The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences
Download
Publications Copernicus
Download
Citation
Articles | Volume XLVIII-4-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-4-2024-705-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-4-2024-705-2024
21 Oct 2024
 | 21 Oct 2024

Analysis of Machine Learning-Based NLOS Signal Identification Algorithm for UWB Indoor Localization Using CIR Waveform Features

Kai Wang and Cheng Yang

Keywords: UWB, NLOS, SVM, MLP, XGBOOST, KNN

Abstract. Ultra-wideband (UWB) technology stands out among numerous indoor positioning techniques due to its high operating frequency, low interception capability, resistance to multipath effects, and strong penetration. The UWB uses the time-of-arrival (TOA) to estimate the distance between the transmitter and receiver anchors in centimeter accuracy. However, in complex indoor positioning environments, obstacles such as walls, glass windows, metal plates, and wooden doors may block and reflect signals, inevitably causing non-line-of-sight (NLOS) errors that significantly affect positioning accuracy. The NLOS signal has lower signal energy due to the reflections. Thus, the channel impulse responses (CIR) from NLOS and LOS are different. To address the NLOS signal identification issue in UWB positioning, we utilize UWB CIR data collected from various positioning scenarios as the data source. CIR waveform input features are provided for the NLOS signal recognition model, and four machine learning models—Support Vector Machine (SVM), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and XGBoost—are trained and optimized for NLOS signal recognition. The aim of the study is to analyze the performance of different machine learning algorithms for NLOS signal recognition in UWB indoor localization using these features. Experimental results indicate that machine learning-based NLOS signal recognition algorithms can achieve an accuracy of approximately 77.46%, precision of 80.46%, and an F1 score of 0.81. Among the four models, the XGBoost model demonstrates generally better recognition performance.