changes by toni
This commit is contained in:
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ 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 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
|
||||
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 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}.
|
||||
@@ -28,12 +28,11 @@ In our previous work we were able to present such a localisation system based on
|
||||
%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.
|
||||
Incorporating environmental knowledge is a necessary and gainful step e.g. 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.
|
||||
Despite very good results, the system presented in \cite{Ebner-15} suffers from two drawbacks, we want to solve within this work.
|
||||
Despite very good results, the system presented in \cite{Ebner-15} suffers from two drawbacks, we attempt to solve within this work.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
@@ -49,10 +48,9 @@ is not smoothly spread. The heading-change of our new approach is solely control
|
||||
During the random walk, matching edges are sampled according to their deviation from this change.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Such applications are utilized to navigate a user to his desired destination, limiting 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 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.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
directly adhering to walls.
|
||||
@@ -61,7 +59,7 @@ Therefore, we present a novel approach that detects walls using an inverted grap
|
||||
|
||||
Since areas near walls are less likely to be chosen for walking, a probabilistic weight is assigned to every node of the graph.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Entering or leaving rooms is very unlikely as only a few nodes are representing doors and allow of doing so.
|
||||
This can be tackled by making such areas more likely.
|
||||
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}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user