| Literature DB >> 31614855 |
Lu Huang1,2, Xingli Gan3,4, Baoguo Yu5,6, Heng Zhang7,8, Shuang Li9,10, Jianqiang Cheng11,12, Xiaohu Liang13,14, Boyuan Wang15,16.
Abstract
Since the signals of the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) are blocked by buildings, accurate positioning cannot be achieved in an indoor environment. Pseudolite can simulate similar outdoor satellite signals and can be used as a stable and reliable positioning signal source in indoor environments. Therefore, it has been proposed as a good substitute and has become a research hotspot in the field of indoor positioning. There are still some problems in the pseudolite positioning field, such as: Integer ambiguity of carrier phase, initial position determination, and low signal coverage. To avoid the limitation of these factors, an indoor positioning system based on fingerprint database matching of homologous array pseudolite is proposed in this paper, which can achieve higher positioning accuracy. The realization of this positioning system mainly includes the offline phase and the online phase. In the offline phase, the carrier phase data in the indoor environment is first collected, and a fingerprint database is established. Then a variational auto-encoding (VAE) network with location information is used to learn the probability distribution characteristics of the carrier phase difference of pseudolite in the latent space to realize feature clustering. Finally, the deep neural network is constructed by using the hidden features learned to further study the mapping relationship between different carrier phases of pseudolite and different indoor locations. In the online phase, the trained model and real-time carrier phases of pseudolite are used to predict the location of the positioning terminal. In this paper, by a large number of experiments, the performance of the pseudolite positioning system is evaluated under dynamic and static conditions. The effectiveness of the algorithm is evaluated by the comparison experiments, the experimental results show that the average positioning accuracy of the positioning system in a real indoor scene is 0.39 m, and the 95% positioning error is less than 0.85 m, which outperforms the traditional fingerprint positioning algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: array pseudolite; carrier phase difference; deep neural network; fingerprint matching; indoor localization
Year: 2019 PMID: 31614855 PMCID: PMC6832918 DOI: 10.3390/s19204420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) pseudolite base station; (b) pseudolite antenna.
Figure 2Observation results of carrier phase difference stability.
Figure 3Spatial resolution of carrier phase difference.
Figure 4Array pseudolite positioning system architecture diagram.
Figure 5Structure diagram of conditional variation auto-encoder network.
Figure 6Diagram of the test environment.
Figure 7Ublox signal acquisition software and smartphone acquisition software.
Figure 8The clustering effect of our model in 2D latent space on MINIST data set.
Comparisons of clustering performance of various models on different data sets.
| Method | MNIST | CIFAR10 | REUTERS | BLE RSSI | UJIndoorLoc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMM | 55.37 (±0.08) | 55.46 (±0.10) | 56.01 (±0.11) | 45.56 (±0.12) | 50.23 (±0.12) |
| AE + GMM | 84.56 (±0.11) | 73.59 (±0.08) | 71.18 (±0.11) | 74.61 (±0.11) | 85.91 (±0.11) |
| VaDE [ | 94.46 (±0.1) | 88.36 (±0.05) | 79.58 (±0.10) | 89.34 (±0.04) | 91.85 (±0.04) |
| Our Model | 97.77 (±0.08) | 90.11 (±0.04) | 82.07 (±0.08) | 91.36 (±0.05) | 92.96 (±0.02) |
Figure 9Test results for static positioning at different locations.
Figure 10Error results of static positioning at different positions.
Figure 11Positioning test results under walking conditions with different trajectories.
Comparison of location accuracy in motion state.
| Path | True Position | Measured Position | Error of Position | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X (m) | Y (m) | X (m) | Y (m) | X (m) | Y (m) | |
| (A) 1–2–3–4–1 | 4,235,057.22 | 530,519.52 | 4,235,057.11 | 530,519.79 | 0.11 | 0.27 |
| 4,235,057.29 | 530,516.03 | 4,235,057.77 | 530,515.61 | 0.48 | 0.32 | |
| 4,235,059.73 | 530,516.07 | 4,235,059.24 | 530,515.49 | 0.49 | 0.58 | |
| (B) 1–4–3–2–1 | 4,235,057.22 | 530,519.83 | 4,235,057.29 | 530,519.93 | 0.07 | 0.10 |
| 4,235,057.29 | 530,516.03 | 4,235,057.48 | 530,516.15 | 0.17 | 0.12 | |
| 4,235,059.73 | 530,516.07 | 4,235,059.68 | 530,516.11 | 0.05 | 0.04 | |
| (C) 1–5–2–4–1 | 4,235,059.71 | 530,519.55 | 4,235,059.63 | 530,519.67 | 0.08 | 0.12 |
| 4,235,060.53 | 530,517.83 | 4,235,060.62 | 530,517.79 | 0.09 | 0.04 | |
| 4,235,057.22 | 530,519.52 | 4,235,057.52 | 530,519.71 | 0.30 | 0.19 | |
| (D) 2–1–4–3–2 | 4,235,059.71 | 530,519.55 | 4,235,059.77 | 530,519.48 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| 4,235,057.22 | 530,519.52 | 4,235,057.34 | 530,519.44 | 0.12 | 0.08 | |
| 4,235,057.29 | 530,516.03 | 4,235,057.34 | 530,516.18 | 0.05 | 0.15 | |
| (E) 3–1–5–2–3 | 4,235,057.29 | 530,516.03 | 4,235,057.34 | 530,516.12 | 0.05 | 0.09 |
| 4,235,060.53 | 530,517.83 | 4,235,060.65 | 530,517.75 | 0.12 | 0.08 | |
| 4,235,059.73 | 530,516.07 | 4,235,059.51 | 530,516.11 | 0.22 | 0.04 | |
| (F) 1–4–5–3–2 | 4,235,059.71 | 530,519.55 | 4,235,059.76 | 530,519.64 | 0.05 | 0.09 |
| 4,235,057.29 | 530,516.03 | 4,235,057.27 | 530,516.26 | 0.02 | 0.23 | |
| 4,235,059.73 | 530,516.07 | 4,235,059.49 | 530,516.49 | 0.24 | 0.42 | |
Figure 12Comparison of positioning errors of different positioning algorithms.
Figure 13Cumulative distribution function of errors from different positioning algorithms.
Comparison of location accuracy (m) of common algorithms based on fingerprint matching.
| Algorithm | KNN | SVM | Xiao L [ | Kim K S [ | Our Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Error(m) | 2.03 | 1.56 | 1.03 | 0.79 | 0.39 |
| 95%Error(m) | 3.77 | 3.76 | 2.25 | 1.43 | 0.85 |