Inertial Sensing Meets Artificial Intelligence: Opportunity or Challenge?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inertial navigation system (INS) has been widely used to provide self-contained and continuous motion estimation in intelligent transportation systems. Recently, the emergence of chip-level inertial sensors has expanded the relevant applications from positioning, navigation, and mobile mapping to location-based services, unmanned systems, and transportation big data. Meanwhile, benefit from the emergence of big data and the improvement of algorithms and computing power, artificial intelligence (AI) has become a consensus tool that has been successfully applied in various fields. This article reviews the research on using AI technology to enhance inertial sensing from various aspects, including sensor design and selection, calibration and error modeling, navigation and motion-sensing algorithms, multi-sensor information fusion, system evaluation, and practical application. Based on the over 30 representative articles selected from the nearly 300 related publications, this article summarizes the state of the art, advantages, and challenges on each aspect. Finally, it summarizes nine advantages and nine challenges of AI-enhanced inertial sensing and then points out future research directions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".