Integration of vision and inertial sensors for industrial tools tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper represents a hybrid Vision/INS system for tool tracking applications. The proposed system incorporates low cost MEMS sensors and low cost vision type sensors for tracking industrial tools. Vision systems alone have to deal with the problem of “line of sight” and the INS sensor alone will encounter an exponential drift, which render both systems useless for the proposed application. Design/methodology/approach The Vision/INS system with the integration of the extended Kalman filter calculates 6D position‐orientation of a tool during its operation within the required accuracy tolerance specific to the application at hand. In this paper, a tool motion modeling approach is proposed to limit the error in an acceptable range for a short period of missing data. The motion of the tool is modeled and updated at any time that the instrument is in the camera view field. This model is applied to the estimation algorithm whenever the camera is not in line of site and the optical data is missing. Findings The result of applying motion modeling is shown that the resulted error due to absence of the vision measurement system was bounded and decreased (see the experimental results). Originality/value In this paper, the tool motion modeling is proposed to bind the error in the acceptable range for a short period of missing data. The motion of the tool is modeled and updated at any time that the instrument is in the camera view field. This model is applied to the estimation algorithm whenever the camera is not in line of site and the optical data is missing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".