FHWS/IPIN2018
Archived
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

added gfx

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
toni
2018-06-27 13:17:54 +02:00
parent c99b276c4f
commit 1e909acb5d
9 changed files with 13875 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
tex/chapters/experiments.tex
View File

@@ -68,8 +68,9 @@ Other transmitters like smart TVs or smartphone hotspots are ignored as they mig
%
The 4 chosen walking paths can be seen in fig. \ref{fig:floorplan}.
They were carried out be 4 different male testers using either a Samsung Note 2, Google Pixel One or Motorola Nexus 6 for recording the measurements.
\todo{walks noch weng erläutern, länge und dauer, many different other walks were made, however those 4 where chosen because most challenging etc. pp.}
All in all, we recorded \SI{28}{} distinct measurement series, \SI{7}{} for each walk.
The picked walks contain erroneous situations, in which many of the above treated problems occur.
Thus we are able to discuss everything in detail.
A walk is indicated by a set of numbered markers, fixed to the ground.
Small icons on those markers give the direction of the next marker and in some cases provide instructions to pause walking for a certain time.
The intervals for pausing vary between \SI{10}{\second} to \SI{60}{\second}.
@@ -80,12 +81,13 @@ Thus, the ground truth might not be \SI{100}{\percent} accurate, but fair enough
The approximation error is then calculated by comparing the interpolated ground truth position with the current estimation \cite{Fetzer-16}.
%computation und monte carlo runs
For each walk we deployed 100 runs using \SI{5000}{particles} particles.
For each walk we deployed 100 runs using \SI{5000}{particles}.
Instead of an initial position and heading, all walks start with a uniform distribution (random position and heading) as prior.
The overall localisation results can be see in table \ref{table:overall}.
Here, we differ between the single impoverishment techniques.
Here, we differ between the respective impoverishment techniques presented in chapter \ref{sec:impo}.
For a better overview, we only used the KDE-based estimation, as the errors compared to the weighted average estimation differ by only a few centimetres.
a simple filter (weighted average estimation + simple impoverishment solution) and an advanced filter (KDE estimation + $D_\text{KL}$-based impoverishment solution).
It can be seen that...
@@ -100,11 +102,11 @@ we want to show a real worst case scenario!
\newcommand{\STAB}[1]{\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}}#1\end{tabular}}
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Method & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{none} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{simple} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{kde}\\
Method & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{none} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{simple} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$D_\text{KL}$}\\
\hline
& $\bar{x}$ & $\bar{\sigma}$ & $\tilde{x}_{75}$ & $\bar{x}$ & $\bar{\sigma}$ & $\tilde{x}_{75}$ & $\bar{x}$ & $\bar{\sigma}$ & $\tilde{x}_{75}$ \\
\hline \hline