2015
DOI: 10.1109/mprv.2015.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Participatory Service Platform for Indoor Location-Based Services

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If we compare the values and reliability intervals obtained in this second test for the metric "relative accuracy" we can see a significant improvement as compared to when all locations were used. The increases/decreases in percentage points in those cases where we did not execute our algorithm to delete unstable WAPs are as follows (we take all the WAPs from the initial set, as indicated in the first row of combined Tables 2-4 and combined Tables 5-7 When we compare the results published for the WASP and Redpin algorithms with noise filtering and 5 access points [11] with the ones we get when we run our algorithm to delete unstable WAPs (and also take 5 WAPs) we can see that we get significant improvements for the following [12]. This is an improvement of +4.50 percentage points when using the Random Forest algorithm.…”
Section: Results From the Linear Configurationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…If we compare the values and reliability intervals obtained in this second test for the metric "relative accuracy" we can see a significant improvement as compared to when all locations were used. The increases/decreases in percentage points in those cases where we did not execute our algorithm to delete unstable WAPs are as follows (we take all the WAPs from the initial set, as indicated in the first row of combined Tables 2-4 and combined Tables 5-7 When we compare the results published for the WASP and Redpin algorithms with noise filtering and 5 access points [11] with the ones we get when we run our algorithm to delete unstable WAPs (and also take 5 WAPs) we can see that we get significant improvements for the following [12]. This is an improvement of +4.50 percentage points when using the Random Forest algorithm.…”
Section: Results From the Linear Configurationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This paper focuses on fingerprinting smartphone-based algorithms which are employed to locate users at room level (the exact location of the user inside a room is not that relevant but knowing the exact room the user is in with the highest accuracy is crucial). Using room level granularity will allow us to overcome one of the crucial aspects of indoor location systems when the areas to cover are big: scalability [12]. Training indoor locations systems with a complete grid of training points is time consuming and does not scale on computational resources required for estimating user locations.…”
Section: Mobile Information Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For instance, [16] proposed an store recommendation systems by mining the context of decision-making behaviour using eye-tracking data, [17] proposed a POI discovery approach by matching the user profile and the semantic-enhanced POIs, [18] proposed a recommended system to help users in shopping for technical products by considering user preference and technical product attributes, and [19] proposed an automatic mobile assistant for museum visiting based on WiFi-based indoor positioning. Additionally, Shin et al [20] constructed an indoor database platform for indoor location-based services.…”
Section: Indoor Poi Recommendationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rai et al [13] proposed an automatic calibration method utilizing an acceleration sensor, a compass sensor and a gyro sensor, which are installed in smartphones and floor maps. In addition to Rai et al [13], not a few researchers such as Shin et al [17] and Kawajiri et al [9] have developed methods that utilize crowds' cooperation. However, except for Kawajiri et al [9] their methods don't consider which label to get new data and Kawajiri et al is not enough.…”
Section: Related Work Indoor Localization Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%