Toward Certifying Maps for Safe Registration-Based Localization Under Adverse Conditions
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
In this letter, we propose a way to model the resilience of the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm in the presence of corrupted measurements. In the context of autonomous vehicles, certifying the safety of the localization process poses a significant challenge. As robots evolve in a complex world, various types of noise can impact the measurements. Conventionally, this noise has been assumed to be distributed according to a zero-mean Gaussian distribution. However, this assumption does not hold in numerous scenarios, including adverse weather conditions, occlusions caused by dynamic obstacles, or long-term changes in the map. In these cases, the measurements are instead affected by large and deterministic faults. This letter introduces a closed-form formula approximating the pose error resulting from an ICP algorithm when subjected to the most detrimental adverse measurements. Using this formula, we develop a metric to certify and pinpoint specific regions within the environment where the robot is more vulnerable to localization failures in the presence of faults in the measurements.
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