Radar Teach and Repeat: Architecture and Initial Field Testing
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
Frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) scanning radar has emerged as an alternative to spinning LiDAR for state estimation on mobile robots. Radar's longer wavelength is less affected by small particulates, providing operational advantages in challenging environments such as dust, smoke, and fog. This paper presents Radar Teach and Repeat (RT&R): a full-stack radar system for long-term off-road robot autonomy. RT&R can drive routes reliably in off-road cluttered areas without any GPS. We benchmark the radar system's closed-loop path-tracking performance and compare it to its 3D LiDAR counterpart. 11.8 km of autonomous driving was completed without interventions using only radar and gyro for navigation. RT&R was evaluated on different routes with progressively less structured scene geometry. RT&R achieved lateral path-tracking root mean squared errors (RMSE) of 5.6 cm, 7.5 cm, and 12.1 cm as the routes became more challenging. On the robot we used for testing, these RMSE values are less than half of the width of one tire (24 cm). These same routes have worst-case errors of 21.7 cm, 24.0 cm, and 43.8 cm. We conclude that radar is a viable alternative to LiDAR for long-term autonomy in challenging off-road scenarios. The implementation of RT&R is open-source and available at: https://github.com/utiasASRL/vtr3.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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