Spatiotemporal Calibration of 3-D Millimetre-Wavelength Radar-Camera Pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) fuse data from multiple sensors and sensing modalities to impart a measure of robustness when operating in adverse conditions. Radars and cameras are popular choices for use in sensor fusion; although radar measurements are sparse in comparison to camera images, radar scans penetrate fog, rain, and snow. However, accurate sensor fusion depends upon knowledge of the spatial transform between the sensors and any temporal misalignment that exists in their measurement times. During the life cycle of an AV, these calibration parameters may change, so the ability to perform in-situ spatiotemporal calibration is essential to ensure reliable long-term operation. State-of-the-art 3D radar-camera spatiotemporal calibration algorithms require bespoke calibration targets that are not readily available in the field. In this paper, we describe an algorithm fortargetlessspatiotemporal calibration that does not require specialized infrastructure. Our approach leverages the ability of the radar unit to measure its own ego-velocity relative to a fixed, external reference frame. We analyze the identifiability of the spatiotemporal calibration problem and determine the motions necessary for calibration. Through a series of simulation studies, we characterize the sensitivity of our algorithm to measurement noise. Finally, we demonstrate accurate calibration for three real-world systems, including a handheld sensor rig and a vehicle-mounted sensor array. Our results show that we are able to match the performance of an existing, target-based method, while calibrating in arbitrary, infrastructure-free environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".