MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807655381 · doi:10.1109/plans.2018.8373525

An optimal virtual inertial sensor framework using wavelet cross covariance

2018· article· en· W2807655381 on OpenAlexaff
Yuming Zhang, Haotian Xu, Ahmed Radi, Roberto Molinari, Stéphane Guerrier, Mucyo Karemera, Naser El‐Sheimy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGyroscopeComputer scienceInertial measurement unitProbabilistic logicCovarianceStochastic processCalibrationWaveletProcess (computing)Inertial frame of referenceBasis (linear algebra)Control engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of inertial sensor calibration has commonly been carried out by taking into account the deterministic and stochastic components of the error measurements issued from a calibration session. Once the deterministic components have been taken into account through physical models, the remaining stochastic component has always been dealt with for each sensor separately. The latter process involves estimating complex probabilistic models for each sensor which has been proven to be extremely complicated over the past years, although recent proposals have allowed to overcome most of the limitations that have characterized this task. However, the separate stochastic calibration of the individual sensors composing an inertial measurement unit may not be wise in many cases since there can be considerable degrees of dependence between the sensors, especially between the gyroscopes. For this reason, there has been growing attention towards this issue in order to consider the influence of the stochastic behaviour of the sensors on each other, with few proposals that address this problem. Among these proposals there has been the idea of integrating the information coming from the different gyroscopes so as to build a virtual gyroscope. In this paper we build on this idea and, using a recently proposed method for multivariate signal modelling, we deliver a general and flexible framework that allows to consider many different modelling options which provide the basis to construct a virtual sensor that optimally combines the information from the individual sensors and considerably improves navigation accuracy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207