1
IEEE SECON 2004
Estimation Bounds for Localization
October 7th, 2004
Cheng Chang
EECS Dept ,UC Berkeley [email protected]
Joint work with Prof. Anant Sahai
(part of BWRC-UWB project funded by the NSF)
2
IEEE SECON 2004
Outline
Introduction– Range-based Localization as an Estimation Problem
– Cramer-Rao Bounds (CRB)
Estimation Bounds on Localization– Properties of CRB on range-based localization
– Anchored Localization (3 or more nodes with known positions) Lower Bounds Upper Bounds
– Anchor-free Localization
– Different Propagation Models
Conclusions
3
IEEE SECON 2004
Localization Overview
What is localization?– Determine positions of the nodes (relative or absolute)
Why is localization important?– Routing, sensing etc
Information available– Connectivity
– Euclidean distances and angles
– Euclidean distances (ranging) only
Why are bounds interesting– Local computable
4
IEEE SECON 2004
Range-based localization
Range-based Localization– Positions of nodes in set F (anchors, beacons) are known, positions of
nodes in set S are unknown
– Inter-node distances are known among some neighbors
5
IEEE SECON 2004
Localization is an estimation problem
Knowledge of anchor positions
Range observations:– adj(i) = set of all neighbor nodes of node I
– di,j : distance measurement between node i and j
– di,j = di,j true+ ni,j (ni,j is modeled as iid Gaussian throughout most of the talk)
Parameters to be estimated :
6
IEEE SECON 2004
Anchored vs Anchor-free
Anchored localization ( absolute coordinates)– 3 or more anchors are needed
– The positions of all the nodes can be determined.
Anchor-free localization (relative coordinates)– No anchors needed
– Only inter-node distance measurements are available.
– If θ={(xi ,yi)T| i є S} is a parameter vector, θ*={R(xi ,yi)T+(a,b) | i ∊ S} is an equivalent parameter vector, where RRT =I2 .
Performance evaluation– Anchored: Squared error for individual nodes
– Anchor-free: Total squared error
7
IEEE SECON 2004
Fisher Information and the Cramer-Rao Bound
Fisher Information Matrix (FIM)– Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) J provides a tool to compute the best
possible performance of all unbiased estimators
– Anchored: FIM is usually non-singular.
– Anchor-free: FIM is always singular (Moses and Patterson’02)
Cramer-Rao Lower bound (CRB)– For any unbiased estimator :
, ( ) cov log ( | ), log ( | )i ji j
J p x p x
1)())ˆ)(ˆ(( JE T
8
IEEE SECON 2004
Outline
Introduction– Range-based Localization as an Estimation Problem
– Cramer-Rao Bounds (CRB)
Estimation Bounds on Localization– Properties of CRB on range-based localization
– Anchored Localization (3 or more nodes with known positions) Lower Bounds Upper Bounds
– Anchor-free Localization
– Different Propagation Models
Conclusions and Future Work
9
IEEE SECON 2004
FIM for localization (a geometric interpretation)
FIM of the Localization Problem (anchored and anchor-free)– ni,j are modeled as iid Gaussian ~N(0,σ2).
– Let θ=(x1,y1,…xm,ym) be the parameter vector, 2m parameters.
10
IEEE SECON 2004
The standard Cramer-Rao bound analysis works. (FIM nonsingular in general)
– V(xi)=J(θ) -1 2i-1,2i-1 and V(yi) =J(θ) -1 2i,2i are the Cramer-Rao bound on the coordinate-estimation of the i th node.
– CRB is not local because of the inversion.
Translation, rotation and zooming, do not change the bounds.
– J(θ)= J(θ*) , if (x*i,y*i)=(xi ,yi)+(Tx ,Ty)
– V(xi)+V(yi)=V(x*i)+V(y*i), if (x*i,y*i)=(xi ,yi)R, where RRT=I2
– J(θ)= J(aθ) , if a ≠ 0
Properties of CRB for Anchored Localization
11
IEEE SECON 2004
Outline
Introduction– Range-based Localization as an Estimation Problem
– Cramer-Rao Bounds (CRB)
Estimation Bounds on Localization– Properties of CRB on range-based localization
– Anchored Localization (3 or more nodes with known positions) Lower Bounds Upper Bounds
– Anchor-free Localization
– Different Propagation Models
Conclusions
12
IEEE SECON 2004
Local lower bounds: how good can you do?
A lower bound on the Cramer-Rao bound , write θl =(xl ,yl)
Jl is a 2×2 sub-matrix of J(θ) . Then for any unbiased estimator , E(( -θl) T( -θl))≥ Jl
-1
Jl only depends on (xl ,yl) and (xi ,yi) , i ∊ adj(l) so we can give a performance bound on the estimation of (xl ,yl) using only the geometries of sensor l 's neighbors.
Sensor l has W neighbors (W=|adj(l)|), then
ll l
13
IEEE SECON 2004
Lower bound: how good can you do?
Jl is the FIM of another estimation problem of (xl ,yl): knowing the positions of all neighbors and inter-node distance measurements between node l and its neighbors.
14
IEEE SECON 2004
Lower bound: how good can you do?
Jl is the FIM of another estimation problem of (xl ,yl): knowing the positions of all neighbors and inter-node distance measurements between node l and its neighbors.
15
IEEE SECON 2004
Lower bound: how good can you do?
Jl is the ‘one-hop’ sub-matrix of J(θ), Using multiple-hop sub-matrices , we can get tighter bounds.(figure out the computations of it)
16
IEEE SECON 2004
Upper Bound: what’s the best you can do with local information.
An upper bound on the Cramer-Rao bound .– Using partial information can only make the estimation less
accurate.
17
IEEE SECON 2004
Upper Bound: what’s the best you can do with local information.
18
IEEE SECON 2004
Outline
Introduction– Range-based Localization as an Estimation Problem
– Cramer-Rao Bounds (CRB)
Estimation Bounds on Localization– Properties of CRB on range-based localization
– Anchored Localization (3 or more nodes with known positions) Lower Bounds Upper Bounds
– Anchor-free Localization
– Different Propagation Models
Conclusions
19
IEEE SECON 2004
Equivalent class in the anchor-free localization
If α={(xi ,yi)T| i є S} , β={R(xi ,yi)T+(a,b) | i ∊ S} is equivalent to α, where RRT =I2 .– Same inter-node disances
A parameter vector θα is an equivalent class θα ={β |β={R(xi ,yi)T+(a,b) | i ∊ S} }
20
IEEE SECON 2004
Estimation Bound on Anchor-free Localization
The Fisher Information Matrix J(θ) is singular (Moses and Patterson’02)
m nodes with unknown position:
– J(θ) has rank 2m-3 in general
– J(θ) has 2m-3 positive eigenvalues λi, i=1,…2m-3, and they are invariant under rotation, translation and zooming on the whole sensor network.
The error between θ and is defined as
Total estimation bounds
2
2',inf)ˆ,( D
)(1
))ˆ,((32
1
VDEm
i i
21
IEEE SECON 2004
Estimation Bound on Anchor-free Localization
The number of the nodes doesn’t matter
The shape of the sensor network affects the total estimation bound.
– Nodes are uniformly distributed in a rectangular region (R=L1/L2)
– All inter-node distances are measured
22
IEEE SECON 2004
To Anchor or not to Anchor To give absolute positions to the nodes is more challenging.
Bad geometry of anchors results in bad anchored-localization.
– 195.20 vs 4.26
23
IEEE SECON 2004
Outline
Introduction– Range-based Localization as an Estimation Problem
– Cramer-Rao Bounds (CRB)
Estimation Bounds on Localization– Properties of CRB on range-based localization
– Anchored Localization (3 or more nodes with known positions) Lower Bounds Upper Bounds
– Anchor-free Localization
– Different Propagation Models
Conclusions
24
IEEE SECON 2004
So far, have assumed that the noise variance is constant σ2.
Physically, the power of the signal can decay as 1/da
Consequences:
– Rotation and Translation still does not change the Cramer-Rao bounds V(xi)+V(yi)
– J(cθ) =J(θ)/ca, so the Cramer-Rao bound on the estimation of a single node : ca V(xi), ca V(yi).
Received power per node:
Cramer-Rao Bounds on Localization in Different Propagation Models
25
IEEE SECON 2004
PR converges for a>2 , diverges for a≤2.
Consistent with the CRB (anchor-free).
Cramer-Rao Bounds on Localization in Different Propagation Models
26
IEEE SECON 2004
Outline
Introduction– Range-based Localization as an Estimation Problem
– Cramer-Rao Bounds (CRB)
Estimation Bounds on Localization– Properties of CRB on range-based localization
– Anchored Localization (3 or more nodes with known positions) Lower Bounds Upper Bounds
– Anchor-free Localization
– Different Propagation Models
Conclusions
27
IEEE SECON 2004
Conclusions
Implications on sensor network design:– Bad local geometry leads to poor localization performance.
– Estimation bounds can be lower-bounded using only local geometry.
Implications on localization scheme design: – Distributed localization might do as well as centralized
localization.
– Using local information, the estimation bounds are close to CRB.
Localization performance per-node depends roughly on the received signal power at that node.
It’s possible to compute bounds locally.
28
IEEE SECON 2004
Some open questions
Noise model
– Correlated ranging noises (interference)
– Non-Gaussian ranging noises
Achievability
Bottleneck of localization
– Sensitivity to a particular measurement
– Energy allocation