shortend
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,13 +1,16 @@
|
||||
\section{Introduction}
|
||||
|
||||
Since the advent of smartphones, location aware apps and services are ubiquitous and have become a natural part of our everyday life.
|
||||
Whether driving a car, jogging or shopping in the streets, GNSS-based applications simplify orientation,
|
||||
guide the way and even track our fitness achievements. But as soon as we drive into an underground car park or visit a shopping mall, most of them do not work at all.
|
||||
That is because satellite signals are too weak to pass through obstacles like ceilings.
|
||||
Moreover, their accuracy is not sufficient for individual parking spaces or office rooms.
|
||||
%Whether driving a car, jogging or shopping in the streets,
|
||||
GNSS-based applications simplify orientation,
|
||||
guide the way and even track our fitness achievements.
|
||||
%But as soon as we drive into an underground car park or visit a shopping mall, most of them do not work at all.
|
||||
%That is because satellite signals are too weak to pass through obstacles like ceilings.
|
||||
However, satellite signals are too weak to pass through obstacles like ceilings and their accuracy is not sufficient for most indoor tasks.
|
||||
%Moreover, their accuracy is not sufficient for individual parking spaces or office rooms.
|
||||
Therefore, many different solutions for localising a moving object within buildings have been developed in
|
||||
the most recent years \cite{Ebner-15, Yang2015, Khaleghi2013, Fang09, Nurminen2014}.
|
||||
Especially the hard problem of pedestrian localisation and navigation has lately attracted a lot of interest.
|
||||
Especially the hard problem of pedestrian navigation has lately attracted a lot of interest.
|
||||
|
||||
Most modern indoor localisation systems primarily use smartphones to determine the position of a pedestrian.
|
||||
Especially the phone's inertial measurement unit (IMU) as well as external information like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
|
||||
@@ -15,16 +18,18 @@ are used to collect the necessary data.
|
||||
Additionally, environmental knowledge is often incorporated e.g. by using floormaps.
|
||||
This combination of highly different sensor types is also known as sensor fusion.
|
||||
|
||||
Here, probabilistic methods like particle- or Kalman filters are often used to approximate a probability distribution describing the pedestrian's possible whereabouts.
|
||||
Here, probabilistic methods like particle- or Kalman filters are often used to approximate a probability density describing the pedestrian's possible whereabouts.
|
||||
This procedure can be separated into two probabilistic models:
|
||||
The transition model, which represents the dynamics of the pedestrian and predicts his next accessible locations, and the evaluation model, which estimates the probability for the position also corresponding to
|
||||
recent sensor measurements.
|
||||
%Therefore, the most accurate position is represented by a peak of the probability distribution.
|
||||
In our previous work we were able to present such a localisation system based on all the sensors mentioned above, including the phone's barometer \cite{Ebner-15}.
|
||||
|
||||
In pedestrian navigation, the human movement is subject to the characteristics of walking speed and -direction.
|
||||
Additionally, environmental restrictions need to be considered as well, for example, walking through walls is impossible.
|
||||
Therefore, incorporating environmental knowledge is a necessary and gainful step.
|
||||
%In pedestrian navigation, the human movement is subject to the characteristics of walking speed and -direction.
|
||||
%Additionally, environmental restrictions need to be considered as well, for example, walking through walls is impossible.
|
||||
%Therefore, incorporating environmental knowledge is a necessary and gainful step.
|
||||
Incorporating environmental knowledge is a necessary and gainful step.
|
||||
For example walking through walls is impossible.
|
||||
Like other systems, we are using a graph-based approach to sample only valid movements.
|
||||
The unique feature of our approach is the way how human movement is modelled.
|
||||
This is done by using random walks on a graph, which are based on the heading of the pedestrian.
|
||||
@@ -32,7 +37,7 @@ Despite very good results, the system presented in \cite{Ebner-15} suffers from
|
||||
|
||||
First, the transition model of our previous approach uses discrete floor-changes.
|
||||
Although the overall system provides viable results, it does not resemble real-world floor changes.
|
||||
Especially the barometric sensor is affected due to its continuous pressure measurements.
|
||||
Especially the barometer is affected due to its continuous pressure measurements.
|
||||
The discrete model prevents the barometer's full potential.
|
||||
It could further be shown that a correct estimation strongly depends on the quality of $z$-transitions.
|
||||
To address this problem we extended the graph by adding realistic stairs, allowing a step-wise transition in the $z$-direction.
|
||||
@@ -46,7 +51,7 @@ During the random walk, matching edges are sampled according to their deviation
|
||||
To improve the complex problem of localising a person indoors, prior knowledge given by a navigation system can be used.
|
||||
Such applications are used to navigate a user to his desired destination.
|
||||
This limits the unpredictability of human movement to a certain degree.
|
||||
So, based on this assumption, the destination is known beforehand and the starting point is the pedestrian's currently estimated position.
|
||||
So, based on this assumption, the destination is known beforehand and the starting point is the user's currently estimated position.
|
||||
Regarding a graph-based transition model, one could suggest to use the shortest route between start and destination as the user's most-likely-to-walk path.
|
||||
By incorporating this prior knowledge into the state transition step, a new state can be sampled in a more targeted manner.
|
||||
However, for regularly tessellated (grid) graphs, as used in \cite{Ebner-15}, this would lead to unnatural paths e.g.
|
||||
@@ -58,7 +63,7 @@ Since areas near walls are less likely to be chosen for walking, a probabilistic
|
||||
This allows a variety of options for integrating additional knowledge about the environment and enables us to address another problem:
|
||||
Entering or leaving rooms is very unlikely as only a few nodes are representing doors and allow doing so.
|
||||
This can be tackled by making such areas more likely.
|
||||
Therefore, a novel approach for detecting doors using the inverted graph and a principal component analysis (PCA) \cite{Hotelling1933} is presented within this work.
|
||||
Therefore, a novel approach for detecting doors using the inverted graph is presented within this work.
|
||||
%\commentByFrank{auch hier vlt das inverted erstmal noch weg lassen wegen platz}
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, it is now possible to calculate more natural and realistic paths using the weighted graph.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user