Author Affiliations
1School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Liaoning Technical University, Huludao , Liaoning 125105, China2Graduate School, Liaoning Technical University, Huludao , Liaoning 125105, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Comparison before and after filtering. (a) Before filtering; (b) after filtering
Fig. 2. Comparison before and after phase correction. (a) Before correction; (b) after correction
Fig. 3. Process of indoor positioning
Fig. 4. Schematic of GBDT
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of fruit fly population foraging
Fig. 6. Flow chart of LLE+GBDT model
Fig. 7. Experimental environment. (a) East 302; (a) south 411
Fig. 8. Experimental scene diagrams for different sampling intervals
Fig. 9. CDF of different dimensionality reduction algorithms
Fig. 10. Positioning accuracy of different optimization algorithms
Fig. 11. Localization result CDF with missing values
Positioning performance | Sampling interval /m |
---|
1.2 | 0.9 | 0.6 |
---|
Positioning accuracy /% | 97.8 | 97.6 | 97.3 | Average positioning error /m | 0.035 | 0.047 | 0.063 | Training time /s | 1.71 | 15.33 | 345.98 |
|
Table 1. Comparison of positioning performances at different sampling intervals
Algorithm | Average positioning error /m |
---|
PCA+GBDT | 0.262 | LLE+GBDT | 0.155 | ENLLE+GBDT | 0.068 |
|
Table 2. Localization performance of different dimensionality reduction algorithms
Algorithm | Positioning performance | No missing value | With missing value |
---|
LLE+GBDT | Positioning Accuracy /% | 98.6 | 97.2 | Average positioning error /m | 0.039 | 0.128 | Joint fingerprint+KNN | Positioning Accuracy /% | 97.8 | 95.6 | Average positioning error /m | 0.048 | 0.184 | Amplitude fingerprint+PCA-DNN | Positioning Accuracy /% | 97.3 | 93.8 | Average positioning error /m | 0.056 | 0.235 | Phase fingerprint + WKNN | Average positioning error /m | 1.014 | 4.877 |
|
Table 3. Effect of missing values on positioning performance of different algorithms