Are Doppler Velocity Measurements Useful for Spinning Radar Odometry?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinning, frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radars with <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$360 ^{\circ }$</tex-math></inline-formula> coverage have been gaining popularity for autonomous-vehicle navigation. However, unlike ‘fixed’ automotive radar, commercially available spinning radar systems typically do not produce radial velocities due to the lack of repeated measurements in the same direction and the fundamental hardware setup. To make these radial velocities observable, we modified the firmware of a commercial spinning radar to use triangular frequency modulation. In this letter, we develop a novel way to use this modulation to extract radial Doppler velocity measurements from consecutive azimuths of a radar intensity scan, without any data association. We show that these noisy, error-prone measurements contain enough information to provide good ego-velocity estimates, and incorporate these estimates into different modern odometry pipelines. We extensively evaluate the pipelines on over <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\text{110 km}$</tex-math></inline-formula> of driving data in progressively more geometrically challenging autonomous-driving environments. We show that Doppler velocity measurements improve odometry in well-defined geometric conditions and enable it to continue functioning even in severely geometrically degenerate environments, such as long tunnels.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".