Need for Speed: Fast Correspondence-Free Lidar-Inertial Odometry Using Doppler Velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a fast, lightweight odometry method that uses the Doppler velocity measurements from a Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave (FMCW) lidar without data association. FMCW lidar is a recently emerging technology that enables per-return relative radial velocity measurements via the Doppler effect. Since the Doppler measurement model is linear with respect to the 6-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) vehicle velocity, we can formulate a linear continuous-time estimation problem for the velocity and numerically integrate for the 6-DOF pose estimate afterward. The caveat is that angular velocity is not observable with a single FMCW lidar. We address this limitation by also incorporating the angular velocity measurements from a gyroscope. This results in an extremely efficient odometry method that processes lidar frames at an average wall-clock time of 5.64ms on a single thread, well below the 10Hz operating rate of the lidar we tested. We show experimental results on real-world driving sequences and compare against state-of-the-art Iterative Closest Point (ICP)-based odometry methods, presenting a compelling tradeoff between accuracy and computation. We also present an algebraic observability study, where we demonstrate in theory that the Doppler measurements from multiple FMCW lidars are capable of observing all 6 degrees of freedom (translational and angular velocity).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".