Local Quaternion Weighted Difference Functions for Orientation Calibration on Electromagnetic Trackers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of the electromagnetic tracking systems has been always an important issue with application to motion and kinematic analysis. Applications in virtual reality and gesture recognition require not only of improved accuracy but also fast error compensation. Several analytic methods have been used in order to correct the position error and they are well known and fast: polynomial fitting, calibration tables, and more recent, neural networks. We are interested in the orientation calibration of working spaces with possible high distortion conditions. Such conditions are prevalent in virtual environment spaces such as the CAVE and it is not always possible to avoid metallic components in the surroundings. We introduce a calibration method for a multiple-sensor electromagnetic tracking system in an environment with highly electromagnetic distortional conditions. The target system is a twelve-sensor Ultratrak Polhemus Inc./sup /spl trade// system. We compare two possible formulations: global parameter estimation and local parameter estimation for the corrective functions. It is assumed that the inverse quaternion error Q/sup -1//spl isin/ exists and it is a function of the three-dimensional location: Q/sup -1//spl isin/ /spl rarr/ f(x,y,z).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it