\section{Performance Overview}
% all paths we evaluated
	\begin{figure}
		\input{gfx/paths}
		\caption{The four paths that were part of the evaluation.
		Starting positions are marked with black circles.
		For a better visualisation they were slightly shifted to avoid overlapping.}
		%\commentByFrank{font war korrekt, aber die groesse war zu gross im vgl. zu den anderen}
		\label{fig:paths}
	\end{figure}
%
To give a brief overview of the system's performance we look back at the evaluation provided in \cite{ebner-16}.
Here, 4 distinct walks were conducted within the faculty building (cf. fig. \ref{fig:paths}).
No smoothing was carried out.
We used \SI{7500}{particles} as realisation and calculated the weighted arithmetic mean of the particles as state estimation. 
The ground truth was measured by recording a timestamp at marked spots on the walking route, similar as described in the competition guidelines.
Starting uniformly distributed, the median error for all conducted walks are listed in table \ref{tbl:errNexus} for the Motorola Nexus 6 and the Samsung Galaxy S5.
Additionally performing a smoothing step, would further improve the results and reduces temporal errors, as shown in \cite{fetzer-16}.
%
	\begin{table}[h]
		\caption{Median error for all conducted walks. \commentByFrank{without smoothing?}}
		\label{tbl:errNexus}
		\centering
		\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}
			\hline
			\textbf{Device:}							& Path1 				& Path2					& Path3 				& Path4 \\\hline
			Motorola Nexus 6	&	\SI{2.62}{\meter}	&	\SI{2.14}{\meter}	&	\SI{2.46}{\meter}	&	\SI{2.75}{\meter}	\\\hline
		  Samsung Galaxy S5	& \SI{ 6.35}{\meter}	&	\SI{4.21}{\meter}	&	\SI{5.03}{\meter}	&	\SI{6.79}{\meter}	\\\hline
		\end{tabular}
	\end{table}


