first draft introduction
This commit is contained in:
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ A particle filter updates the state estimation recursively in time with every ne
|
||||
|
||||
Based on this general methodology, many different approaches for estimating a position in indoor environments have been developed.
|
||||
All these approaches differ mainly in how the dynamics are modelled in the transition step and how a specific sensor measurement can be used for evaluation.
|
||||
For example, recent approaches are using a graph-based structure to consider environmental restrictions (walking through walls) and the characteristics of human movement (walking speed) within the transition model \cite{Ebner-15}.
|
||||
For example, recent approaches are using a graph-based structure to consider environmental restrictions (walking through walls) and the characteristics of human movement (walking speed) within the transition model \cite{Ebner-15, Nurminen2014, Hilsenbeck2014}.
|
||||
The evaluation model is mostly separated into any number of sensor models, each representing the probability for a noisy measurement in regard to the current position.
|
||||
For example, a barometer can be used to determine the probability of being on a certain floor \cite{Binghao13-UBI}.
|
||||
%Another example that demonstrates the big differences between single approaches is the large number of sensor models using Wi-Fi signal strengths. There are fingerprinting methods, which require an extensive offline calibration phase, signal strength prediction models like the log-distance model or wall-attenuation-factor model and many others \cite{Ville09, Fang09, Ebner:Thesis:2013}.
|
||||
@@ -35,10 +35,10 @@ That is the reason for the use of statistical methods in the first place. Nevert
|
||||
|
||||
Current transition models, which aim to approximate the movement, are still very restrictive and unable to handle unforeseen events.
|
||||
Faulty sensor measurements, like a falsely detected turn, can cause the estimation to lose track.
|
||||
For example by taking a turn too soon and walking into a room instead of another big hallway \cite{Ebner-15}.
|
||||
For example by taking a turn too soon and walking into a room instead of another big hallway.
|
||||
Due to this, the filter needs some time to recover, which again takes a while because of the restrictive model (e.g. no walking through walls and only realistic walking speed).
|
||||
This temporal delay worsens the estimate immensely.
|
||||
A solution to recover from such filter divergences faster, is using methods for re-initializing the filtering procedure \cite{Nurminen14-MMF}.
|
||||
A solution to recover from such filter divergences faster, is using methods for re-initializing the filtering procedure \cite{Nurminen2014}.
|
||||
However, even this can not completely prevent delays.
|
||||
Another reason for possible time delays are slow sensor updates.
|
||||
For example, most mobile devices restrict the Wi-Fi module to update only every few seconds, to save on battery.
|
||||
@@ -61,8 +61,19 @@ As one can imagine, this can lead to serious problems in big indoor environments
|
||||
Such a situation can be improved by incorporating future measurements (e.g. the right turn) or predictive information (e.g. the most likely path) to the filtering procedure \cite{Ebner-16}.
|
||||
However, standard filtering methods are not able to use any future information and the possibilities to make a distant forecast are also limited \cite{robotics, Doucet11:ATO, chen2003bayesian}.
|
||||
|
||||
One very promising way to deal with these problems is smoothing.
|
||||
One very promising way to deal with these problems is smoothing.
|
||||
Smoothing methods are able to make use of future measurements for computing its estimation.
|
||||
By running backwards in time, they are also able to remove multimodalities and improve the overall localization result.
|
||||
Since the problem of navigation, especially the representation of complex movement patterns, results in a non-linear and non-Gaussian state space, this work focuses mainly on smoothing techniques based on the broad class of Monte Carlo methods.
|
||||
%Of course, this excludes linear procedures like Kalman filtering.
|
||||
Namely, forward-backward smoothing \cite{doucet2000} and backward simulation \cite{Godsill04:MCS}.
|
||||
|
||||
Within this work, we investigate the benefits and drawbacks of those techniques using our indoor localisation system presented in \cite{Ebner-16}.
|
||||
We provide both, fixed-lag and fixed-interval smoothing as well as two novel approaches for incorporating them easily within the localisation procedure.
|
||||
The main goal is to solve the above mentioned problems and to investigate new possibilities for even more advanced systems.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Within this work, we try to address those problems
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user