A Target-Based Extrinsic Calibration Framework for Non-Overlapping Camera-Lidar Systems Using a Motion Capture System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a novel target-based lidar-camera extrinsic calibration methodology that can be used for non-overlapping field of view (FOV) sensors. Contrary to previous work, our methodology overcomes the non-overlapping FOV challenge using a motion capture system (MCS) instead of traditional simultaneous localization and mapping approaches. Due to the high relative precision of MCSs, our methodology can achieve both the high accuracy and repeatable calibrations common to traditional target-based methods, regardless of the amount of overlap in the sensors’ field of view. Furthermore, we design a target-agnostic implementation that does not require uniquely identifiable features by using an iterative closest point approach, enabled by the MSC measurements. We show using simulation that we can accurately recover extrinsic calibrations for a range of perturbations to the true calibration that would be expected in real circumstances. We prove experimentally that our method out-performs state-of-the-art lidar-camera extrinsic calibration methods that can be used for non-overlapping FOV systems, while using a target-based approach that guarantees repeatably high accuracy. Lastly, we show in simulation that different target designs can be used, including easily constructed 3D targets such as a cylinder that are normally considered degenerate in most calibration formulations.
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".