| Literature DB >> 28358343 |
Lei Zhang1, Danjie Huang2, Xinheng Wang3, Christian Schindelhauer4, Zhi Wang5.
Abstract
As the demand for indoor localization is increasing to support our daily life in large and complex indoor environments, sound-based localization technologies have attracted researchers' attention because they have the advantages of being fully compatible with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) smartphones, they have high positioning accuracy and low-cost infrastructure. However, the non-line-of-sight (NLOS) phenomenon poses a great challenge and has become the technology bottleneck for practical applications of acoustic smartphone indoor localization. Through identifying and discarding the NLOS measurements, the positioning performance can be improved by incorporating only the LOS measurements. In this paper, we focus on identifying NLOS components by characterizing the acoustic channels. Firstly, by analyzing indoor acoustic propagations, the changes of acoustic channel from the line-of-sight (LOS) condition to the NLOS condition are characterized as the difference of channel gain and channel delay between the two propagation scenarios. Then, an efficient approach to estimate relative channel gain and delay based on the cross-correlation method is proposed, which considers the mitigation of the Doppler Effect and reduction of the computational complexity. Nine novel features have been extracted, and a support vector machine (SVM) classifier with a radial-based function (RBF) kernel is used to realize NLOS identification. The experimental result with an overall 98.9% classification accuracy based on a data set with more than 10 thousand measurements shows that the proposed identification approach and features are effective in acoustic NLOS identification for acoustic indoor localization via a smartphone. In order to further evaluate the performance of the proposed SVM classifier, the performance of an SVM classifier is compared with that of traditional classifiers based on logistic regression (LR) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). The results also show that a SVM with the RBF kernel function method outperforms others in acoustic NLOS identification.Entities:
Keywords: NLOS identification; RBF kernel; acoustic channel gain and delay; smartphone indoor localization; support vector machine (SVM)
Year: 2017 PMID: 28358343 PMCID: PMC5421687 DOI: 10.3390/s17040727
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Line-of-sight (LOS) and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) scenario description.
Figure 2The distortion of received signals.
Figure 3The measurement environment of the office room and lobby.
Figure 4NLOS areas and diffusion areas.
Figure 5The relative channel gain and delay in the office room environment.
Figure 6The relative channel gain and delay in the lobby environment.
Figure 7PDFs of the mean excess delay and RMS delay spread.
Figure 8PDF of the kurtosis and skewness.
Figure 9PDF of the Rician K-factor.
Figure 10The frequency of relative channel gain in an office room environment.
Figure 11The frequency of relative channel gain in a lobby environment.
Figure 12PDFs of the mean, RMS, kurtosis and skewness of frequency.
The performance of four kinds of kernel functions in .
| Feature | Precision | Accuracy | F1-Measure | Feature | Precision | Accuracy | F1-Measure |
|
| 0.818 | 0.826 | 0.850 |
| 0.832 | 0.832 | 0.850 |
|
| 0.749 | 0.781 | 0.824 |
| 0.776 | 0.770 | 0.795 |
| 0.837 | 0.823 | 0.841 | 0.784 | 0.811 | 0.840 | ||
| 0.840 | 0.828 | 0.846 | 0.803 | 0.821 | 0.844 | ||
|
| 0.896 | 0.853 | 0.864 |
| 0.895 | 0.858 | 0.873 |
|
| 0.858 | 0.867 | 0.885 |
| 0.883 | 0.858 | 0.871 |
|
| 0.850 | 0.851 | 0.870 |
| 0.848 | 0.837 | 0.854 |
|
| 0.838 | 0.852 | 0.872 |
| 0.813 | 0.847 | 0.871 |
|
| 0.838 | 0.849 | 0.870 |
| 0.827 | 0.846 | 0.868 |
| Mean accuracy | 0.837 | Mean accuracy | 0.831 | ||||
| Median accuracy | 0.849 | Median accuracy | 0.837 | ||||
| Best feature |
| Best feature |
| ||||
| Feature | Precision | Accuracy | F1-Measure | Feature | Precision | Accuracy | F1-Measure |
|
| 0.825 | 0.826 | 0.848 |
| 0.564 | 0.564 | 0.721 |
|
| 0.783 | 0.763 | 0.789 |
| 0.559 | 0.559 | 0.717 |
| 0.778 | 0.800 | 0.834 | 0.566 | 0.566 | 0.723 | ||
| 0.813 | 0.819 | 0.846 | 0.289 | 0.205 | 0.290 | ||
|
| 0.876 | 0.849 | 0.862 |
| 0.512 | 0.456 | 0.625 |
|
| 0.884 | 0.861 | 0.874 |
| 0.549 | 0.549 | 0.709 |
|
| 0.859 | 0.852 | 0.869 |
| 0.559 | 0.559 | 0.717 |
|
| 0.810 | 0.844 | 0.870 |
| 0.544 | 0.544 | 0.705 |
|
| 0.827 | 0.847 | 0.868 |
| 0.397 | 0.297 | 0.430 |
| Mean accuracy | 0.829 | Mean accuracy | 0.478 | ||||
| Median accuracy | 0.844 | Median accuracy | 0.549 | ||||
| Best feature |
| Best feature | |||||
The performance of three kinds of kernel functions under the accuracy criterion in .
| Best | Worst | Average | ||
| Feature combination | Accuracy | Feature combination | Accuracy | |
|
| 0.867 |
| 0.781 | 0.837 |
|
| 0.913 |
| 0.841 | 0.877 |
|
| 0.975 |
| 0.864 | 0.931 |
|
| 0.984 |
| 0.902 | 0.967 |
|
| 0.985 |
| 0.952 | 0.980 |
|
| 0.984 |
| 0.980 | 0.982 |
|
| 0.983 |
| 0.981 | 0.982 |
|
| 0.983 |
| 0.981 | 0.982 |
|
| 0.983 |
| 0.983 | 0.983 |
| Mean accuracy | 0.962 | |||
| Median accuracy | 0.983 | |||
| Best feature combination | ||||
| Best | Worst | Average | ||
| Feature combination | Accuracy | Feature combination | Accuracy | |
|
| 0.858 |
| 0.770 | 0.831 |
|
| 0.873 |
| 0.827 | 0.853 |
|
| 0.886 |
| 0.830 | 0.860 |
|
| 0.889 |
| 0.842 | 0.863 |
|
| 0.890 |
| 0.843 | 0.868 |
|
| 0.895 |
| 0.848 | 0.873 |
|
| 0.896 |
| 0.853 | 0.880 |
|
| 0.903 |
| 0.866 | 0.891 |
|
| 0.892 |
| 0.892 | 0.892 |
| Mean accuracy | 0.887 | |||
| Median accuracy | 0.890 | |||
| Best feature combination | ||||
| Best | Worst | Average | ||
| Feature combination | Accuracy | Feature combination | Accuracy | |
|
| 0.861 |
| 0.763 | 0.829 |
|
| 0.876 |
| 0.825 | 0.853 |
|
| 0.884 |
| 0.828 | 0.859 |
|
| 0.887 |
| 0.843 | 0.864 |
|
| 0.890 |
| 0.840 | 0.867 |
|
| 0.895 |
| 0.842 | 0.873 |
|
| 0.896 |
| 0.852 | 0.878 |
|
| 0.902 |
| 0.863 | 0.887 |
|
| 0.894 |
| 0.894 | 0.894 |
| Mean accuracy | 0.887 | |||
| Median accuracy | 0.890 | |||
| Best feature combination | ||||
Figure 13Selection of the optimal RBF kernel parameter .
The performance of logistic regression (LR) and the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifier under the accuracy criterion in .
| Best | Worst | Average | ||
| Feature combination | Accuracy | Feature combination | Accuracy | |
|
| 0.860 |
| 0.776 | 0.830 |
|
| 0.882 |
| 0.803 | 0.850 |
|
| 0.882 |
| 0.828 | 0.858 |
|
| 0.893 |
| 0.837 | 0.862 |
|
| 0.889 |
| 0.839 | 0.866 |
|
| 0.903 |
| 0.839 | 0.874 |
|
| 0.895 |
| 0.839 | 0.878 |
|
| 0.895 |
| 0.877 | 0.886 |
|
| 0.890 |
| 0.890 | 0.890 |
| Mean accuracy | 0.888 | |||
| Median accuracy | 0.890 | |||
| Best feature combination | ||||
| Best | Worst | Average | ||
| Feature combination | Accuracy | Feature combination | Accuracy | |
|
| 0.848 |
| 0.760 | 0.809 |
|
| 0.882 |
| 0.767 | 0.844 |
|
| 0.879 |
| 0.829 | 0.855 |
|
| 0.878 |
| 0.834 | 0.860 |
|
| 0.887 |
| 0.836 | 0.864 |
|
| 0.891 |
| 0.847 | 0.867 |
|
| 0.889 |
| 0.848 | 0.870 |
|
| 0.885 |
| 0.855 | 0.874 |
|
| 0.873 |
| 0.873 | 0.873 |
| Mean accuracy | 0.879 | |||
| Median accuracy | 0.882 | |||
| Best feature combination | ||||