MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386902748 · doi:10.1109/tro.2023.3311680

Spatiotemporal Calibration of 3-D Millimetre-Wavelength Radar-Camera Pairs

2023· article· en· W4386902748 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionCalibrationArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)RadarSensor fusionRemote sensingImage sensorGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 for <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">targetless</i> spatiotemporal 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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.232 · 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