Extrinsic calibration for highly accurate trajectories reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of robotics, accurate ground-truth positioning is the cornerstone for the development of mapping and localization algorithms. In outdoor environments and over long distances, total stations provide accurate and precise measurements, that are unaffected by the usual factors that deteriorate the accuracy of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). While a single robotic total station can track the position of a target in three Degrees Of Freedom (DOF), three robotic total stations and three targets are necessary to yield the full six DOF pose reference. Since it is crucial to express the position of targets in a common coordinate frame, we present a novel extrinsic calibration method of multiple robotic total stations with field deployment in mind. The proposed method does not require the manual collection of ground control points during the system setup, nor does it require tedious synchronous measurement on each robotic total station. Based on extensive experimental work, we compare our approach to the classical extrinsic calibration methods used in geomatics for surveying and demonstrate that our approach brings substantial time savings during the deployment. Tested on more than 30 km of trajectories, our new method increases the precision of the extrinsic calibration by 25 % compared to the best state-of-the-art method, which is the one taking manually static ground control points.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".