MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Doppler Ego-Motion Estimation: A Temporally Weighted Approach to RANSAC

2024· article· en· W4401808629 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Lovett, Kade MacWilliams, Sreeraman Rajan, Carlos Rossa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRANSACArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionMotion estimationMotion (physics)Doppler effectId, ego and super-egoPsychologyImage (mathematics)PhysicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ego-motion estimation from millimetre-wave Doppler are subjected to high levels of outliers caused by multipath reflections. A common method to reduce the effect of outliers is to fit measurement points to a velocity model using the random sample consensus (RANSAC) algorithm, where the velocity model is traditionally parameterized from data collected from a single time step. In this paper, we show that the temporal relationship of data points between successive measurements can be exploited to improve velocity estimation. Two variations of RANSAC with an integrated weighted sliding window are proposed. Each point in the window receives a weight that decreases over time. In the first algorithm, points are sampled with a temporally weighted probability and the velocity model is generated using least square regression (LSQ). In the second algorithm, points are sampled with a uniform probability but the model is parameterized with a temporally weighted LSQ. The motion of the platform is then calculated for both methods. Experimental results using data from three indoor locations demonstrate an average position accuracy improvement of 19.5% over conventional RANSAC implementations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207