| Literature DB >> 30445804 |
Junhuai Li1,2, Pengjia Tu3, Huaijun Wang4,5, Kan Wang6,7, Lei Yu8,9.
Abstract
Crowd counting is of significant importance for numerous applications, e.g., urban security, intelligent surveillance and crowd management. Existing crowd counting methods typically require specialized hardware deployment and strict operating conditions, thereby hindering their widespread application. To acquire a more effective crowd counting approach, a device-free counting method based on Channel Status Information (CSI) is proposed. The wavelet domain denoising is introduced to mitigate environment noise. Furthermore, the amplitude or phase covariance matrix is extracted as the eigenmatrix. Moreover, both the spatial diversity and frequency diversity are leveraged to improve detection robustness. At the same experimental environment, the accuracy of the proposed CSI-based method is compared with a renowned crowd counting one, i.e., Electronic Frog Eye: Counting Crowd Using WiFi (FCC). The experimental results reveal an accuracy improvement of 30% over FCC.Entities:
Keywords: covariance matrix; frequency diversity; robustness; spatial diversity; wavelet domain denoising
Year: 2018 PMID: 30445804 PMCID: PMC6263397 DOI: 10.3390/s18113981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1System architecture.
Figure 2Comparison between the original and the filtered signal. (a) amplitude; (b) phase.
Figure 3CSI amplitude changes with the people number on one antenna. (a) zero people; (b) two people; (c) four people.
Figure 4CSI amplitude changes with the people number on three antennas. (a) zero people; (b) two people; (c) four people.
Figure 5Phase before and after linear transformation. (a) random raw phase measurements; (b) phase after linear transformation.
Figure 6Antenna diversity: (a) antenna diversity of amplitude features; (b) antenna diversity of phase features.
Figure 7The experiments equipment and scenes. (a) receiver and router; (b) experiment scene.
Figure 8The relationship between the number of people and the percentage at the different antennas. (a) amplitude; (b) phase.
Figure 9Comparison of amplitude and phase. (a) Comparison of mean in eigenvalue; (b) the relationship between percentage and the number of people.
Figure 10The impact on dilatation coefficient. (a) amplitude; (b) phase.
Comparison FCC with our method amplitude or phase.
| Method | Identified Number of People | Percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amplitude | Phase | Amplitude | Phase | |
| FCC | 5 | 4 | 52% | 43% |
| Our method | 8 | 7 | 92% | 85% |