| Literature DB >> 32751618 |
Jenny Liu1, Huaizheng Mu1, Asad Vakil1, Robert Ewing2, Xiaoping Shen3, Erik Blasch4, Jia Li1.
Abstract
Human occupancy detection (HOD) in an enclosed space, such as indoors or inside of a vehicle, via passive cognitive radio (CR) is a new and challenging research area. Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that a human subject cannot easily be detected due to spectrum variation. In this paper, we present an advanced HOD system that dynamically reconfigures a CR to collect passive radio frequency (RF) signals at different places of interest. Principal component analysis (PCA) and recursive feature elimination with logistic regression (RFE-LR) algorithms are applied to find the frequency bands sensitive to human occupancy when the baseline spectrum changes with locations. With the dynamically collected passive RF signals, four machine learning (ML) classifiers are applied to detect human occupancy, including support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), decision tree (DT), and linear SVM with stochastic gradient descent (SGD) training. The experimental results show that the proposed system can accurately detect human subjects-not only in residential rooms-but also in commercial vehicles, demonstrating that passive CR is a viable technique for HOD. More specifically, the RFE-LR with SGD achieves the best results with a limited number of frequency bands. The proposed adaptive spectrum sensing method has not only enabled robust detection performance in various environments, but also improved the efficiency of the CR system in terms of speed and power consumption.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive spectrum sensing; feature selection; human occupancy detection; passive cognitive radio; reconfigurable software defined radio
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32751618 PMCID: PMC7436269 DOI: 10.3390/s20154248
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The cognitive radio human occupancy detection over RF analysis (CRhodora) system.
Software-defined radio (SDR) configuration for passive RF data collection.
| Items | Description |
|---|---|
| SDR | RTL2832U |
| Locations | a study room, a bedroom, and a car |
| Data Labels | 0: Unoccupied |
| Frequency Range | 24 MHz–1760 MHz |
| Scanning Step | 1.2 MHz |
| Bandwidth | 1.2 MHz |
| Sampling Rate | 2.4 MHz |
| Duration | 2 ms per frequency band |
| Number of Frequency Bands | 1447 |
Figure 2Data collection environment and hardware setup: (a) study room; (b) bedroom; and (c) car. (d) SDR and the antenna set up in the study room; and (e) SDR and antenna set up in the car.
Figure 3Average power spectrum of occupied vs. unoccupied. (a) Study room—Position 1 occupancy. (b) Car—driver seat occupancy.
Training setup for all scenarios and classifiers.
| Scenario | Number of Full Band Samples | Number of Bands Selected | Classifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| StRmP1, … CrP3 | (10, 20, … 60) | (10, 20, … 150) | SGD, SVM, KNN, DT |
Figure 4Examples of the dynamic band ranking and selection results from the PCA and RFE-LR.
The 10 frequency bands selected from 40 full band samples for 7 scenarios in the order from most significant to least significant.
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 180.0 | 206.4 | 1755.6 | 1755.6 | 637.2 | 517.2 | 531.6 |
| 930.0 | 1101.6 | 1758.0 | 1756.8 | 636.0 | 513.6 | 532.8 |
| 178.8 | 583.2 | 1756.8 | 1758.0 | 514.8 | 625.2 | 542.4 |
| 614.4 | 1102.8 | 1759.2 | 1759.2 | 537.6 | 626.4 | 646.8 |
| 603.6 | 1104.0 | 1754.4 | 621.6 | 516.0 | 624.0 | 645.6 |
| 612.0 | 1105.2 | 583.2 | 626.4 | 634.8 | 742.8 | 648.0 |
| 604.8 | 1100.4 | 582.0 | 625.2 | 538.8 | 741.6 | 534.0 |
| 602.4 | 1099.2 | 584.4 | 1754.4 | 638.4 | 740.4 | 537.6 |
| 177.6 | 654.0 | 580.8 | 622.8 | 584.4 | 692.4 | 649.2 |
| 176.4 | 614.4 | 452.4 | 624.0 | 633.6 | 693.6 | 636.0 |
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 102.0 | 132.0 | 103.2 | 516.0 | 540.0 | 463.2 | 531.6 |
| 206.4 | 583.2 | 109.2 | 517.2 | 541.2 | 464.4 | 532.8 |
| 216.0 | 654.0 | 486.0 | 552.0 | 542.4 | 583.2 | 645.6 |
| 396.0 | 660.0 | 488.4 | 553.2 | 580.8 | 597.6 | 649.2 |
| 505.2 | 1098.0 | 544.8 | 554.4 | 582.0 | 618.0 | 658.8 |
| 513.6 | 1099.2 | 595.2 | 649.2 | 583.2 | 764.4 | 660.0 |
| 649.2 | 1100.4 | 624.0 | 650.4 | 634.8 | 768.0 | 661.2 |
| 650.4 | 1101.6 | 633.6 | 655.2 | 636.0 | 770.4 | 662.4 |
| 1335.6 | 1285.2 | 798.0 | 660.0 | 637.2 | 798.0 | 1755.6 |
| 1336.8 | 1286.4 | 858.0 | 661.2 | 638.4 | 960.0 | 1756.8 |
Figure 5Average accuracy vs. the number of frequency bands used.
Figure 6Average accuracy vs. number of samples used for bands selection.
Figure 7Average accuracy vs. number of samples used for classifier training.
The performance of the SGD model.
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| StRmP1 | 98.33% | 98.33% | 98.33% | 98.33% |
| StRmP2 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| BdRmP1 | 91.67% | 91.67% | 91.67% | 91.67% |
| BdRmP2 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| CrP1 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| CrP2 | 96.61% | 95.00% | 95.80% | 95.83% |
| CrP3 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| StRmP1 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| StRmP2 | 100.00% | 96.67% | 98.31% | 98.33% |
| BdRmP1 | 100.00% | 96.67% | 98.31% | 98.33% |
| BdRmP2 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| CrP1 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| CrP2 | 100.00% | 98.33% | 99.16% | 99.17% |
| CrP3 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
The classifiers’ performance at different locations.
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| StRmP1 | 90.48% | 95.65% | 90.09% | 100.00% |
| StRmP2 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 99.16% | 100.00% |
| BdRmP1 | 93.75% | 96.67% | 87.80% | 92.31% |
| BdRmP2 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| CrP1 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 94.49% |
| CrP2 | 96.67% | 98.31% | 92.86% | 95.24% |
| CrP3 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 97.56% |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| StRmP1 | 99.17% | 92.56% | 91.89% | 98.36% |
| StRmP2 | 100.00% | 99.16% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| BdRmP1 | 100.00% | 97.52% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| BdRmP2 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| CrP1 | 98.31% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 96.77% |
| CrP2 | 100.00% | 91.89% | 97.44% | 96.00% |
| CrP3 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 96.77% |
Figure 8The ROC curve of human detection in Scenario StRmP1.
Figure 9The average accuracy of human detection in difference locations.