| Literature DB >> 35590869 |
Yuhang Wang1,2, Kun Zhao1,2, Zhengqi Zheng1,2, Wenqing Ji1,2, Shuai Huang1,2, Difeng Ma1,2.
Abstract
Many application scenarios require indoor positioning in fifth generation (5G) mobile communication systems in recent years. However, non-line of sight and multipath propagation lead to poor accuracy in a traditionally received signal strength-based fingerprints positioning system. In this paper, we propose a positioning method employing multivariable fingerprints (MVF) composed of measurements based on secondary synchronization signals (SSS). In the fingerprint matching, we use MVF to train the convolutional neural network (CNN) location classification model. Moreover, we utilize MVF to train the path-loss model, which indicates the relationship between the distance and the measurement. Then, a hybrid positioning model combining CNN and path-loss model is proposed to optimize the overall positioning accuracy. Experimental results show that all three positioning algorithms based on machine learning with MVF achieve accuracy improvement compared with that of Reference Signal Receiving Power (RSRP)-only fingerprint. CNN achieves best performance among three positioning algorithms in two experimental environments. The average positioning error of hybrid positioning model is 1.47 m, which achieves 9.26% accuracy improvement compared with that of CNN alone.Entities:
Keywords: 5G; convolutional neural network; indoor positioning; multivariable fingerprints; path-loss model
Year: 2022 PMID: 35590869 PMCID: PMC9099661 DOI: 10.3390/s22093179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Indoor positioning system with CNN and path-loss model based on multivariable fingerprints.
Figure 2Observation matrix and sliding window.
Figure 3CNN location classification model.
Figure 4Experimental equipment: (a) 5G small base station. (b) PC and user equipment.
Figure 5Map of positioning area: (a) Room A. (b) Room B.
Figure 6The positioning error of KNN, MLP and CNN with and without MVF in Room A: (a) KNN. (b) MLP. (c) CNN.
Figure 7The positioning error of KNN, MLP and CNN with and without MVF in Room B: (a) KNN. (b) MLP. (c) CNN.
The positioning error of KNN, MLP and CNN with or without MVF in room A.
| Methods | Average Error (m) | CDF = 80% (m) |
|---|---|---|
| KNN without MVF | 3.00 | 4.29 |
| KNN with MVF | 2.10 | 3.21 |
| MLP without MVF | 2.28 | 2.76 |
| MLP with MVF | 1.66 | 2.41 |
| CNN without MVF | 2.54 | 3.67 |
| CNN with MVF | 1.62 | 2.26 |
The positioning error of KNN, MLP and CNN with or without MVF in room B.
| Methods | Average Error (m) | CDF = 80% (m) |
|---|---|---|
| KNN without MVF | 2.25 | 3.56 |
| KNN with MVF | 1.87 | 2.98 |
| MLP without MVF | 1.85 | 2.45 |
| MLP with MVF | 1.58 | 2.17 |
| CNN without MVF | 2.62 | 4.20 |
| CNN with MVF | 1.41 | 1.96 |
Figure 8The distribution of N in room A and room B: (a) Room A. (b) Room B.
Figure 9Path-loss model curve of room A.
Figure 10The positioning error of hybrid positioning model and CNN model in room A.
The comparison of the proposed method and other references.
| System | Signal Source | Measure-Ments | Positioning Area | Positioning Error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. [ | 5G | Single base station | RSSI | 3 m × 4 m | average 1.16 m |
| Ref. [ | 5G | Single base station | multivariable | 3 m × 4 m | CDF = 80% 1.18 m |
| Proposed method | 5G | Single base station | multivariable | 7 m × 6 m | average 1.47 m |