Removing residual airborne sensor motion for measuring seismic signals from a drone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquiring seismic data using drones requires excellent knowledge of the drone’s motion since positional measurements made from an airborne sensor represent a combination of sensor and ground motion. Recent advancements in laser Doppler vibrometry and repeat lidar surveys show that the frequency and resolution of non-contact motion measurements is increasing to the point necessary for measuring seismic signals. We explore the conditions under which separation of sensor motion from ground motion can be accomplished in practice. We assume (i) that the translation and rotation of a stabilized airborne sensor follows an analytic form in time that is either known or can be estimated from the sensor’s measurements, (ii) that the seismic signal we observe has compact support contained within the measurement window, and (iii) that the ground motion can be described by a rigid translation. We analyze the effectiveness of our signal separation problem as a function of peak signal, sensor noise level, sensor rotation angle, and sensor point sampling density by defining a boundary where SNR = 0 dB for various combinations of these parameters. We find that under the set of assumptions, lower rotation angles, lower sensor noise, and denser point samplings on the ground provide better signal separation using our method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".