An Automatic Calibration Approach for the Stochastic Parameters of Inertial Sensors
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 use of Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) for navigation purposes is constantly growing and they are increasingly being considered as the core dynamic sensing device for Inertial Navigation Systems (INS). However, these systems are characterized by sensor errors that can affect the navigation precision of these devices and consequently a proper calibration of the sensors is required. The first step in this direction is usually taken by evaluating the deterministic type of errors, such as bias and scale factor, which can be taken into account through known physical models. The second step consists in finding an appropriate model to describe the stochastic nature of the sensor errors. The focus of this paper is related to the second of such calibration procedures. Indeed, we propose an automatic model selection approach which is particularly appropriate when we observe/collect several independent replicates of the error signal of interest. In short, the proposed approach relies on the Generalized Methods of Wavelet Moments (GMWM) and the Wavelet Variance Information Criterion (WVIC), where we proposed a procedure to compute a Cross-Validation (CV) like estimator of the goodness-of-fit of a candidate model. This estimator provides by construction a tradeoff between model fit and model complexity, therefore allowing rank all candidate models and select the one (or the ones) that appears to be the most appropriate for the task of stochastic sensor calibration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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