On Semidefinite Relaxations for Matrix-Weighted State-Estimation Problems in Robotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been remarkable progress in the development of so-called certifiable perception methods, which leverage semidefinite, convex relaxations to find global optima of perception problems in robotics. However, many of these relaxations rely on simplifying assumptions that facilitate the problem formulation, such as an isotropic measurement noise distribution. In this paper, we explore the tightness of the semidefinite relaxations of matrix-weighted (anisotropic) state-estimation problems and reveal the limitations lurking therein: matrix-weighted factors can cause convex relaxations to lose tightness. In particular, we show that the semidefinite relaxations of localization problems with matrix weights may be tight only for low noise levels. To better understand this issue, we introduce a theoretical connection between the posterior uncertainty of the state estimate and the certificate matrix obtained via convex relaxation. With this connection in mind, we empirically explore the factors that contribute to this loss of tightness and demonstrate that redundant constraints can be used to regain it. As a second technical contribution of this paper, we show that the state-of-the-art relaxation of scalar-weighted SLAM cannot be used when matrix weights are considered. We provide an alternate formulation and show that its SDP relaxation is not tight (even for very low noise levels) unless specific redundant constraints are used. We demonstrate the tightness of our formulations on both simulated and real-world data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".