MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401607316 · doi:10.1109/tro.2024.3443699

GNSS/Multisensor Fusion Using Continuous-Time Factor Graph Optimization for Robust Localization

2024· article· en· W4401607316 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGNSS applicationsSensor fusionFactor graphComputer scienceFusionFactor (programming language)Robustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmGlobal Positioning SystemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate and robust vehicle localization in highly urbanized areas is challenging. Sensors are often corrupted in those complicated and large-scale environments. This article introduces <monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">gnssFGO</monospace>, a global and online trajectory estimator that fuses global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) observations alongside multiple sensor measurements for robust vehicle localization. In <monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">gnssFGO</monospace>, we fuse asynchronous sensor measurements into the graph with a continuous-time trajectory representation using Gaussian process (GP) regression. This enables querying states at arbitrary timestamps without strict state and measurement synchronization. Thus, the proposed method presents a generalized factor graph for multisensor fusion. To evaluate and study different GNSS fusion strategies, we fuse GNSS measurements in loose and tight coupling with a speed sensor, inertial measurement unit, and LiDAR-odometry. We employed datasets from measurement campaigns in Aachen, Düsseldorf, and Cologne and presented comprehensive discussions on sensor observations, smoother types, and hyperparameter tuning. Our results show that the proposed approach enables robust trajectory estimation in dense urban areas where a classic multisensor fusion method fails due to sensor degradation. In a test sequence containing a 17-km route through Aachen, the proposed method results in a mean 2-D positioning error 0.48 m while fusing raw GNSS observations with LiDAR odometry in a tight coupling

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.210 · 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