| Literature DB >> 33261188 |
Lu Huang1,2,3, Baoguo Yu2,3, Hongsheng Li1, Heng Zhang2,3, Shuang Li2,3, Ruihui Zhu2,3, Yaning Li2,3.
Abstract
In order to solve the problem of pedestrian positioning in the indoor environment, this paper proposes a high-precision indoor pedestrian positioning system (HPIPS) based on smart phones. First of all, in view of the non-line-of-sight and multipath problems faced by the radio-signal-based indoor positioning technology, a method of using deep convolutional neural networks to learn the nonlinear mapping relationship between indoor spatial position and Wi-Fi RTT (round-trip time) ranging information is proposed. When constructing the training dataset, a fingerprint grayscale image construction method combined with specific AP (Access Point) positions was designed, and the representative physical space features were extracted by multi-layer convolution for pedestrian position prediction. The proposed positioning model has higher positioning accuracy than traditional fingerprint-matching positioning algorithms. Then, aiming at the problem of large fluctuations and poor continuity of fingerprint positioning results, a particle filter algorithm with an adaptive update of state parameters is proposed. The algorithm effectively integrates microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) sensor information in the smart phone and the structured spatial environment information, improves the freedom and positioning accuracy of pedestrian positioning, and achieves sub-meter-level stable absolute pedestrian positioning. Finally, in a test environment of about 800 m2, through a large number of experiments, compared with the millimeter-level precision optical dynamic calibration system, 94.2% of the positioning error is better than 1 m, and the average positioning error is 0.41 m. The results show that the system can provide high-precision and high-reliability location services and has great application and promotion value.Entities:
Keywords: deep neural network; indoor localization; map constraints; sensors; smartphone
Year: 2020 PMID: 33261188 PMCID: PMC7731165 DOI: 10.3390/s20236795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the ranging process of Wi-Fi fine time measurement (FTM).
Figure 2Filter-based target tracking and positioning process.
Figure 3Structure diagram of high-precision indoor pedestrian positioning system (HPIPS).
Figure 4Compare the fluctuation of ranging and Radio Signal Strength Intensity (RSSI) by coefficient of variation.
Figure 5Dataset construction method.
Figure 6Convolutional neural network (CNN)-based indoor positioning model.
Figure 7Visualization of positioning model structure.
Figure 8Schematic diagram of map constraints.
Figure 9Positioning system test environment.
Hyperparameters of the CNN model.
| Hyperparameters | Values of Parameters |
|---|---|
| Input Size | 25 × 25 (According to AP location) |
| Activation Function | ReLU (Rectified Liner Unit) |
| Number of Convolutional Layers | 2 |
| Pooling Size | 2 |
| Stride | 1 |
| Number of FC Layers | 1 |
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Learning Rate | 0.001 |
| Weight Decay | 0.0005 |
| Batch Size | 50 |
| Epochs | 500 |
Figure 10Performance analysis of positioning model: (a) loss curves and (b) accuracy curves.
Figure 11Comparative analysis of commonly used models. QDA, Quadratic Discriminant Analysis; SVM, Support Vector Machine; KNN, K Nearest Neighbors.
Figure 12Positioning results in test environment 1: (a) CNN fingerprint positioning results, (b) particle filter (PF) fusion positioning results, and (c) PF fusion microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) + MAP positioning results.
Figure 13Positioning results in test environment 2: (a) CNN fingerprint positioning results, (b) PF fusion positioning results, and (c) PF fusion MEMS + MAP positioning results.
Figure 14Error analysis of positioning results: (a) positioning error and (b) cumulative distribution function of error.
Statistics of positioning errors.
| Algorithm | CNN | PF + CNN | PF + CNN/MEMS/MAP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Error (m) | 2.58 | 1.21 | 0.41 |
| 65% Error (m) | 3.25 | 1.54 | 0.52 |
| Maximum Error (m) | 4.90 | 3.58 | 1.38 |