Adaptive Gain Regulation of Sensor Fusion Algorithms for Orientation Estimation with Magnetic and Inertial Measurement Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic and inertial measurement units (MIMUs) proved to be an accurate alternative for optic, electromagnetic, or acoustic measurement technologies. While the orientation of the MIMU could be estimated using accelerometer, gyroscope, or magnetometer sensors alone, many studies proposed sensor fusion algorithms (SFAs) to overcome the drawbacks that appear when each sensor is used individually. However, the performance of such SFAs highly depends on their gains, and poor initialization or incorrect adjustment of the gains would degrade the SFAs’ performance. Therefore, this article proposes a general framework to find the optimal adaptive gain tuning scheme for Kalman filters and complementary filters to achieve accurate and robust orientation estimation with MIMUs. To this end, we proposed an innovative optimization framework to find the fixed optimal gain of an SFA or the optimal adaptive gain regulation scheme. Also, we demonstrated that the designed adaptive gain regulation scheme (a hard switch with two or three levels or a fuzzy inference system) is essential for orientation tracking with various SFAs. We measured the thigh, shank, and foot motion of nine participants while performing various activities using MIMUs and a camera motion-capture system to calculate the MIMUs’ error in 3-D angle estimations. Gain regulation by hard switch was significantly ($p < 0.05$) more accurate and robust than it was for innovation adaptive estimation. Also, for all tested SFAs, hard switching for shank and foot MIMUs was significantly more accurate or robust than that for fixed optimal gain. Our experimental results showed that the adaptive gain tuning of SFAs using optimized gains is crucial, regardless of the algorithm structure or complexity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".