Lidar Scan Registration Robust to Extreme Motions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Registration algorithms, such as Iterative Closest Point (ICP), have proven effective in mobile robot localization algorithms over the last decades. However, they are susceptible to failure when a robot sustains extreme velocities and accelerations. For example, this kind of motion can happen after a collision, causing a point cloud to be heavily skewed. While point cloud de-skewing methods have been explored in the past to increase localization and mapping accuracy, these methods still rely on highly accurate odometry systems or ideal navigation conditions. In this paper, we present a method taking into account the remaining motion uncertainties of the trajectory used to de-skew a point cloud along with the environment geometry to increase the robustness of current registration algorithms. We compare our method to three other solutions in a test bench producing 3D maps with peak accelerations of 200 m/s2and 800 rad/s2. In these extreme scenarios, we demonstrate that our method decreases the error by 9.26 % in translation and by 21.84 % in rotation. The proposed method is generic enough to be integrated to many variants of weighted ICP without adaptation and supports localization robustness in harsher terrains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".