added related work
This commit is contained in:
@@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ A powerful method to obtain numerical results for this approach are particle fil
|
||||
|
||||
%einführen von partikel filter ganz allgemein
|
||||
Especially in indoor localisation, particle filter can lately be considered as the standard method for solving complex non-linear problems \cite{Doucet11:ATO}.
|
||||
By using a set of weighted random samples, they approximate a probability distribution describing the pedestrian's possible whereabouts and therefore the uncertainty of the system.
|
||||
By using a set of weighted random samples (particles), they approximate a probability distribution describing the pedestrian's possible whereabouts and therefore the uncertainty of the system.
|
||||
In its most basic form, the particle filter operates three main steps:
|
||||
At first, new samples are drawn according to some importance distribution, those samples are then weighted by an incremental importance weight distribution and finally a resampling step is deployed to prevent that only a small number of samples have a signifcant weight and all the other will have negligible small weights instead \cite{orhan2012particle}.
|
||||
At first, new particles are drawn according to some importance distribution, those particles are then weighted by an incremental importance weight distribution and finally a resampling step is deployed to prevent that only a small number of particles have a signifcant weight and all the other will have negligible small weights instead \cite{orhan2012particle}.
|
||||
|
||||
%transition und evaluation einführen
|
||||
In practice the importance distribution is often represented by the state transition, modelling the dynamics of the system.
|
||||
@@ -16,11 +16,11 @@ A new weight is then obtained by the state evaluation given different sensor mea
|
||||
Most localisation approaches differ mainly in how the transition and evaluation steps are implemented and the available sensors are incorporated \cite{Nurminen13-PSI, Ebner-15, Hilsenbeck2014}.
|
||||
However, as \cite{Li2014} already mentioned, particle filter (and nearly all of its modifications) continue to suffer from two notorious problems: sample degeneracy and impoverishment.
|
||||
|
||||
As one can imagine, after a few iterations with continuously reweighting samples, the weight will concentrate on a few samples only.
|
||||
As one can imagine, after a few iterations with continuously reweighting particles, the weight will concentrate on a few particles only.
|
||||
This is why the resampling step was presented in the first place.
|
||||
Here, a new set of equally weighted samples is drawn by multiplying high weighted samples while abandoning low weighted ones.
|
||||
However, this leads to an decreasing diversity of samples after a resampling step, also known as sample impoverishment.
|
||||
This high concentration of samples follows a bad approximation of the underlying probability distribution and therefore worse estimation results.
|
||||
Here, a new set of equally weighted particles is drawn by multiplying high weighted particles while abandoning low weighted ones.
|
||||
However, this leads to an decreasing diversity of particles after a resampling step, also known as sample impoverishment.
|
||||
This high concentration of particles follows a bad approximation of the underlying probability distribution and therefore worse estimation results.
|
||||
|
||||
The effect of impoverishment is not solely caused by resampling only.
|
||||
Restrictive transition models, as they are used in indoor localisation applications, also enhance this effect significantly.
|
||||
@@ -36,10 +36,10 @@ An example is illustrated in fig. \ref{fig:multimodalPath}, where a graph-based
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
%
|
||||
Due to uncertain measurements the posterior distribution of the particle filter is captured within a room.
|
||||
Between time $t-1$ and $t$, the resampling step abandons all samples on the corridor and drawing new samples outside the room is not possible due to the restricted transition.
|
||||
Between time $t-1$ and $t$, the resampling step abandons all particles on the corridor and drawing new particles outside the room is not possible due to the restricted transition.
|
||||
At this point, standard filtering methods are not able to recover.
|
||||
|
||||
A simple solution would be drawing a handful new samples randomly in the building.
|
||||
A simple solution would be drawing a handful new particles randomly in the building.
|
||||
However, it is obvious that this leads to a higher uncertainty and possible a highly multimodal posterior distribution.
|
||||
Additionally, very uncertain absolute measurements, like attenuated Wi-Fi signals, can cause unpredictable jumps to such a newly drawn position, which would otherwise be not possible.
|
||||
Especially, methods using relative measurements like pedestrian dead reckoning approaches are losing their importance.
|
||||
@@ -47,13 +47,11 @@ Especially, methods using relative measurements like pedestrian dead reckoning a
|
||||
As mentioned before, sample degeneracy and impoverishment are a pair of contradictions that can be described as a trade-off between the need of diversity and the need of focus \cite{Li2014}.
|
||||
We tackle this problem in context of indoor localisation by deploying an interacting multiple model particle filter (IMMPF) for jump Markov non-linear systems \cite{Driessen2005}.
|
||||
This enables a merging between posterior probability distributions approximated by particle filters, refereed as modes within this context.
|
||||
|
||||
combining two particles filters, one with a very restrictive transition scheme sehr genaue ergebnisse, and one with a more flexible but schlechtere ergebnisse scheme werden gewinnrbingen gemixed within the IMMPF,
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore a non-trivial Markov switching process, depending upon the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the modes and a
|
||||
|
||||
The main benefit of this approach is that it be easily adapted to other existing localization approaches based on particle filters.
|
||||
We combine two similar particle filters using a non-trivial Markov switching process, depending upon the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the modes and a Wi-Fi quality factor.
|
||||
One with a very restrictive transition scheme, providing very accurate results.
|
||||
The other with more flexible and simple dynamics, resulting in a higher sample diversity.
|
||||
Both are then successfully combined, to satisfy the need of diversity and the need of focus.
|
||||
The main benefit of this approach is that it can be easily adapted to other existing localization approaches based on particle filters.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user