added heading and step detection to transition
This commit is contained in:
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
|
||||
We consider indoor localization to be a time-sequential, non-linear and non-Gaussian state estimation problem.
|
||||
Such problems are often solved using Bayesian filters, which update a state estimation recursively
|
||||
with every new incoming measurement.
|
||||
A powerful method to obtain numerical results for this approach are particle filters.
|
||||
A powerful group of methods to obtain numerical results for this approach are particle filter.
|
||||
|
||||
In context of indoor localization, particle filter approximate a probability distribution describing the pedestrian's possible whereabouts by using a set of weighted random samples (particles).
|
||||
Here, new particles are drawn according to some importance distribution, often represented by the state transition, which models the dynamics of the system.
|
||||
@@ -21,25 +21,20 @@ Most localization approaches differ mainly in how the transition and evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
The system's dynamics describe a pedestrian's potential movement within the building.
|
||||
This can be formulated as the question \emph{``Given the pedestrian's current position and heading are known, where could he be after a certain amount of time?''}.
|
||||
Obviously, the answer to this question depends on the pedestrian's walking behavior, any nearby architecture
|
||||
and thus the building's floorplan.
|
||||
|
||||
Assuming the pedestrian to walk almost straight towards his current heading with a known, constant walking speed,
|
||||
the most basic form of state transition simply rejects all movements, where the line-of-sight
|
||||
between current position and potential destination is blocked by an obstacle \cite{Ebner-15}.
|
||||
|
||||
Obviously, the answer to this question depends on the pedestrian's walking behavior, any nearby architecture and thus the building's floorplan.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Assuming the pedestrian to walk almost straight towards his current heading with a known, constant walking speed, the most basic form of state transition simply rejects all movements, where the line-of-sight between current position and potential destination is blocked by an obstacle \cite{Ebner-15}.
|
||||
%
|
||||
Despite its simplicity, this approach suffers from several drawbacks.
|
||||
The intersection-test can be costly, depending on the number of used particles and the complexity of the building.
|
||||
Furthermore, it is limited mainly to 2D transitions within the plane.
|
||||
Smooth 3D transitions, like walking stairs, would require much more complex intersection tests \cite{Afyouni2012}.
|
||||
|
||||
To overcome both limitations, the building's floorplan can be used to derive a graph-based structure,
|
||||
like voronoi diagrams or fixed-distance grids, moving all costly intersection tests into a one-time offline phase \cite{Ebner-16, Hilsenbeck2014}.
|
||||
To overcome both limitations, the building's floorplan can be used to derive a graph-based structure, like voronoi diagrams or fixed-distance grids, moving all costly intersection tests into a one-time offline phase \cite{Ebner-16, Hilsenbeck2014}.
|
||||
Hereafter, graph-based random walks along the created data-structure can be used as a fast transition approximation.
|
||||
Smooth transitions in 3D space can be achieved by generating nodes and edges along stairs and elevators.
|
||||
Furthermore, the nodes can be used to store additional information, like their distance towards a pedestrian's desired destination.
|
||||
Such information can be included during the transitions step, \eg{} increasing the likelihood of all potential movements that approach
|
||||
this destination \cite{Ebner-16}.
|
||||
Such information can be included during the transitions step, \eg{} increasing the likelihood of all potential movements that approach this destination \cite{Ebner-16}.
|
||||
|
||||
However, the graph-based approach also imposes some potential issues. When using a gridded graph, the spacing between adjacent
|
||||
nodes directly represents the transition's accuracy. Likewise, the amount of required memory to represent the floorplan
|
||||
@@ -88,7 +83,7 @@ Additionally, we will show that such an optimization scheme can partly compensat
|
||||
|
||||
%immpf
|
||||
Besides well chosen probabilistic models, the system's performance is also highly affected by handling problems which are based on the nature of particle filter.
|
||||
They are often caused by restrictive assumptions about the dynamic system, like the aforementioned sample impoverishment.
|
||||
They are often caused by restrictive assumptions about the dynamic system, like seen from the aforementioned problem of sample impoverishment.
|
||||
The authors of \cite{Sun2013} handled the problem by using an adaptive number of particles instead of a fixed one.
|
||||
The key idea is to choose a small number of samples if the distribution is focused on a small part of the state space and a large number of particles if the distribution is much more spread out and requires a higher diversity of samples.
|
||||
The problem of sample impoverishment is then addressed by adapting the number of particles dependent upon the system's current uncertainty \cite{Fetzer-17}.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user