A New Tightly-Coupled Dual-VIO for a Mobile Manipulator With Dynamic Locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces a new dual monocular visual-inertial odometry (dual-VIO) strategy for a mobile manipulator operating under dynamic locomotion, i.e., coordinated movement involving both the base platform and the manipulator arm. Our approach has been motivated by challenges arising from inaccurate estimation due to coupled excitation when the mobile manipulator is engaged in dynamic locomotion in cluttered environments. The technique maintains two independent monocular VIO modules, with one at the mobile base and the other at the end-effector, which are tightly coupled at the low level of the factor graph. The proposed method treats each monocular visual-inertial odometry (VIO) with respect to each other as a positional anchor through arm-kinematics. These anchor points provide a soft geometric constraint during the VIO pose optimization. This allows us to stabilize both estimators in case of instability of one estimator in highly dynamic locomotions. The performance of our approach has been demonstrated through extensive experimental testing with a mobile manipulator tested in comparison to running dual VINS-Mono in parallel. We envision that our method can also provide a foundation toward active-simultaneous localization and mapping with a new perspective on multi-VIO fusion and system redundancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".