A Question of Time: Revisiting the Use of Recursive Filtering for Temporal Calibration of Multisensor Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the problem of time delay estimation, or temporal calibration, in the context of multisensor data fusion. Differences in processing intervals and other factors typically lead to a relative delay between measurement updates from disparate sensors. Correct (optimal) data fusion demands that the relative delay must either be known in advance or identified online. There have been several recent proposals in the literature to determine the delay using recursive, causal filters such as the extended Kalman filter (EKF). We carefully review this formulation and show that there are fundamental issues with the structure of the EKF (and related algorithms) when the delay is included in the filter state vector as a parameter to be estimated. These structural issues, in turn, leave recursive filters prone to bias and inconsistency. Our theoretical analysis is supported by simulation studies that demonstrate the implications in terms of filter performance; although tuning of the filter noise variances may reduce the chance of inconsistency or divergence, the underlying structural concerns remain. We offer brief suggestions for ways to maintain the computational efficiency of recursive filtering for temporal calibration while avoiding the drawbacks of the standard filtering algorithms.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".