A Survey of Machine Learning for Indoor Positioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread proliferation of wireless coverage has enabled culmination of number of advanced location-based services (LBS). Continuous tracking of accurate physical location is the foundation of these services, which is a challenging task especially indoors. Multitude of techniques and algorithms have been proposed for indoor positioning systems (IPS's). However, accuracy, reliability, scalability and, adaptability to the environment still remain as challenges for widespread deployment. Especially, unpredictable radio propagation characteristics in vastly varying indoor environments plus access technology limitations contribute to these challenges. Machine learning (ML) approaches have been widely attempted recently to overcome these challenges with reasonable success. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive survey of ML enabled localization techniques using most common wireless technologies. First, we provide a brief background on indoor localization techniques. Afterwards, we discuss various ML techniques (supervised and unsupervised) that could alleviate different challenges in indoor localization including Non-line-of-sight (NLOS) issue, device heterogeneity and environmental variations with reasonable complexity. The trade-offs among multitude of issues are discussed using numerous published results. We also discuss how the ML algorithms can be effectively used for fusing different technologies and algorithms to achieve a comprehensive IPS. In essence, this survey will serve as a reference material to acquire a detailed knowledge on recent development of machine learning for accurate indoor positioning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".