RADAR/INS TIGHTLY-COUPLED INTEGRATION FOR LAND VEHICLE NAVIGATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Multisensor systems are essential for autonomous navigation applications to achieve reliable accuracy. Integrating the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and the Inertial Navigation System (INS) is the most common integration scheme. However, this integration is unreliable in different scenarios since the GNSS signal may deteriorate in downtown areas or suffer from a blockage in underground and indoor areas. Therefore, other sensors are integrated with INS to compensate for GNSS outages. This paper proposes a novel algorithm for radar/INS tightly-coupled integration for autonomous navigation applications. This algorithm is applied in multiple steps. Radar data analysis is the first and most crucial step to remove the noisy data and the outliers and keep the useful objects. Then, data association is done to match the detected objects between radar frames. The tightly-coupled integration is performed at the measurement level through an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF), where the distance between the INS and the detected objects can be predicted from the INS and measured from the radar. Real data was collected from four Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar units in Calgary's suburban areas and Toronto's downtown area. The proposed algorithm was tested and assessed by introducing simulated GNSS single outages with different durations. The results show an enhancement in the vehicle's position by about 94% to 96%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".