Informative Path Planning for Location Fingerprint Collection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fingerprint-based indoor localization methods are promising due to the high availability of deployed access points and compatibility with commercial off-the-shelf user devices. However, to train regression models for localization, an extensive site survey is required, which collects fingerprint data from the target areas. In this paper, we consider the problem of informative path planning (IPP) to find the optimal walk for a site survey subject to a budget constraint. IPP for location fingerprint collection is related to the well-known orienteering problem (OP) but is more challenging due to its edge-based non-additive rewards and revisits. Given the NP-hardness of IPP, we propose two heuristic approaches: a Greedy algorithm and a Genetic algorithm. Through experimental data collected from two indoor environments with different characteristics, we show that the two algorithms have low computation complexity, and can generally achieve a higher utility, as well as lower localization errors compared to the extension of two state-of-the-art approaches to OP.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".