Multi-Signal Approaches for Repeated Sampling Schemes in Inertial Sensor Calibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inertial sensor calibration plays a progressively important role in many areas of research among which navigation engineering. By performing this task accurately, it is possible to significantly increase general navigation performance by correctly filtering out the deterministic and stochastic measurement errors that characterize such devices. While different techniques are available to model and remove the deterministic errors, there has been considerable research over the past years with respect to modelling the stochastic errors which have complex structures. In order to do the latter, different replicates of these error signals are collected and a model is identified and estimated based on one of these replicates. While this procedure has allowed to improve navigation performance, it has not yet taken advantage of the information coming from all the other replicates collected on the same sensor. However, it has been observed that there is often a change of error behaviour between replicates which can also be explained by different (constant) external conditions under which each replicate was taken. Whatever the reason for the difference between replicates, it appears that the model structure remains the same between replicates but the parameter values vary. Assuming the model structure has been identified, in this work we therefore consider and study the properties of different approaches that allow to combine the information from all replicates considering this phenomenon, confirming their validity both in simulation settings and also when applied to real inertial sensor error signals. By taking into account parameter variation between replicates, this work highlights how these approaches can improve the average navigation precision as well as obtain reliable estimates of the uncertainty of the navigation solution.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".