| Literature DB >> 31014005 |
Bedionita Soro1, Chaewoo Lee2.
Abstract
The performance of an Artificial Neural Network (ANN)-based algorithm is subject to the way the feature data is extracted. This is a common issue when applying the ANN to indoor fingerprinting-based localization where the signal is unstable. To date, there is not adequate feature extraction method that can significantly mitigate the influence of the receiver signal strength indicator (RSSI) variation that degrades the performance of the ANN-based indoor fingerprinting algorithm. In this work, a wavelet scattering transform is used to extract reliable features that are stable to small deformation and rotation invariant. The extracted features are used by a deep neural network (DNN) model to predict the location. The zeroth and the first layer of decomposition coefficients were used as features data by concatenating different scattering path coefficients. The proposed algorithm has been validated on real measurements and has achieved good performance. The experimentation results demonstrate that the proposed feature extraction method is stable to the RSSI variation.Entities:
Keywords: feature extraction; fingerprinting; indoor localization; indoor positioning; wavelet scattering
Year: 2019 PMID: 31014005 PMCID: PMC6514606 DOI: 10.3390/s19081790
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Proposed system architecture.
Figure 2Wavelet scattering transform processes, where X is the input data, a wavelet function and an averaging low-pass filter.
Figure 3RSSI and its zeroth-order scattering scalogram.
Figure 4Wavelet scattering decompossition.
Neural network parameters.
| Parametter | Values |
|---|---|
| Hidden layer | 4 |
| hidden neurons | 128 |
| hidden activation | relu |
| output | SoftMax |
Experimentation results on the corridor.
| Method | Mean Positioning Error in Meter |
|---|---|
| SAE + DNN | 1.27 |
| MNN | 1.58 |
| Proposed | 0.68 |
Experimentation results for option 1.
| Method | Floor Rate (%) | Average Positioning Error (m) |
|---|---|---|
| SAE + DNN | 50–60 | 5–17 |
| KNN | 100.0 | 3.07 |
| Proposed | 100.0 | 0.0 |
Experimentation results for options 2.
| Method | Floor Rate (%) | Average Positioning Error (m) |
|---|---|---|
| SAE + DNN | 50–60 | 6–10 |
| KNN | 100.0 | 3.17 |
| Proposed | 99.6 | 4.15 |
Experimentation results for option 3.
| Method | Floor Rate (%) | Average Positioning Error (m) |
|---|---|---|
| SAE + DNN | 100.0 | 5–6 |
| KNN | 50.0 | 7.46 |
| Proposed | 95.0 | 4–5 |