Sensor Query Schedule and Sensor Noise Covariances for Accuracy-Constrained Trajectory Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trajectory estimation involves determining the trajectory of a mobile robot by combining prior knowledge about its dynamic model with noisy observations of its state obtained using sensors. The accuracy of such a procedure is dictated by the system model fidelity and the sensor parameters, such as the accuracy of the sensor (as represented by its noise covariance) and the rate at which it can generate observations, referred to as the sensor query schedule. Intuitively, high-rate measurements from accurate sensors lead to accurate trajectory estimation. However, cost and resource constraints limit the sensor accuracy and its measurement rate. Our work's novel contribution is the estimation of sensor schedules and sensor covariances necessary to achieve a <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">specific estimation accuracy</i>. Concretely, we focus on estimating: (<italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">i</i>) the rate or <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">schedule</i> with which a sensor of known covariance must generate measurements to achieve specific estimation accuracy, and alternatively, (<italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ii</i>) the sensor covariance necessary to achieve specific estimation accuracy for a given sensor update rate. We formulate the problem of estimating these sensor parameters as semidefinite programs, which can be solved by off-the-shelf solvers. We validate our approach in simulation and real experiments by showing that the sensor schedules and the sensor covariances calculated using our proposed method achieve the desired trajectory estimation accuracy. Our method also identifies scenarios where certain estimation accuracy is unachievable with the given system and sensor characteristics.
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".