MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792091676 · doi:10.1155/2018/5989678

An Improved Particle Filter Algorithm for Geomagnetic Indoor Positioning

2018· article· en· W2792091676 on OpenAlexaff
He Huang, Wei Li, De An Luo, Dongwei Qiu, Yang Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sensors · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndoor and Outdoor Localization Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsParticle filterEarth's magnetic fieldAlgorithmPrecise Point PositioningResamplingFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceMatching (statistics)Divergence (linguistics)Blossom algorithmComputer visionMathematicsGlobal Positioning SystemMagnetic fieldPhysicsStatisticsGNSS applications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geomagnetic indoor positioning is an attractive indoor positioning technology due to its infrastructure-free feature. In the matching algorithm for geomagnetic indoor localization, the particle filter has been the most widely used. The algorithm however often suffers filtering divergence when there is continuous variation of the indoor magnetic distribution. The resampling step in the process of implementation would make the situation even worse, which directly lead to the loss of indoor positioning solution. Aiming at this problem, we have proposed an improved particle filter algorithm based on initial positioning error constraint, inspired by the Hausdorff distance measurement point set matching theory. Since the operating range of the particle filter cannot exceed the magnitude of the initial positioning error, it avoids the adverse effect of sampling particles with the same magnetic intensity but away from the target during the iteration process on the positioning system. The effectiveness and reliability of the improved algorithm are verified by experiments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of SensorsSame topicIndoor and Outdoor Localization TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207