Towards realistic covariance estimation of ICP-based Kinect V1 scan matching: The 1D case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm is a classical approach to obtaining relative pose estimates of a robot by scan matching successive point clouds captured by an onboard depth camera such as the Kinect V1, which has enjoyed tremendous popularity for indoor robotics due to its low cost and good performance. Because the sensed 3D point clouds are noticeably corrupted by noise, it is useful to associate a covariance matrix to the relative pose estimates, either for diagnostics or for fusing them with other onboard sensors by means of a probabilistic sensor fusion method such as the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF). In this paper, we review the sensing characteristics of the Kinect camera, then present a novel approach to estimating the covariance of pose estimates obtained from ICP-based scan matching of point clouds from this sensor. Our key observation is that the prevailing source of error for ICP registration of Kinect-measured point clouds is quantization noise rather than white noise. We then derive a closed-form formula which can be computed in real time onboard the robot's hardware, for the case where only 1D translations are considered. Experimental testing against a ground truth provided by an optical motion capture system validates the effectiveness of our proposed 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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".