MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LiDAR/Visual SLAM-Aided Vehicular Inertial Navigation System for GNSS-Denied Environments

2022· article· en· W4317892889 on OpenAlexaff
Nader Abdelaziz, Ahmed El‐Rabbany

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGNSS applicationsLidarSimultaneous localization and mappingComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Kalman filterExtended Kalman filterNavigation systemInertial navigation systemArtificial intelligenceComputer visionReal-time computingGlobal Positioning SystemRemote sensingGeographyRobotMobile robotInertial frame of referenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most navigation systems in GNSS-challenged environments rely on GNSS/INS integrated navigation system, with the INS potentially providing reliable positioning during short GNSS outages. However, in the event of a prolonged GNSS signal outage, the performance of the system will be solely dependent on the INS solution, which can lead to significant drift over time. As a result, adding more onboard sensors is crucial to mitigate the limitation the GNSS/INS systems, and thereby increase the robustness of the navigation system. This study proposes a loosely-coupled (LC) integration between the INS, LiDAR simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), and visual SLAM using an extended Kalman filter (EKF). The developed integrated navigation system is tested on the residential and highway drive segments of the raw KITTI dataset, which simulates various driving outdoor environments in terms of feature density and driving speed. In both cases, a complete artificial GNSS outage is enforced. The results show that the proposed INS/LiDAR/visual SLAM integrated system drastically outperforms the use of INS only. The proposed integrated navigation system yielded an average reduction in the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of approximately 95%, 87%, and 53%, in the east, north, and up directions, respectively. Finally, the proposed algorithm outperformed considered state-of-the-art LiDAR SLAM 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207