A Multisensor Fusion With Automatic Vision–LiDAR Calibration Based on Factor Graph Joint Optimization for SLAM
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
Combining multiple sensors for environment sensing and self-positioning is significant for automatic driving. This paper proposes a novel simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) system framework that integrates the information ofmultiple sensors including camera, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), and Global Positioning System (GPS) based on vision-LiDAR calibration. Different sensors are fused in a tightly coupled manner and finally optimized by a factor graph. The automatic vision-LiDAR calibration (AVLC) is proposed in this paper to reduce the error caused by the unexpected change in the sensor. Further, the semantic map is established by the target detection module, which provides convenience for navigation and obstacle avoidance. The proposed algorithm uses the Complex-YOLO for 3D object recognition and then combines the recognition results with the semi-dense point cloud map generated by the multi-sensor fusion positioning algorithm with AVLC to achieve the purpose of enriching map information. Extensive experiments on multiple datasets show that the proposed algorithm has higher accuracy and robustness than other existing algorithms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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