MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188172207 · doi:10.1109/ipin.2015.7346784

A modularized real-time indoor navigation algorithm on smartphones

2015· article· en· W2188172207 on OpenAlexaff
You Li, Peng Zhang, Haiyu Lan, Yuan Zhuang, Xiaoji Niu, Naser El‐Sheimy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReal-time computingEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines an indoor navigation algorithm that uses multiple kinds of sensors and technologies, such as 9-axis sensors (i.e., 3D gyros, accelerometers, and magnetometers), WiFi, and magnetic matching. The corresponding real-time software on smartphones includes modules such attitude determination and gyro bias estimation, pedestrian dead-reckoning (PDR), WiFi positioning, and magnetic matching. The heading from the attitude-determination module is fed into the PDR-based position-tracking module. Then, PDR is used for providing continuous position solutions and for the blunder detection of both WiFi fingerprinting and magnetic matching. Meanwhile, WiFi fingerprinting utilizes a point-by-point matching technology, while magnetic matching is based on profile-matching. Finally, WiFi and magnetic matching results are passed into the position-tracking module as updates. This algorithm was tested with two smartphones in two indoor environments. The results indicates the proposed navigation algorithm provided better navigation results than those of PDR, WiFi, or magnetic matching by itself, and better than the results of PDR/WiFi and PDR/magnetic matching (MM) in challenging indoor environment. The proposed using off-the-shelf sensors available in consumer portable devices and existing WiFi infrastructures, and have been realized on smartphones.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207