DRIFT-FREE INDOOR NAVIGATION USING SIMULTANEOUS LOCALIZATION AND MAPPING OF THE AMBIENT HETEROGENEOUS MAGNETIC FIELD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In the absence of external reference position information (e.g. surveyed targets or Global Navigation Satellite Systems) Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) has proven to be an effective method for indoor navigation. The positioning drift can be reduced with regular loop-closures and global relaxation as the backend, thus achieving a good balance between exploration and exploitation. Although vision-based systems like laser scanners are typically deployed for SLAM, these sensors are heavy, energy inefficient, and expensive, making them unattractive for wearables or smartphone applications. However, the concept of SLAM can be extended to non-optical systems such as magnetometers. Instead of matching features such as walls and furniture using some variation of the Iterative Closest Point algorithm, the local magnetic field can be matched to provide loop-closure and global trajectory updates in a Gaussian Process (GP) SLAM framework. With a MEMS-based inertial measurement unit providing a continuous trajectory, and the matching of locally distinct magnetic field maps, experimental results in this paper show that a drift-free navigation solution in an indoor environment with millimetre-level accuracy can be achieved. The GP-SLAM approach presented can be formulated as a maximum a posteriori estimation problem and it can naturally perform loop-detection, feature-to-feature distance minimization, global trajectory optimization, and magnetic field map estimation simultaneously. Spatially continuous features (i.e. smooth magnetic field signatures) are used instead of discrete feature correspondences (e.g. point-to-point) as in conventional vision-based SLAM. These position updates from the ambient magnetic field also provide enough information for calibrating the accelerometer bias and gyroscope bias in-use. The only restriction for this method is the need for magnetic disturbances (which is typically not an issue for indoor environments); however, no assumptions are required for the general motion of the sensor (e.g. static periods).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".