Accurate outdoor ground truth based on total stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In robotics, accurate ground-truth position fostered the development of mapping and localization algorithms through the creation of cornerstone datasets. In outdoor environments and over long distances, total stations are the most accurate and precise measurement instruments for this purpose. Most total station-based systems in the literature are limited to three Degrees Of Freedoms (DOFs), due to the use of a single-prism tracking approach. In this paper, we present preliminary work on measuring a full pose of a vehicle, bringing the referencing system to six DOFs. Three total stations are used to track in real time three prisms attached to a target platform. We describe the structure of the referencing system and the protocol for acquiring the ground truth with this system. We evaluated its precision in a variety of different outdoor environments, ranging from open-sky to forest trails, and compare this system with another popular source of reference position, the Real Time Kinematics (RTK) positioning solution. Results show that our approach is the most precise, reaching an average positional error of 10 mm and 0.6 deg. This difference in performance was particularly stark in environments where Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals can be weaker due to overreaching vegetation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".