Framed-Slotted ALOHA with Estimation by Pilot

Frame and Identification by Binary Selection

for RFID Anti-collision
Junbong Eom and Tae-Jin Lee
School of Information and Communication Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea
Tel: +82-31-290-7982, Fax: +82-31-290-7983
E-mail: {eomjb, tjlee}@ece.skku.ac.kr
AbstractIn RFID systems, a collision prevents a reader from
identifying tags rapidly, and it is very important due to a limited
function of passive tags. In this paper, we propose an efficient
anti-collision protocol with estimation by pilot frame and
identification by binary selection. Performance of the proposed
algorithm is shown to be better than the other algorithms up to
7.3% ~ 21.9%.
Keywords: anti-collision, collision resolution, RFID, pilot
frame, tag estimation, tag identification.
I. INTRODUCTION
Radio Frequency IDentification systems (RFID) are in the
limelight for the realization of ubiquitous computing. RFID
systems identify many objects in wide range through wireless
communications between readers and tags. When a tag
transmits its information to a reader, tag collision occurs if
other tags transmit their information to the same reader at the
same time. These collisions cause a reader not to identify tags
correctly and rapidly. Passive tags, however, do not have
abilities to solve it for themselves, because of a limited
function and low cost. Thus, how to solve the problem
efficiently is one of the most important issues in RFID
systems [1].

Tag anti-collision protocols are separated into ALOHA
based protocols [2], and tree-based protocols [3], which have
advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, one of the best known
and the most popular tag anti-collision protocols is Framed-
Slotted ALOHA (FSA). This protocol reduces probability of
tag collision since tags respond at random timeslots in a frame.
If, however, the difference between the number of the tags
and the frame size is large, the throughput of FSA may
become very low [4]. Therefore, it is necessary for a reader to
estimate the number of tags before tag identification and to
decide a suitable frame size from it. Although dynamic
framed-slotted ALOHA (DFSA) proposed in [4] and [5]

This research was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by
the Korean Government (MOEHRD) (KRF-2006-311-D00683) and by Grant
No. R01-2006-000-10402-0 from the Basic Research Program, Korea Science
and Engineering Foundation of the Ministry of Science & Technology.
estimate the number of tags by using collision probability,
when the number of tags is larger than the initial frame size, a
reader is not able to estimate the number of tags exactly
because the probability of collision becomes larger. So its
accurate estimation is also challenging. In tree-based RFID
protocols [3], most protocols use binary tree algorithm. In this
protocol, if a collision occurs in a timeslot, the colliding tags
are randomly separated into two subgroups until all tags are
identified. When a reader identifies the small number of tags,
tree-based protocols exhibit a reasonable performance. If,
however, the number of tags is large, at the early stage, they
may experience poor performance because they might waste
timeslots due to many collision slots until all tags are
identified. EB-FSA [7] takes advantages of both types and
shows an improvement. This protocol still requires extra
timeslots for estimation of the number of tags.
In this paper, we propose Framed-Slotted ALOHA with
Estimation by Pilot Frame and Identification by Binary
Selection for RFID Tags Anti-collision (FSAPB). This
algorithm minimizes the number of timeslots by bit masks and
optimal frame size to tackle the problems mentioned above.
Its performance is compared with the optimal and other
algorithms. The outline of this paper is organized as follows.
In Section II, we explain tag anti-collision algorithms. Our
proposed algorithm is presented in Section III. Performance
evaluation and comparison via simulations are presented in
Section IV. We conclude in Section V.
II. TAGANTI-COLLISION ALGORITHMS
A. Basic Framed Slotted ALOHA (BFSA) Algorithms
BFSA algorithms use a fixed frame size and do not change
the frame size until the process of tag identification is over.
When an RFID reader attempts to read tags, the reader offers
necessary information to the tags, such as the frame size and
the random numbers. Receiving this information, tags
transmit their IDs at the computed timeslots in the frame. If a
timeslot has collision, the tags transmitted at the timeslot
retransmit in the next read frame [4].
1027
1-4244-0977-2/07/$25.00 c 2007 IEEE
Fig. 1 presents a process where tags are identified by
BFSA. We assume that the frame size and the number of tags
are 4 and 5, respectively. Firstly, Tag 1 and tag 4 transmit
their IDs at timeslot 1 of the frame 1. Since a collision occurs
in the timeslot, the reader can not read the tags correctly.
Neither tag 3 nor tag 5 is identified by the reader due to the
same reason. Thus, in the next frame, tag 1, 3, 4 and 5 must
repeat the procedure until all tags are identified.
Figure 1. An example of BFSA algorithm (Frame Size=4).
Because of the fixed frame size of BFSA, implementation
is rather easy. If, however, there are too many tags, most of
timeslots experience collisions, and none of tags may be
identified during long time. And many timeslots may be
wasted by idle slots if the number of timeslots in the frame is
much larger than that of tags. Thus, it exhibits low
performance of tag identification.
B. Dvnamic Framed Slotted ALOHA (DFSA) Algorithms
DFSA algorithms can actively deal with the problem of
BFSA by changing the frame size for efficient tag
identification. To determine the frame size, it uses the
probability of collision in the previous frame [4] [5].
The simplest DFSA changes the frame size based on the
number of timeslots collided. If the number of timeslots
collided is larger than a threshold, a reader increases the frame
size at the next frame. When, however, the number of
collisions is smaller than a threshold, a reader decreases the
frame size at the next frame. This algorithm can solve the
problem of BFSA, but this algorithm still has many collisions
when the difference between the number of tags and the frame
size is large.
Another version of DFSA is based on the tag estimation.
Performance of DFSA is known to be optimal when the frame
size equals to the number of tags. So, a reader decides the
next frame size as the number of tags in the current frame.
Figure 2. An example of binary tree algorithm.
C. Binarv Tree Algorithms
In binary tree algorithms, when a collision occurs, all tags
that are involved in the collision randomly separated into two
subgroups, by independently selecting 0 or 1. The tags that
select 0 transmit their IDs to a reader right away. If a collision
occurs again, the collided tags are split again by selecting 0 or
1. The tags that select 1 wait until all the tags that select 0 are
successfully identified by the reader. And if all the tags that
select 0 are resolved, the tags that select 1 send their IDs to the
reader. This procedure is repeated until there is no further
collision [3].
Fig. 2 shows an example of the binary tree algorithm. In the
first timeslot, all tags select 0 or 1 randomly due to the
collision. And tag 2 and 3 select 0. Both tags send their IDs at
the next timeslot and are collided again. Tag 2 transmits its ID
at the following timeslot successfully by selecting 0, and the
reader can then read the tag 3 because of no collision at the
next timeslot. After the collision resolution of tag 2 and 3, tag
1 and 4 are collided at the seventh timeslot. Next, tag 4 selects
0 and tag 1 selects 1. Thus tag 4 and 5 are transmitted at the
eighth and ninth timeslot, respectively. Due to the no further
collision, a reader finishes an identification process.
Binary tree algorithm is very efficient when the number of
tags is small. However, as the number of tags is larger, at the
early stage, there may be many collisions.
D. Framed-Slotted ALOHA with Tag Estimation and Binarv
Splitting Algorithm (EBFSA)
EBFSA [7] is divided into estimation phase and
identification phase. The estimation phase conducts the tag
estimation as DFSA. The estimation phase uses the fixed
frame size L
est
for tags estimation (see Fig. 3). If the
probability of collision exceeds a threshold, a reader decreases
the number of tags by a factor of f
d
using bit masks because a
reader can not estimate the number of tags exactly. This
process is repeated until the probability of collision is lower
than a threshold. After the estimation phase, identification
phase starts. The initial frame size of identification phase is
determined by the tag estimation. In the identification phase,
when the tags are collided in a timeslot, a reader resolves the
collision by binary tree algorithm.
Fig. 3 shows an example of EB-FSA. Tag 2 is identified at
the first timeslot in the identification phase. Tag 1, 3 and 4,
1028 2007 International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT 2007)
Identification Process
Estimation Phase Identification Phase
0 1 i*
Tag 1
Tag 2
Tag 4
S C I S S C S C
C
S S
S S C
S S
S
S
C
S
0
Select: 1
Tag 5
C
C
C
S
S
2 1 0
3 2 2
1 0 1 0
0 1 0 0
1
2 1
S
1 2 1 0
0 2 1
Select: 0
Select: 1 Select: 1
Collision: +1
S
I
C
Idle
Collision
Lest
Counter
L
Tag 3
Success
S
Timeslot
Collision: +1
C S
0
Select: 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Figure 3. An example of EBFSA algorithm [7].
however, experience a collision because they transmit their
IDs simultaneously at the third timeslot. So, they carry out
binary tree algorithm by selecting 0 or 1 randomly. Due to the
collision of the third timeslot, tag 5 increases the counter
value by 1 to defer the transmission. And, tag 4 succeeds at
the fourth timeslot since it selected 0. Tag 1 and 3, however,
collide at the fifth timeslot again. And, tag 1 succeeds at the
sixth timeslot by selecting 0, and tag 3 transmits its ID
successfully at the seventh timeslot by selecting 1. After
resolving collisions, the counter value of tag 8 reaches 0, and
the tag is finally identified [7].
Figure 4. An example of FSAPB algorithm, when Pcoll is lower than Pth.
III. PROPOSED FRAMED-SLOTTED ALOHA WITH PILOT
FRAME AND BINARY SELECTION (FSAPB)
FSAPB also estimates the number of tags by Eq. (1) [4][5],
and a pilot frame is used for tag estimation.
.
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1

=
=
n
p p
n
p
succ idle coll
L L
n
L
P P P
(1)
Where n and L
p
are the number of tags and the pilot frame
size. P
coll
, P
idle
and P
succ
are the probability of collision, idle
and success, respectively.
In the beginning, to decrease the number of timeslots
required for tag estimation, the tags to respond to a reader are
grouped into M subgroups by using bit masks. After this step,
the pilot frame (L
p
) that estimates the number of tags is
applied to only the first subgroup. The other subgroups
predict the number of tags without using L
p
, assuming
uniform random distribution of tags. Even if bit masks may
not have completely uniform random distribution, predicting
the number of tags via bit masks can save more timeslots
because of not using timeslots for tag estimation. If, however,
M is too large, tags among subgroups may not almost have
uniform distribution. So, an appropriate value of M is decided
via simulations. A reader assigns additional timeslots at the
end of L
p
to resolve collisions occurred in L
p
. The tags
collided in L
p
come to have new random counter values
depending on remaining timeslots in L
p
and collision number
in L
p
so that they are resolved after the end of L
p
. The FSAPB
algorithm can be classified into low and high collision
probability cases. During L
p
, all the tags in a subgroup
transmit their IDs. After L
p
is over, a reader calculates P
coll
,
which is compared with the threshold P
th
.
A. Low Collision Probabilitv
When P
coll
is lower than P
th
, binary tree algorithm is
applied since the number of tags collided in a timeslot is
relatively small. Thus, to resolve tags collided in L
p
, a reader
use additional timeslots L
add
.
Fig. 4 shows an example of the proposed FSAPB algorithm,
when P
coll
is lower than P
th
. Tags send their IDs to the reader
when the random counter values are 0. The reader can identify
tag 1 and tag 7 in L
p
as they transmit successfully. Tag 2, 3
and 5 cause the first collision in L
p
. So, the reader assigns two
additional timeslots after L
p
and those tags conduct binary tree
algorithm during L
add
. Tag 4 and 6 select random counter
values 0 or 1 by binary tree algorithm and add them by the
two times the number of collisions before tag 4 and 6 to the
current counter values by the second collision in L
p
. Tag 2 and
tag 5 collide again in the first timeslot of L
add
, and binary tree
algorithm is conducted. So, the other tags in L
add
increase the
counter values by 1.
B. High Collision Probabilitv
If there are many tags, most of timeslots in L
p
may
experience collisions. Owing to these collisions, P
coll
in L
p
2007 International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT 2007) 1029
Figure 5. An example of FSAPB algorithm, when Pcoll is larger than Pth. Figure 6. When n=100, the number of required timeslots vs varying
frame size.
may be greater than P
th
. In this case, the number of tags
collided in a timeslot becomes large. Thus, L
add
is not used,
but a new frame L
1
is used for tag identification. The size of
L
1
can be calculated by letting L
1
n from Eq. (1). It is not
necessary to estimate the number of tags (n) accurately, since
many timeslots for accurate tag estimation may be wasted.
Considering the succeeded tags in L
p
and the optimal frame
size, the size of L
1
is set by the minimum value of n that meets
Eq. (1). The optimal frame size is referred to in the next
section.
Fig. 5 shows an example of the proposed FSAPB algorithm,
when P
coll
is greater than P
th
. After L
p
, another frame L
1
is
created. All the tags collided in L
p
retransmit their IDs in L
1
.
During the progress in L
1
, the third timeslot has collision by
tag 4 and tag 6. So, the other tags not succeeded in L
1
increase
their random counter values by 1. This step is repeated for
other timeslots.
A reader can know the number of tags of the other
subgroups after it identifies the tags in the first subgroup,
because bit masks separate tags uniformly. The suitable frame
size of the current subgroup is determined by multiplying a
certain constant (y) by the number of tags identified in the
previous subgroup. In the next section, we show why a certain
constant has to be multiplied. After the suitable frame size is
set, binary tree protocol is conducted.
Figure 7. 1/Lopt vs the varying number of tags.
C. The Optimal Frame Si:e
In DFSA, when the number of tags equals to the frame size,
it is optimal. However, Fig. 6 shows FSAPB is not optimal
when the number of tags equals to the frame size. Thus,
FSAPB requires a new optimal frame size (L
opt
). Let T, n and
k be the total number of timeslots used for tag identification,
the total number of tags and the number of tags transmitted in
a timeslot, respectively.
(2)
Where o
k
is the average number of timeslots used by binary
tree when collisions occur [6]. We can find the optimal frame
size by differentiating Eq. (2). Although it is very difficult to
differentiate Eq. (2) for the various n, we can obtain that the
L
opt
is about 0.88n from Fig. 7. It shows that the graph is not
affected by k when k is large. Hence, we can differentiate Eq.
(2) in the special range of k. That is the reason why a certain
constant (y) in the previous section is multiplied.
IV. SIMULATION RESULT
We evaluate the performance of FSAPB compared to that
of DFSA, binary tree and EB-FSA algorithms under varying
number of tags. Our simulation condition is as follows. Only
one reader attempts to read all the tags. The number of tags n
increases from 100 to 1000. In this simulation, FSAPB is set
to L
p
=36, P
th
=0.6 and M = 4, and the simulation of EB-FSA
is referred to [7]. In DFSA, we assume the initial number of
tags is known and tag estimation is very accurate.
. ) 1 (
1
1
1
0

=
n
k
k opt
k n
opt
k
opt
k n
L
L L
C T
1030 2007 International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT 2007)
Figure 8. The number of slots wasted for tag estimation with the varying
number of tags.
Fig. 8 shows the number of timeslots wasted for tag
estimation by varying the number of tags, and FSAPB
consumes less timeslots than EBFSA for tags estimation.
When the number of tags n is less than 200, P
coll
in L
p
is lower
than threshold. So, a reader uses L
add
, which has good
performance by binary tree protocol due to the small number
of tags in L
p
. When, however, it is from n=300 to n=1000, L
1
is used for tag identification instead of L
add
owing to a large
collision in L
p
. That is the reason why the FSAPB graph in
Fig. 8 demonstrates some discontinuity. And, FSAPB does
not consume more timeslots than L
p
. EBFSA, however,
requires many timeslots as the number of tags is large. When
n=1000, EBFSA requires five and a half times as many
timeslots as our FSAPB.
We compare FSAPB with ALOHA based protocol and
binary tree protocol. Fig. 9 depicts the number of timeslots
used to identify tags with varying number of tags. We can
observe that most of the algorithms have nearly the same
performance when the number of tags is small. As the number
of tags becomes greater, FSAPB is more efficient than the
other algorithms. When the number of tags is 1000, EBFSA,
DFSA and binary tree consume more timeslots about 7.3%,
14.7% and 21.9% than FSAPB.
Figure 9. The number of slots used to identify tags with the varying
number of tags.
V. CONCLUSION
We have proposed tag estimation by the pilot frame and tag
identification by both DFSA and binary splitting. Proposed
tag estimation method using the pilot frame saves the number
of timeslots required for tag estimation. Moreover, in tag
identification, performance of FSAPB is superior over that of
EBFSA because FSAPB has the near optimal frame size. And
simulation results show that FSAPB consumes less timeslots
than EBFSA, DFSA and binary tree protocol.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Want, An Introduction to RFID Technology, IEEE
Pervasive Computing, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25-33, Jan. 2006.
[2] EPCTM Radio-frequency Identification Protocols Class-1
Generation-2 UHF RFID Protocol For Communications at
860MHz-960MHz Version 1.0.9, EPCglobal, Jan. 2005.
[3] J. Myung, W. Lee and J. Srivastava, Adaptive Binary Splitting
for Efficient RFID Tag Anti-Collision, IEEE Comm. Letters,
vol. 10, no.3, pp. 144-146, Mar. 2006.
[4] S. Lee, S. Joo and C. Lee, An Enhanced Dynamic Framed
Slotted ALOHA Algorithm for RFID Tag Identification, in
Proc. of MobiQuitous, pp. 166-172, Jul. 2005.
[5] J. Cha and J. Kim, Novel Anti-collision Algorithms for Fast
Object Identification in RFID System, in Proc. of Parallel and
Distributed System, vol. 2, pp. 63-67, Jul. 2005.
[6] A. J. E. M. Janssen and M. J. M. de Jong, Analysis of
Contention Tree Algorithms, IEEE Trans. on Information
Theory, vol. 46, no. 6 pp. 2163-2172, Sep. 2000.
[7] J. Park, M. Chung, and T.-J. Lee, Identification of RFID Tags
in Framed-Slotted ALOHA with Robust Estimation and Binary
Selection, IEEE Communications Letters, Vol. 11, no.5, pp.
452-454, 2007.
2007 International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT 2007) 1031