| Literature DB >> 35458864 |
Neha Chaudhary1, Othman Isam Younus2, Luis Nero Alves1, Zabih Ghassemlooy2, Stanislav Zvanovec3.
Abstract
In this paper, we study the design aspects of an indoor visible light positioning (VLP) system that uses an artificial neural network (ANN) for positioning estimation by considering a multipath channel. Previous results usually rely on the simplistic line of sight model with limited validity. The study considers the influence of noise as a performance indicator for the comparison between different design approaches. Three different ANN algorithms are considered, including Levenberg-Marquardt, Bayesian regularization, and scaled conjugate gradient algorithms, to minimize the positioning error (εp) in the VLP system. The ANN design is optimized based on the number of neurons in the hidden layers, the number of training epochs, and the size of the training set. It is shown that, the ANN with Bayesian regularization outperforms the traditional received signal strength (RSS) technique using the non-linear least square estimation for all values of signal to noise ratio (SNR). Furthermore, in the inner region, which includes the area of the receiving plane within the transmitters, the positioning accuracy is improved by 43, 55, and 50% for the SNR of 10, 20, and 30 dB, respectively. In the outer region, which is the remaining area within the room, the positioning accuracy is improved by 57, 32, and 6% for the SNR of 10, 20, and 30 dB, respectively. Moreover, we also analyze the impact of different training dataset sizes in ANN, and we show that it is possible to achieve a minimum εp of 2 cm for 30 dB of SNR using a random selection scheme. Finally, it is observed that εp is low even for lower values of SNR, i.e., εp values are 2, 11, and 44 cm for the SNR of 30, 20, and 10 dB, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Bayesian regularization; artificial neural network (ANN); multipath reflections; non-linear least square; visible light communication (VLC); visible light positioning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35458864 PMCID: PMC9029196 DOI: 10.3390/s22082879
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1A VLP system with system configuration.
Figure 2Block diagram of the proposed system.
Figure 3The received power distributions for the proposed system for: (a) LoS; (b) NLoS; and (c) LoS and NLoS links.
Figure 4The artificial neural network with: (a) a basic structure; and (b) a structure of kth neuron with N inputs in the layer m.
List of notations used in this paper.
| Notation | Definition |
|---|---|
|
| Positioning error |
|
| Height of the Tx |
|
| Height of the Rx |
|
| Lambertian mode |
|
| Total received power from the |
|
| Received power from the |
|
| Received power from |
|
| Additive white Gaussian noise |
|
| Distance between the |
|
| The irradiance angle from the |
|
| Incident angle |
|
| Photodiode responsivity |
|
| Transmitted power from the |
|
| Transmittance function |
|
| Concentrator gain of the Rx |
|
| Area of the photodetector |
|
| The horizontal distance from the |
|
| The difference in height between the Tx and Rx, i.e., ( |
|
| The distances, receiving incident angle, and the irradiance angle between the |
|
| The distances, receiving incident angle, and the irradiance angle between the reflective area and the Rx, respectively |
|
| The reflectance factor depending on the material of the reflective surface |
|
| Reflectance area |
|
| Coefficients of the polynomial model for the |
|
| The estimated position of the Rx |
|
| Averaged squared error |
|
| The estimated position of the Rx. |
|
| Weight |
|
| The vector containing all the network weights and biases for the |
|
| The network output for the |
|
| The target output of the network for the |
|
| Learning rate |
|
| Maximum number of layers |
|
| Bias vector |
|
| Number of layers |
|
| Number of neurons |
|
| Input vector, |
|
| Total number of inputs |
|
| Number of inputs |
|
| Error matrix |
|
| Sensitivity matrix |
|
| Least mean square error function |
|
| Mean square error |
|
| Jacobian matrix |
|
| A scalar |
|
| Identity matrix |
|
| Squared error |
|
| Sum of squared weights |
|
| Regularization parameters |
|
| Effective number of parameters |
|
| Hessian matrix |
|
| Total number of parameters (weights and biases) of the network |
|
| The trace of the inverse of Hessian matrix |
|
| Quadratic approximation of the error function, |
|
| The set of non-zero weight vectors |
|
| Second-order information |
|
| A Scalar |
|
| Comparison parameter |
|
| Percentage of the confidence interval |
|
| Quantile function |
|
| Minimum positioning error |
|
| Step size |
Figure 5The layout of the neural network used with four layers.
Total dataset samples considered for the proposed ANN.
| Dataset A | Dataset B | |
|---|---|---|
| Grid size | 60 × 60 | 100 × 100 |
| Total number of sample | 18,000 | 50,000 |
The key system parameters.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Room size | 6 × 6 × 3 m3 |
| Locations of the Txs | |
| (−1.7, −1.7, 3), | |
| (−1.7, 1.7, 3), | |
| (1.7, −1.7, 3), | |
| (1.7, 1.7, 3) | |
| Area of PD | 10−4 m2 |
| Half-power angle (HPA) | 70° |
| Responsivity of PD | 0.5 A/W |
| Field of view (FOV) | 75° |
| Transmitted power | 1 W |
| Reflection coefficient | 0.7 |
| Activation function | Sigmoid, linear |
| Number of neurons in the input layer | 4 |
| Number of neurons in the hidden layer | 2–36 |
| Number of neurons in the output layer | 2 |
| Number of hidden layers | 2 |
| Percentage of train to test | 0.8 |
Figure 6The measured 95% quantile function for different ANN algorithms for: (a) the inner; and (b) the outer regions.
Figure 7The for the inner region for different training methods of ANN: (a) LM, and (b) BR.
Comparison of for different training algorithms.
| Algorithms |
| Neurons in HL 1 | Neurons in HL 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| LM | 0.11 | 36 | 36 |
| BR | 0.06 | 32 | 28 |
Figure 8The measured 95% quantile function for a various number of epochs for BR in the: (a) inner, and (b) outer regions.
Figure 9The measured 95% quantile function for NLLS and BR.
Figure 10Different error distribution plots using BR algorithm for SNR value: (a) 5 dB; (b) 10 dB; (c) 15 dB; (d) 20 dB; (e) 25 dB; and (f) 30 dB.
Final observations of the comparison of BR and traditional RSS with NLLS algorithms.
| BR | RSS with NLLS | |
|---|---|---|
| Max. | 6.7 × 104 | 6.7 × 104 |
| Min. | 3.6 × 104 | 3.6 × 104 |
| Max. | 0.89 | 1.29 |
| Min. | 16 × 10−4 | 18 × 10−4 |
| Max. | 0.71 | 0.72 |
| Min. | 6.1 × 10−4 | 15 × 10−4 |
| Max. | 0.54 | 0.67 |
| Min. | 5.4 × 10−4 | 4.6 × 10−4 |
Figure 11The measured 95% quantile function for a different number of samples in the input with: (a) RS; and (b) US.