Centralized Measurement Level Fusion of GNSS and Inertial Sensors for Robust Positioning and Navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current era, which is characterized by increasing demand for high-precision location and navigation capabilities, various industries, including those involved in intelligent vehicle systems, logistics, augmented reality, and more, heavily rely on accurate location information to optimize processes and deliver personalized experiences. In this context, the integration of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and inertial sensor technologies in smartphones has emerged as a critical solution to meet these demands. This research paper presents an algorithm that combines a GNSS with a modified downdate algorithm (MDDA) for satellite selection and integrates inertial navigation systems (INS) in both loosely and tightly coupled configurations. The primary objective was to harness the inherent strengths of these onboard sensors for navigation in challenging environments. These algorithms were meticulously designed to enhance performance and address the limitations encountered in harsh terrain. To evaluate the effectiveness of these proposed systems, vehicular experiments were conducted under diverse GNSS observation conditions. The experimental results clearly illustrate the considerable improvements achieved by the recommended tightly coupled (TC) algorithm when integrated with MDDA, in contrast to the loosely coupled (LC) algorithm. Specifically, the TC algorithm demonstrated a remarkable reduction of over 90% in 2D position root mean square error (RMSE) and a 75% reduction in 3D position RMSE when compared to solutions utilizing the weighting matrix provided by Google with all visible satellites. These findings underscore the substantial advancements in precision resulting from the integration of GNSS and INS technologies, thereby unlocking the full potential of transformative applications in the realm of intelligent vehicle navigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".