An IMU Evaluation Method Using a Signal Grafting Scheme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As various inertial measurement units (IMUs) from different manufacturers appear every year, it is not affordable to evaluate every IMU through tests. Therefore, this paper presents an IMU evaluation method by grafting data from the tested IMU to the reference data from a higher-grade IMU. The signal grafting (SG) method has several benefits: (a) only one set of field tests with a higher-grade IMU is needed, and can be used to evaluate numerous IMUs. Thus, SG is effective and economic because all data from the tested IMU is collected in the lab; (b) it is a general approach to compare navigation performances of various IMUs by using the same reference data; and, finally, (c) through SG, one can first evaluate an IMU in the lab, and then decide whether to further test it. Moreover, this paper verified the validity of SG to both medium- and low-grade IMUs, and presents and compared two SG strategies, i.e., the basic-error strategy and the full-error strategy. SG provided results similar to field tests, with a difference of under 5% and 19.4%-26.7% for tested tactical-grade and MEMS IMUs. Meanwhile, it was found that dynamic IMU errors were essential to guarantee the effect of the SG method.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".