toni/IPIN2016
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Linguistic checking

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Lukas Koeping
2016-05-12 10:40:24 +02:00
parent ff56649a5b
commit b936668818
7 changed files with 44 additions and 45 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
tex/chapters/filtering.tex
View File

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
measuring the signal-strengths of nearby transmitters. The positions of detected \docAP{}s (\docAPshort{}) and \docIBeacon{}s
are known beforehand. Using the wall-attenuation-factor signal strength prediction model \cite{Ebner-15}, we are able to
compare each measurement with a corresponding estimation. To infer this estimation, the prediction model
uses the 3D distance $d$ and the number of floors $\Delta f$ between transmitter and the state-in-question $\mStateVec$:
uses the 3D distance $d$ and the number of floors $\Delta f$ between the transmitter and the state-in-question $\mStateVec$:
%
\begin{equation}
P_r(d, \Delta f) = \mTXP - 10 \mPLE \log_{10}{\frac{\mMdlDist}{\mMdlDist_0}} + \Delta{f} \mWAF \enspace ,
@@ -54,8 +54,7 @@
$\mMdlDist_0$ (usually \SI{1}{\meter}), a path-loss exponent $\mPLE$ describing the transmitter's environment and the attenuation
per floor $\mWAF$.
To reduce the system's setup time, we use the same three values for all \docAP{}s at the cost of accuracy.
All parameters are chosen empirically. Further details on how to determine this parameters exactly,
can be found in \cite{PathLossPredictionModelsForIndoor}.
All parameters are chosen empirically. Further details on how to determine these parameters exactly can be found in \cite{PathLossPredictionModelsForIndoor}.
The same holds for the \docIBeacon{} component, except $\mTXP$,
which is broadcasted by each beacon. However, as \docIBeacon{}s cover only a small area, $\mPLE$ is usually much smaller compared
@@ -84,7 +83,7 @@
While sampling, to-be-walked edges are not chosen uniformly, but depending on a probability $p(\mEdgeAB)$.
The latter depends on several constraints and recent sensor-readings from the smartphone. Using those readings
directly within the transition step provides a more robust posterior distribution. Adding them to the evaluation
instead, would lead to sample impoverishment due to the used MC methods \cite{Isard98:CCD}.
instead would lead to sample impoverishment due to the used MC methods \cite{Isard98:CCD}.
%\commentByFrank{ist das verstaendlich oder schon zu kurz?}