Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition
• 36 submissions from 32 teams
• 21 teams with 22 systems eventually participated
• Academia, Industry, Startups
• Submissions were classified into two categories
• Infrastructure-free (9 teams)
• No hardware deployment
• WiFi and sensors (accelerometer, gyro, etc.)
• Infrastructure-based (13 teams)
• Custom hardware deployment (magnetic, custom RF, light-based, etc.)
Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition
• 2-day event
• Day 1: Sunday
• Teams were given 7 hours to setup and
calibrate their systems
• Day 2: Monday
• Each team was asked to provide the
coordinates of 20 test points
• Test points’ coordinates were manually
measured using laser range finders
• Evaluation Metric
• Average localization error across the 20
test points
Microsoft Indoor Localization Competition
11
Average Localization Error in meters
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Team
Infrastructure Based
Infrastructure Free
1st
MapUme
Martin Klepal and Christian Beder
(Cork University of Technology)
1.6m
error
EasyPoint
Arne Bestmann, Ronne Reimann
(Lamda:4 Entwicklungen GmbH)
0.7m
error
Visible Light Localization
L. Li, C. Zhao, J. Shen, F. Zhao
(Microsoft Research)
2m
error
$1000
2nd
$500
3rd
Accurate Multi-Sensor Localization on Android
C. Laoudias, G. Larkou, C. Li, Y.-K. Tsai, D.
2m
Zeinalipour-Yazti, C. G. Panayiotou
error
(University of Cyprus)
WiFi-based Indoor Localization
H. Zou, H. Jiang, L. Xie
(Nanyang Technological University)
2.2m
error
$300
4th
$200
An Indoor Location Solution for Mobile Devices
A. S. Ferraz, A. G. Alvino, L. Q. L. Martins, P. A. Bello
2.8m
(Ubee S.A.)
error
FUBLoc
S. Adler, S. Schmitt, Y. Yang, Y. Zhao, M. Kyas
2m
(Freie Universitat Berlin)
error
ALPS: An Ultrasonic Localization System
P. Lazik, N. Rajagopal, B. Sinopoli, A. Rowe
2.1m
(Carnegie Mellon University)
error
Automated Evaluation Process
Competitor
Manual
Automated
EasyPoint
0.72 m
0.72 m [20 points]
MapUme
1.56 m
1.71 m [18 points]
Evaluation point impact
Room without the origin point
Furniture was rearranged between setup and evaluation
Room containing the origin point
Hallway
Furniture remained the same between setup and evaluation
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7 Point 8 Point 9 Point 10 Point 11 Point 12 Point 13 Point 14 Point 15 Point 16 Point 17 Point 18 Point 19 Point 20
Klepal et al.
Laoudias et al.
Zou et al.
Ferraz et al.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7 Point 8 Point 9 Point 10 Point 11 Point 12 Point 13 Point 14 Point 15 Point 16 Point 17 Point 18 Point 19 Point 20
Bestmann et al.
Li et al.
Adler et al.
Lazik et al.
A huge THANKS to
Jie Liu
Vlado
Handziski
Filip Lemic
Jasper Buesch