Incorporating control inputs in continuous-time Gaussian process state estimation for robotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Continuous-time batch state estimation using Gaussian processes is an efficient approach to estimate the trajectories of robots over time. In the past, relatively simple physics-motivated priors have been considered for such approaches, using assumptions such as constant velocity or acceleration. This paper presents an approach to incorporating exogenous control inputs, such as velocity or acceleration commands, into the continuous Gaussian process state estimation framework. It is shown that this approach generalizes across different domains in robotics, making it applicable to both the estimation of continuous-time trajectories for mobile robots and the estimation of quasi-static continuum-robot shapes. Results show that incorporating control inputs leads to more informed priors, potentially requiring less measurements and estimation nodes to obtain accurate estimates. This makes the approach particularly useful in situations in which limited sensing is available. For example, in a mobile robot localization experiment with sparse landmark distance measurements and frequent odometry control inputs, our approach provides accurate trajectory estimates with root-mean-square errors around 3-4 cm and 4-5 degrees, even with time intervals up to five seconds between discrete estimation nodes, which significantly reduces computation time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".