ — cross-environment generalisation as the field's central open problem.
- chen2023_5cbd ↗ — geometry/domain dominance; why this is replication not discovery.
- zou2018_1590 ↗ — real multi-zone CSI occupancy; grounds the geometry-dependence premise.
- huang2025_060d ↗ — the standing real-CSI anchor before any magnitude travels.
- brunello2025_d781 ↗ — real drift is often worse than sims; the red-team's warning.
- zhang2026_ccac ↗, guarino2026_e72c ↗ — the reproducibility bar (every named figure must exist in S3).
- archcad-400k — the dataset; substrate, materials, and the multi-room occlusion gotcha.