MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104027925 · doi:10.1109/plans.2006.1650673

An Efficient Method for Evaluating the Performance of MEMS IMUs

2006· article· en· W2104027925 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsInertial measurement unitMicroelectromechanical systemsGlobal Positioning SystemComputer scienceInertial navigation systemNoise (video)MiniaturizationField (mathematics)EngineeringInertial frame of referenceElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in MEMS technology combined with the miniaturization of electronics, have made it possible to produce chip-based inertial sensor for use in measuring angular velocity and acceleration. These chips are small, lightweight, consume very little power and are extremely reliable. They have therefore found a wide spectrum of applications in the automotive and other industrial applications. Currently, new MEMS inertial sensors or IMUs developed by various manufacturers continue to emerge on the market. However, such sensors should be evaluated in terms of navigation performance. Common testing in the lab can provide parameters such as sensor noise density and bias instability but cannot predict the corresponding performance of a full navigation system. IMU/GPS field testing is the only way to evaluate the performance of MEMS IMUs especially when GPS signals are temporarily blocked. However, testing every MEMS sensor (or IMU) in the field is not practical since it is a time- consuming and costly task. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is the development of an efficient method for evaluating the navigation performance of any MEMS IMU using lab testing only. The developed method is based on using MEMS sensors static data signals to estimate the MEMS sensor errors. Hence, by grafting these errors into the signals of a high quality IMU (gyro drift of 0.005 deg/h), collected in a previously conducted typical field test, a quasi field dataset of the MEMS is obtained since the high quality IMU signals can be considered as the true inertial sensor. Such emulated MEMS IMU field data can then be processed with the corresponding GPS data collected in the same test to evaluate the MEMS IMU navigation performance. To test the efficiency of the proposed method, several land-vehicle kinematic datasets with GPS, a high-quality IMU and different MEMS IMUs were used. Static data of the same MEMS IMUs was collected and then the proposed method was applied. The performance of the MEMS IMU actual and emulated datasets is compared during several GPS signal blockage periods. The results show that both solutions have a similar behavior with an average difference of only 20% in terms of accumulated position drifts. This illustrates the usefulness of the proposed technique in addition to the cost and time savings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207