An SE(3) Noise Model for Range-Azimuth-Elevation Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scan matching is a widely used technique in state estimation. Point-cloud alignment, one of the most popular methods for scan matching, is a weighted least-squares problem in which the weights are determined from the inverse covariance of the measured points. An inaccurate representation of the covariance will affect the weighting of the least-squares problem. For example, if ellipsoidal covariance bounds are used to approximate the curved, “banana-shaped” noise characteristics of many scanning sensors, the weighting in the least-squares problem may be overconfident. Additionally, sensor-to-vehicle extrinsic uncertainty and odometry uncertainty during submap formation are two sources of uncertainty that are often overlooked in scan matching applications, also likely contributing to overconfidence on the scan matching estimate. This paper attempts to address these issues by developing a model for range-azimuth-elevation sensors on matrix Lie groups. The model allows for the seamless incorporation of extrinsic and odometry uncertainty. Illustrative results are shown both for a simulated example and for a real point-cloud submap collected with an underwater laser scanner.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".