| Literature DB >> 31771106 |
Zhen Wang1, Xuemei Guo2,3, Guoli Wang2,3.
Abstract
Radio tomographic imaging (RTI) is a technology for target localization by using radiofrequency (RF) sensors in a wireless network. The change of the attenuation field caused by thetarget is represented by a shadowing image, which is then used to estimate the target's position.The shadowing image can be reconstructed from the variation of the received signal strength (RSS)in the wireless network. However, due to the interference from multi-path fading, not all the RSSvariations are reliable. If the unreliable RSS variations are used for image reconstruction, someartifacts will appear in the shadowing image, which may cause the target's position being wronglyestimated. Due to the sparse property of the shadowing image, sparse Bayesian learning (SBL) canbe employed for signal reconstruction. Aiming at enhancing the robustness to multipath fading,this paper explores the Laplace prior to characterize the shadowing image under the frameworkof SBL. Bayesian modeling, Bayesian inference and the fast algorithm are presented to achieve themaximum-a-posterior (MAP) solution. Finally, imaging, localization and tracking experiments fromthree different scenarios are conducted to validate the robustness to multipath fading. Meanwhile,the improved computational efficiency of using Laplace prior is validated in the localization-timeexperiment as well.Entities:
Keywords: Laplace prior; RF sensor; Radio tomographic imaging; multipath fading; received signal strength
Year: 2019 PMID: 31771106 PMCID: PMC6928707 DOI: 10.3390/s19235126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1An illustration of the wireless network for RTI.
Figure 2LOS path and NLOS paths from reflection and diffraction.
Figure 3Graph of the hierarchical priors for the signal and noise in RTI.
Figure 4Experimental layouts and photos. (a,d) represent scenario 1. (b,e) denote scenario 2. (c,f) describe scenario 3.
Figure 5One illustrative packet transmitted by the second node in scenario 2.
Figure 6Framework of the experimental system.
Experimental Evaluation Parameters.
| Symbol | Appearance | Value | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.2 m | Pixel size |
|
| Equation ( | 0.02 m | Ellipse width |
|
| Equation ( | 2 | Shape and scale parameters for |
|
| Equation ( | 1 | Shape parameter for |
|
| Equation ( | 0 | Scale parameter for |
|
| Algorithm 1 | 0.01 | Initial noise variance |
|
| Algorithm 1 | 1000 | Maximum iteration number |
|
| Algorithm 1 | 0.01 | Precision during the iteration |
|
| Equation ( | 0.4 m | Radius of the cylindrical model |
Figure 7Images from the cylindrical model and Reconstructed images from different priors using SBL. (a–d) describe scenario 1. (e–h) illustrate the images in scenario 2. (i–k) demonstrate the images in scenario 3.
Average number of artifacts in the reconstructed images.
| Setup | Jeffrey’s Prior | Laplace Prior | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario-1 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
|
| Scenario-2 | 2.2 | 1.2 |
|
| Scenario-3 | 90.8 | 79.5 |
|
Comparative results of the reconstructed images in MSE.
| Setup | Jeffrey’s Prior | Laplace Prior | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario-1 | 0.0232 | 0.0024 |
|
| Scenario-2 | 0.1041 | 0.0182 |
|
| Scenario-3 | 0.1916 | 0.0042 |
|
Comparison of the mean localization errors (unit: m).
| Setup | Jeffrey’s Prior | Laplace Prior | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario-1 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
|
| Scenario-2 | 0.33 | 0.19 |
|
| Scenario-3 | 0.88 | 0.70 |
|
Figure 8CDF of Localization errors (a) scenario 1 (b) scenario 2 (c) scenario 3.
Average time consumption in localization (unit: ms).
| Setup | Jeffrey’s Prior | Laplace Prior | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario-1 | 30.3 | 749.9 |
|
| Scenario-2 | 21.3 | 449.1 |
|
| Scenario-3 | 39.8 | 2802.5 |
|
Figure 9True trajectory and Estimated trajectories under different priors.
Tracking error comparison (unit: m).
| Prior | Tracking Error |
|---|---|
|
| 0.26 |
| Jeffrey’s | 0.23 |
| Laplace | 0.21 |