2017
DOI: 10.1109/msp.2017.2713817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition: Experiences and Lessons Learned

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
103
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 168 publications
(105 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
103
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to the above popular indoor positioning sensors, the 2.4 GHz phase offset technique [15], modulated magnetic signals [16], 24-GHz radar [17], light detection and ranging (LiDAR) [18], and foot-mounted IMU [19] are proposed for the purpose. These systems participated in the Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition [20] in 2017, which judged that only LiDAR and UWB-based systems could achieve better than metre-level positioning accuracy; the LiDAR-based system can achieve centimetre-level positioning accuracy, and the UWB-based system can achieve decimetre-level positioning accuracy [20]. Although LiDAR-based technology is extremely accurate, the cost, size, and power consumption of LiDAR sensors prevent this technology from becoming a mainstream indoor positioning solution [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to the above popular indoor positioning sensors, the 2.4 GHz phase offset technique [15], modulated magnetic signals [16], 24-GHz radar [17], light detection and ranging (LiDAR) [18], and foot-mounted IMU [19] are proposed for the purpose. These systems participated in the Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition [20] in 2017, which judged that only LiDAR and UWB-based systems could achieve better than metre-level positioning accuracy; the LiDAR-based system can achieve centimetre-level positioning accuracy, and the UWB-based system can achieve decimetre-level positioning accuracy [20]. Although LiDAR-based technology is extremely accurate, the cost, size, and power consumption of LiDAR sensors prevent this technology from becoming a mainstream indoor positioning solution [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2013, the FCC Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) documented several emerging indoor location technologies [3] and reported extensive accuracy results of a number of commercial systems during localization of more than 13,400 test E911 calls across 19 buildings [4]. The great interest in performance evaluation of indoor localization systems under real-life conditions is also evident from newly released standards [5] and related competitions, including the Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition [6], [7], the EvAAL contest for evaluating Ambient and Assisted Living (AAL) systems through competitive benchmarking [8], [9], and most recently PerfLoc competition for smartphone indoor localization applications announced by the U.S.A. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [10].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the above mentioned competition, different localization approaches were compared under the same conditions [10]. The average error obtained by infrastructure-less system was within 1.5m and 5.3m.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such systems can be split into two important categories: infrastructure-based and infrastructureless. While one might think that having additional infrastructure improves the localization error significantly, a recent localization competition, the Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition -IPSN 2014 [10], has shown that in practice, having the same conditions and time to calibrate such systems, they behave very similarly. More precisely, infrastructureless systems achieve a localization error in the same range as infrastructure-based systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%