180 likes | 194 Views
This research paper presents SurroundSense, a mobile phone localization system that uses ambience fingerprinting based on sound, light, color, and user movement to provide logical localization in indoor environments where GPS alone is not sufficient. The system records data on the phone, preprocesses it, and sends it to a server for analysis. Multiple modules, including sound, motion, color/light, and wifi, are used to filter and match the best candidate for localization. The system aims to be simple yet reasonably accurate, reducing processing resources required. Evaluation results show an accuracy of 87% when combining all sensor types.
E N D
SurroundSense: Mobile Phone Localization via Ambience Fingerprinting Written by Martin Azizyan, IonutConstandache, & RomitChoudhury Presented by Craig McIlwee
Motivation • Provide logical localization • Using GPS only isn’t good enough • Doesn’t work well indoors • Doesn’t account for dividing walls • Dedicated hardware is not scalable
Approach • Create an ambience fingerprint using sound, light, color, and user movement • Noise signatures specific to type of location/store • Chain stores have color themes • User movement indicative of store type
Architecture/Algorithm • Data is recorded on the phone, preprocessed, and sent to a server • Filter module • Subsets the candidates • Wifi, movement, sound • Match module • Selects the best candidate • Color/sound, Wifi
Architecture/Algorithm • No single module needs to be perfect • If each module is ‘good enough’ then all modules combined are sufficient • Being simple reasonably accurate instead of sophisticated and perfect reduces resources required for processing
Sound Module • Filter • Sound varies over time • Fingerprints captured from various times of day • Similarity of fingerprints is used to create a threshold for a potential match • Match if within the threshold, discard otherwise • Threshold is generous • More false positives is better than false negatives
Motion Module • Filter • Variations in user behavior • Record 4 samples/second, use moving average over last 10 samples • Minor variations suppressed
Motion Module • User movement is classified as stationary or mobile • 3 profiles defined • Long stationary – restaurant • Frequent movement with longer stationary – browsing • Frequent movement with shorter stationary – shopping • Some logical locations fit multiple profiles
Color/Light Module • Match • Images captured from camera while facing downward • Floor themes are consistent • Other orientations introduce noise • Common orientation when checking email, text messages, etc
Color/Light Module • Analyze patterns in the image • First attempt was to convert pixels to RGB values • Failed due to shadow and reflection influences • Second attempt was to convert to HSL values • Isolates light on its own axis
Color/Light Module • Same/similar colors result in clusters when graphed • Dominant colors generate larger clusters • Similarity calculated as distance between cluster centroids and size of the clusters • Most similar candidate is the match
Wifi Module • Normally a filter, match if camera is not available • Capture MAC address of available access points every 5 seconds • Compare occurrence ratio of currently available access points to known access points
Known Issues • Sound varies over time • Split day into 2 hour windows, capture fingerprints during each window • No mention of day of week, time of year • Camera in pocket • All testing done with phone in hand • Expected rise in wearable devices • Mimicking user behavior • Initial data showed artificial behavior • Subsequent attempts shadowed real customers
Known Issues • Resource (energy) intensive • Accelerometer fingerprint takes time to capture • Non-business locations may not exhibit enough diversity • Offices, airports, libraries
Evaluation • Recorded fingerprints of 51 locations • “War-sensed” by students • 2 different groups during different times of day • Group A’s fingerprints used as database while Group B was at the location collecting their own fingerprints • Accuracy analysis was done on various combinations of sensors types • All sensor types combined yielded 87% accuracy