FHWS/Fusion2018
Archived
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

fixed introduction

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
toni
2018-02-24 13:30:52 +01:00
parent 38e186a9c4
commit 9881da57e4
1 changed files with 6 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
tex/chapters/introduction.tex
View File

@@ -3,16 +3,17 @@
Sensor fusion approaches are often based upon probabilistic descriptions like particle filters, using samples to represent the distribution of a dynamical system.
To update the system recursively in time, probabilistic sensor models process the noisy measurements and a state transition function provides the system's dynamics.
Therefore a sample or particle is a representation of one possible system state, e.g. the position of a pedestrian within a building.
In most real world scenarios one is then interested in finding the most probable state within the state space, to provide the \qq{best estimate} of the underlying problem.
In the discrete manner of a sample representation this is often done by providing a single value, also known as sample statistic, to serve as a \qq{best guess}.
This value is then calculated by means of simple parametric point estimators, e.g. the weighted-average over all samples, the sample with the highest weight or by assuming other parametric statistics like normal distributions \cite{}.
In most real world scenarios one is then interested in finding the most probable state within the state space, to provide the \qq{best estimate} of the underlying problem.
Generally speaking, solving the state estimation problem.
In the discrete manner of a sample representation this is often done by providing a single value, also known as sample statistic, to serve as a \qq{best guess}.
This value is then calculated by means of simple parametric point estimators, e.g. the weighted-average over all samples, the sample with the highest weight or by assuming other parametric statistics like normal distributions \cite{Fetzer2016OMC}.
%da muss es doch noch andere methoden geben... verflixt und zugenäht... aber grundsätzlich ist ein weighted average doch ein point estimator? (https://www.statlect.com/fundamentals-of-statistics/point-estimation)
%Für related work brauchen wir hier definitiv quellen. einige berechnen ja auch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_mean_and_covariance oder nehmen eine gewisse verteilung für die sample menge and und berechnen dort die parameter
While such methods are computational fast and suitable most of the time, it is not uncommon that they fail to recover the state in more complex scenarios.
Especially time-sequential, non-linear and non-Gaussian state spaces, depending upon a high number of different sensor types, frequently suffer from a multimodal representation of the posterior distribution.
As a result, those techniques are not able to provide an accurate statement about the most probable state, rather causing misleading or false outcomes.
For example in a localization scenario where a bimodal distribution represents the current posterior, a reliable position estimation is more likely to be at one of the modes, instead of somewhere in-between, like provided by a simple weighted-average estimation.
For example, in a localization scenario where a bimodal distribution represents the current posterior, a reliable position estimation is more likely to be at one of the modes, instead of somewhere in-between, like provided by a simple weighted-average estimation.
Additionally, in most practical scenarios the sample size and therefore the resolution is limited, causing the variance of the sample based estimate to be high \cite{Verma2003}.
It is obvious, that a computation of the full posterior could solve the above, but finding such an analytical solution is an intractable problem, what is the reason for applying a sample representation in the first place.
@@ -31,7 +32,7 @@ By the central limit theorem, multiple recursion of a box filter yields an appro
This process converges quite fast to a reasonable close approximation of the ideal Gaussian.
In addition, a box filter can be computed extremely fast by a computer, due to its intrinsic simplicity.
While the idea to use several box filter passes to approximate a Gaussian has been around for a long, the application to obtain a fast KDE is new.
While the idea to use several box filter passes to approximate a Gaussian has been around for a long time, the application to obtain a fast KDE is new.
Especially in time critical and time sequential sensor fusion scenarios, the here presented approach outperforms other state of the art solutions, due to a fully linear complexity \landau{N} and a negligible overhead, even for small sample sets.
In addition, it requires only a few elementary operations and is highly parallelizable.