MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378575687 · doi:10.3390/s23115119

Radar/INS Integration and Map Matching for Land Vehicle Navigation in Urban Environments

2023· article· en· W4378575687 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohamed Elkholy, Mohamed Elsheikh, Naser El‐Sheimy

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGNSS applicationsInertial navigation systemAir navigationComputer scienceRadarSensor fusionReal-time computingMultipath propagationGNSS augmentationInertial measurement unitKalman filterDead reckoningRemote sensingGlobal Positioning SystemComputer visionGeographyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsInertial frame of reference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous navigation requires multi-sensor fusion to achieve a high level of accuracy in different environments. Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers are the main components in most navigation systems. However, GNSS signals are subject to blockage and multipath effects in challenging areas, e.g., tunnels, underground parking, and downtown or urban areas. Therefore, different sensors, such as inertial navigation systems (INSs) and radar, can be used to compensate for GNSS signal deterioration and to meet continuity requirements. In this paper, a novel algorithm was applied to improve land vehicle navigation in GNSS-challenging environments through radar/INS integration and map matching. Four radar units were utilized in this work. Two units were used to estimate the vehicle's forward velocity, and the four units were used together to estimate the vehicle's position. The integrated solution was estimated in two steps. First, the radar solution was fused with an INS through an extended Kalman filter (EKF). Second, map matching was used to correct the radar/INS integrated position using OpenStreetMap (OSM). The developed algorithm was evaluated using real data collected in Calgary's urban area and downtown Toronto. The results show the efficiency of the proposed method, which had a horizontal position RMS error percentage of less than 1% of the distance traveled for three minutes of a simulated GNSS outage.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207