Comparison of 2D Localization Using Radar and LiDAR in Long Corridors
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
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) based Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) systems are often used to map indoor areas and localize mobile systems. LiDAR scan matching performs poorly in environments without rich geometry, such as long hallways or large rooms. LiDAR scan matching often loses confidence in estimating pose along the direction of the hallways or walls. To address this limitation, a mm-wave fixed antenna array radar is proposed as a low-cost aid towards maintaining full pose information during these situations. Localization is performed using a scan matching algorithm that is developed through a correlative method. We provide experimental results and analysis for the scan matching performance of each sensor in a long hallway scenario. Experiments showed that radar scan matching can maintain better pose confidence in the direction of a straight hallway where a similar LiDAR system commonly fails. Therefore, a combination of LiDAR/radar could be ideal for indoor navigation in long corridors and large rooms.
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