Extrinsic Calibration of 2D Millimetre-Wavelength Radar Pairs Using Ego-Velocity Estimates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correct radar data fusion depends on knowledge of the spatial transform between sensor pairs. Current methods for determining this transform operate by aligning identifiable features in different radar scans, or by relying on measurements from another, more accurate sensor. Feature-based alignment requires the sensors to have overlapping fields of view or necessitates the construction of an environment map. Several existing techniques require bespoke retroreflective radar targets. These requirements limit both where and how calibration can be performed. In this paper, we take a different approach: instead of attempting to track targets or features, we rely on ego-velocity estimates from each radar to perform calibration. Our method enables calibration of a subset of the transform parameters, including the yaw and the axis of translation between the radar pair, without the need for a shared field of view or for specialized targets. In general, the yaw and the axis of translation are the most important parameters for data fusion, the most likely to vary over time, and the most difficult to calibrate manually. We formulate calibration as a batch optimization problem, show that the radar-radar system is identifiable, and specify the platform excitation requirements. Through simulation studies and real-world experiments, we establish that our method is more reliable and accurate than state-of-the-art methods. Finally, we demonstrate that the full rigid body transform can be recovered if relatively coarse information about the platform rotation rate is available.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it