Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve outlier detection in LPS TDOA #166

Closed
krichardsson opened this issue Nov 24, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed

Improve outlier detection in LPS TDOA #166

krichardsson opened this issue Nov 24, 2016 · 1 comment
Milestone

Comments

@krichardsson
Copy link
Contributor

krichardsson commented Nov 24, 2016

Today the outlier detection simply discards all measurements that seems unreasonable based on the difference in distance to anchors is grater than a threshold (300 m). We could improve this by:

  1. Anchor-anchor packest that are missing will lead to a value of 0 for the rx time in the packet received by the CF. By checking for 0 in any data we use we can find and discard those.

  2. Anchor-tag packets that are missing could be detected by examining the frame time. We know that the anchors are broadcasting every 2 ms and a frame time greater than 8 * 2 = 16 ms should indicate a lost packet. It is a bit crude but will probably do for now.

krichardsson added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 25, 2016
Now using more realistic times for the messages. Grouped messages in frames as transmitted by the anchors.
krichardsson added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 25, 2016
Updated std dev for the kalman estimator and size of acceptance box
@krichardsson
Copy link
Contributor Author

  1. Has been implemented

  2. Was a bad idea. It adds to much knowledge in the CF about the anchors and their transmit times. We think that it will be better to add a sequence number to the packets to allow the receiver to understand if there are packets missing or not.

Closing this ticket as "good enough" for now.

@krichardsson krichardsson modified the milestone: Next version Nov 28, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant