X-Git-Url: http://git.rohieb.name/bachelor-thesis/written-stuff.git/blobdiff_plain/df75c351fb7b1deeb49fa444b1bef90e13c76290..e29146877ebf1c77b2b31ad1fa804547286b2a21:/Ausarbeitung/experiment2.tex diff --git a/Ausarbeitung/experiment2.tex b/Ausarbeitung/experiment2.tex index c575e4d..ad83cc8 100644 --- a/Ausarbeitung/experiment2.tex +++ b/Ausarbeitung/experiment2.tex @@ -1,35 +1,55 @@ \chapter{Experiment 2: Movement Behaviour with Mean Correction} -\todo +\todo{} -\section{Setup} -Fit function from data in experiment 1; algorithm determined target value for -distance from fit function and input distance and input velocity. +As presumed in Section \ref{exp1:results}, errors in the Roomba's movements +could originate from imprecise measurement of the Roomba's internal sensors or +in the Wiselib implementation. So a natural approach to correct this sort of +errors would be to average the results for each data point from Experiment 1, +find a function that fits the mean measured error depending of the +target velocity and target distance or angle as well as possible, and then +adapting either one of the target parameters so that the resulting movement +would most likely be the desired target value. In this experiment however, only +the target distance resp. the target angle was adjusted, while the velocity +remained unadjusted. + +Fitting the function\index{fit function} was done with \acs{GNU} R\index{GNU R} +through the wrapper script \prog{graph.sh} which is explained in +section~\ref{sec:impl:eval}. In this experiment, a 2-dimensional linear fit for +the measured value was determined by the method of least squares, with target +value (angle or distance) and velocity as input parameters. The fit function was +then used in the algorithm to calculate the adapted target distance or angle. -Setup was the same as in experiment 1. Application on netbook was -"`mean\_correction\_test"', same procedure as in first experiment. +\section{Setup} +The hardware setup was exactly the same as in Experiment 1. However, in this +experiment the application \prog{mean\_correction\_test} was used to measure +data. It did exactly the same as the application from Experiment 1, except that +it adapted the target value according to the method described above. \section{Results} -\begin{figure} +\begin{figure}[p!] \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/iz250flur_drive-mean_data.pdf} - \caption{foo} + \caption{Behaviour with mean correction on laminated floor, straight drive +tests} \end{figure} -\begin{figure} +\begin{figure}[p!] \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/iz250flur_turn-mean_data.pdf} - \caption{foo} + \caption{Behaviour with mean correction on laminated floor, turn tests} \end{figure} -\begin{figure} +\begin{figure}[p!] \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/seminarraum_drive-mean_data.pdf} - \caption{foo} + \caption{Behaviour with mean correction on carpet floor, straight drive +tests} \end{figure} -\begin{figure} +\begin{figure}[p!] \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/seminarraum_drive-mean_data.pdf} - \caption{foo} + \caption{Behaviour with mean correction on carpet floor, turn tests} \end{figure} results better than in experiment 1, very accurate for laminate floor, carpet -floor more spread but still kind of in the middle and less deviation. +floor more spread but still kind of in the middle and less deviation from ideal +value. \todo{statistical values, stddev?}