Low-Cost INS/GPS Integration: Concepts and Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high cost of inertial units is the main obstacle for their inclusion in precision navigation systems to support a variety of application areas. Standard inertial navigation systems (INS) use precise gyro and accelerometer sensors; however, newer inertial devices with compact, lower precision sensors have become available in recent years. This group of instruments, called motion sensors, is six to eight times less costly than a standard INS. Given their weak stand-alone accuracy and poor run-to-run stability, such devices are not usable as sole navigation systems. Even the integration of a motion sensor into a navigation system as a supporting device requires the development of non-traditional approaches and algorithms. The objective of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using a motion sensor, specifically the MotionPak™, integrated with DGPS and DGLONASS information, to provide accurate position and attitude information, and to assess its capability to bridge satellite outages for up to 20 seconds. The motion sensor has three orthogonally mounted ‘solid-state’ micro- machined quartz angular rate sensors, and three high performance linear servo accelerometers mounted in a compact, rugged package. Advanced algorithms are used to integrate the GPS and motion sensor data. These include INS error damping, calculated platform corrections using DGPS (or DGPS/DGLONASS) output, velocity correction, attitude correction and error model estimation for prediction. This multi-loop algorithm structure is very robust, which guarantees a high level of software reliability. Vehicular and aircraft test trials were conducted with the system in land vehicle mode and the results are discussed. Simulated outages in GPS availability were made to assess the bridging accuracy of the system. Results show that a bridging accuracy of up to 3 m after 10 seconds in vehicular mode and a corresponding accuracy of 6 m after 20 seconds in aircraft mode can be obtained, depending on vehicle dynamics and the specific MotionPak™ unit used. The attitude accuracy was on the order of 22 to 25 arcmin for roll and pitch, and about 44 arcmin for heading.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".