Merge branch 'master' of https://git.frank-ebner.de/FHWS/IPIN2018

tex_review/review/02_review.txt

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 Dear Reviewer,
 
 -> At first we would like to start with a short overview over all changes. The individual answers follow directly after this text. All additions to the text are highlighted in blue. Words or text passages suggested by the reviewers to be removed are highlighted in red. As you will see, abstract and introduction are completely revised to better highlight the novel contributions. We were able to implement many suggestions of the reviewers. The transition was highly extended, to achieve a better understanding of the method. We have also added a detailed description of how and by what means our system is installed in a building. This also leads to a better description of the experimental setup.
-We added a complete new section, evaluating the activity recognition. Additionally, you will find mind smaller changes and addition throughout the paper as well as further improvements of the writing. In the following our answers are marked with "->". 
+We added a complete new section, evaluating the activity recognition. Additionally, you will find many smaller changes and addition throughout the paper as well as further improvements of the writing. In the following our answers are marked with "->". 
 
 
 Overall:
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ line 226: What is z_t? Is an observation o_t? nomenclature should be unified thr
 
 
 line 319: Are these thresholds able for all of pedestrians? have you tried with different actors and behaviors?
--> Thank you very much for this suggestion. Based in it, we have added an evaluation of the activity recognition to the experiments, see chapter 7.4. We used the same measurement series (walk 0 - 3) as before. It was recorded by 4 different testers using 3 different devices. 
+-> Thank you very much for this suggestion. Based on it, we have added an evaluation of the activity recognition to the experiments, see chapter 7.4. We used the same measurement series (walk 0 - 3) as before. It was recorded by 4 different testers using 3 different devices. 
 
 line 410: Why 10.000 samples in the building? Should it be dependent of the building size, wifi noise, etc...?
 -> Thanks for pointing that out, this was a misformulation and badly explained. We revised the paragraph accordingly. Please see line 502 to 519. 
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ line 512: typo "prober"
 
 
 Figure 5: It is not clear connections between ground floor and first floor, is there any typo or figures are misplaced?
--> Thank you very much for pointing that out. As the building had various construction measures since the 13th century, its architecture is rather hard to understand. We revised the figure (now figure 8) by adding numbers to the stairs involved. We hope this gives a better understanding of the buildings respective floors. 
+-> Thank you very much for pointing that out. As the building had various construction measures since the 13th century, its architecture is rather hard to visualize. We revised the figure (now figure 8) by adding numbers to the stairs involved. We hope this gives a better understanding of the buildings respective floors. 
 
 Figure 6: You use the expression "Monte Carlo", are you referring to Condensation?
 -> Yes, we are referring to a single run of the CONDENSATION particle filter. We fixed it accordingly. 
@@ -57,5 +57,5 @@ Results section: results and comments are ad-hoc for this environment, and it is
 -> We incorporated this suggestion into the conclusion section of this work. Please see line 956 to line 959. However, we have decided not to discuss the general usage of this approach in the experiments, since this work explicitly deals with a historical building. 
 
 
--> Again, thank you very much for your time and the good suggestions. They further improved this work.
+-> Again, thank you very much for your time and the detailed suggestions. They further improved this work.