MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LIDAR-INERTIAL LOCALIZATION WITH GROUND CONSTRAINT IN A POINT CLOUD MAP

2023· article· en· W4389359021 on OpenAlexafffund
Mengchi Ai, I. Asl Sabbaghian Hokmabadi, Mohamed Elhabiby, M. Moussa, Abdelhalim Zekry, Ashraf A. Mohamed, Naser El‐Sheimy

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsOdometryInertial measurement unitLidarPoint cloudArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceMean squared errorRangingTrajectorySimultaneous localization and mappingSensor fusionFactor graphMatching (statistics)RobotRemote sensingMobile robotMathematicsGeographyAlgorithmDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Real-time localization is a crucial task in various applications, such as automatic vehicles (AV), robotics, and smart city. This study proposes a framework for map-aided LiDAR-inertial localization, with the objective of accurately estimating the trajectory in a point clouds map. The proposed framework addresses the localization problem through a factor graph optimization (FGO), enabling the fusion of homogenous measurements for sensor fusion and designed absolute and relative constraints. Specifically, the framework estimates the light detection and ranging (LiDAR) odometry by leveraging inertial measurement unit (IMU) and registering corresponding featured points. To eliminate the accumulative error, this paper employs a ground plane distance and a map matching error to constraint the positioning error along the trajectory. Finally, local odometry and constraints are integrated using a FGO, including LiDAR odometry, IMU pre-integration, and ground constraints, map matching constraints, and loop closure. Experimental results were evaluated on an open-source dataset, UrbanNav, with an overall localization accuracy of 2.29 m (root mean square error, RMSE).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207