2021 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN) 2021
DOI: 10.1109/ipin51156.2021.9662465
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using SAGE on COTS UWB Signals for TOA Estimation and Body Shadowing Effect Quantification

Abstract: This work assesses the applicability of the wellknown SAGE algorithm for time-of-arrival estimation on ultrawideband (UWB) measurements taken with cheap COTS hardware. Performance is comparable with a simple leading-edge detection (LDE) algorithm, establishing a general precision of approximately 30 cm/60 cm. SAGE performance is slightly worse in general (33 cm/71 cm), but is more stable in non-line-ofsight (NLOS) caused by human body presence. A more detailed breakdown of the effect of incidence angle on one-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For a fair comparison, we implement the same observation likelihood and dynamics of our pipeline. We consider this a feasible state-of-the-art approach, however there are also other methods for error mitigation, including body shadowing models [41] and TOF regression [42].…”
Section: Baseline Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For a fair comparison, we implement the same observation likelihood and dynamics of our pipeline. We consider this a feasible state-of-the-art approach, however there are also other methods for error mitigation, including body shadowing models [41] and TOF regression [42].…”
Section: Baseline Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This error is a direct result of the leading edge algorithm implemented on-chip failing to correctly and precisely identify the first path. This occurs due to number of factors including the received signal strength and used bandwidth (impacting the width of the first peak) [57], low SNR (< 6 dB) [58] and due to the presence of humans or other obstructions (NLOS) [59]. With ML, the goal is to identify this error (output data) using precise ground truth and the associated CIR data (input data).…”
Section: A Uwb ML Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the lack of reflective surfaces in the outdoor experiment in [22] allows for creeping waves to be dominant for all φ > 90 • . Fourthly, range estimation algorithms perform differently under HBS conditions as reported in [32], which compared the leading-edge detection algorithm with the SAGE algorithm. Lastly, given the fact that the creeping waves are heavily attenuated for high φ values, it is suspected that the transmit power also affects the range error distribution.…”
Section: Effects Of Human Body Shadowing On Uwb Rangingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The biggest advantage of these machine learning and deep learning techniques is that they are parameterless, but they do require a substantial amount of training data. Also, a large part of experimental UWB-related research has been conducted with low-cost COTS UWB hardware, primarily using the Decawave DW1000 transceiver [32]. A disadvantage of the DW1000 is that reading the CIR from the device's serial port is time consuming, which makes NLoS mitigation challenging in a dynamic setting.…”
Section: Detection and Mitigation Of Human Body Shadowing Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%