A realistic evaluation and comparison of indoor location technologies: experiences and lessons learned

By Dimitrios Lymberopoulos, Jie Liu, Xue Yang, Romit Roy Choudhury, V. Handziski, Souvik Sen, Filip Lemic. International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2015

378 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

IONet: Learning to Cure the Curse of Drift in Inertial Odometry (2018, background): “One of the most promising approaches is to use inertial sensors to perform dead reckoning, which has attracted great attention from both academia and industry, because of its superior mobility and flexibility (Lymberopoulos et al. 2015).”
A Survey of Enabling Technologies for Network Localization, Tracking, and Navigation (2018, background): “…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…”
Evolution of Indoor Positioning Technologies: A Survey (2017, methodology): “Also, the impact of implementation details could be appreciated by examining the results of the aforementioned competition [34], as very similar technologies and techniques, like two teams using Wi-Fi and fingerprinting, obtain such different location errors as 1.”
A Survey on Wireless Indoor Localization from the Device Perspective (2016, methodology): “Matic et al. [2010] first propose the feasibility of using FM radio for smartphone-based indoor localization. In their system, they introduce the spontaneous recalibration concept to automatically update the fingerprint database. Besides, WiFi is synergetically integrated with FM radio to enhance th”