Considerations on Quality Metrics for Self-localization Algorithms
The demand for location awareness and, therefore, the demand for self-localization techniques is continuously increasing. As a result, a good number of systems and methods for self-localization have been developed. Almost every system described in the literature exploits specific hardware or scenario features to solve the positioning issue, e.g. by using anchor nodes, relying on distances or angles, and even focusing on quite different distances ranging from centimeters to several kilometers. In many cases, the metrics used to evaluate the localization quality have been chosen according to the scenario. In this paper, we thoroughly discuss the most frequently used metrics for evaluating the quality of self-localization techniques. According to our findings, careful handling of some commonly used metrics is strongly required. We further propose an area-based solution that is especially helpful to measure and to compare different localization systems, which only need exact localization in a local context independently from specific scenario or hardware requirements. In this paper, we try to shed light on the question how to compare those very different techniques. In particular, we suggest the use one of two attribute-independent metrics. The first one is a generalization of an already quite popular metric, the (GER), and the latter, the (AR), is a new approach based on the covered area.
KeywordsLocalization quality metrics sensor networks self-organization
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ahmed, A.A., Shi, H., Shang, Y.: SHARP: A New Approach to Relative Localization in Wireless Sensor Networks. In: 25th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS 2005), 2nd International Workshop on Wireless Ad Hoc Networking (WWAN 2005), pp. 892–898. IEEE, Columbus (2005)Google Scholar
- 3.Bulusu, N., Estrin, D., Girod, L., Heidemann, J.: Scalable Coordination for Wireless Sensor Networks: Self-Configuring Localization Systems. In: 6th International Symposium on Communication Theory and Applications (ISCTA 2001). Ambleside, Lake District (July 2001)Google Scholar
- 6.Eckert, J., German, R., Dressler, F.: An Indoor Localization Framework for Four-rotor Flying Robots Using Low-power Sensor Nodes. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 60(2) (to appear, 2010)Google Scholar
- 8.Eckert, J., Villanueva, F., German, R., Dressler, F.: A Self-Organizing Localization Reference Grid. In: 16th ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2010), Poster Session. ACM, Chicago (September 2010)Google Scholar
- 9.Girod, L.D.: A Self-Calibrating System of Distributed Acoustic Arrays. Phd thesis, University of California (December 2005)Google Scholar
- 11.Howard, A., Mataric, M.J., Sukhatme, G.: Relaxation on a Mesh: a Formalism for Generalized Localization. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2001), Maui, HI, pp. 1055–1060 (October 2001)Google Scholar
- 13.Liu, J., Zhang, Y., Zhao, F.: Robust Distributed Node Localization with Error Management. In: 7th ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (ACM Mobihoc 2006), Florence, Italy (May 2006)Google Scholar
- 14.Mao, G., Fidan, B. (eds.): Localization Algorithms and Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks. Idea Group Inc. (IGI), USA (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Priyantha, N.B., Balakrishnan, H., Demaine, E., Teller, S.: Anchor-Free Distributed Localization in Sensor Networks. Tech. Rep. TR-892, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science (April 2003)Google Scholar