Sensor-Data Fusion for Multi-Person Indoor Location Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of estimating the location of people as they move and work in indoor environments. More specifically, we focus on the scenario where one of the persons of interest is unable or unwilling to carry a smartphone, or any other "wearable" device, which frequently arises in caregiver/cared-for situations. We consider the case of indoor spaces populated with anonymous binary sensors (Passive Infrared motion sensors) and eponymous wearable sensors (smartphones interacting with Estimote beacons), and we propose a solution to the resulting sensor-fusion problem. Using a data set with sensor readings collected from one-person and two-person sessions engaged in a variety of activities of daily living, we investigate the relative merits of relying solely on anonymous sensors, solely on eponymous sensors, or on their combination. We examine how the lack of synchronization across different sensing sources impacts the quality of location estimates, and discuss how it could be mitigated without resorting to device-level mechanisms. Finally, we examine the trade-off between the sensors' coverage of the monitored space and the quality of the location estimates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".