The proposed framework improves indoor positioning accuracy in smartphones, reducing drift with adaptive particle filters and Gaussian distribution.
Accurate, reliable and infrastructure-free indoor positioning using a smartphone is considered an essential topic for applications such as indoor emergency response and indoor path planning. While the inertial measurement units (IMU) offer continuous and high-frequency motion data, pedestrian dead reckoning (PDR) based on IMU data suffers from significant and accumulative errors. Map-aided particle filters (PFs) are important pose estimation frameworks that have exhibited capabilities to eliminate drifts by incorporating additional constraints from a pre-built floor map, without relying on other wireless or perception-based infrastructures. However, despite the recent approaches, a key challenging issue remains: existing map-aided PF-PDR solutions are computationally demanding, as they typically rely on a large number of particles and require map boundaries to eliminate non-matching particles. This process introduces substantial computational overhead, limiting efficiency and real-time performance on resource-constrained platforms such as smartphones. To address this key issue, this work proposes a novel map-aided PF-PDR framework that leverages a smartphone’s IMU data and a pre-built vectorized floor plan map. The proposed method introduces an adaptive PF-PDR solution that detects particle convergence using a cross-entropy distance of the particles and a Gaussian distribution. The number of particles is reduced significantly after a convergence is detected. Further, in order to reduce the computational cost, only the heading is included in particle attitude sampling. The heading is estimated accurately by levelling gyroscope measurements to a virtual plane, parallel to the ground. Experiments are performed using a dataset collected on a smartphone and the results demonstrate improved performance, especially in drift reduction, achieving an mean position error of 0.9 m and a processing rate of 37.0 Hz.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ai et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: