Temperature compensation model of MEMS inertial sensors based on neural network
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
Micro-electromechanical Systems (MEMS) inertial sensors are lightweight, small size and low-cost sensors that consume less power energy compared to their high-precision bulky counterparts. However, this miniaturization is a double-edged sword and MEMS-based inertial sensors suffer from various error sources, noises and instabilities. Indeed, inertial sensor errors vary with time, temperature and from turn on to turn on. In order to exploit the full potential of a MEMS-based inertial navigation system (INS), and to enhance its accuracy, it is indispensable to develop a temperature-dependent model that compensates these errors. Traditional temperature compensation methods rely on polynomial regression method, which fails to take into account the nonlinearities inherent in the sensor errors. This paper proposes a new temperature compensation model for a full inertial measurement unit (IMU), based on a radial basis function neural network (RBFNN) that compensates the significant deterministic errors of both accelerometer and gyroscope triads in a wide temperature range. A high precision rate table and a thermal chamber are used for accurate testing. The effectiveness of the method is investigated with various static and dynamics tests in the laboratory and with a car, and results are compared with the traditional polynomial fitting 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.
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