Automotive Speed Estimation: Sensor Types and Error Characteristics from OBD-II to ADAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern on-road navigation systems heavily depend on integrating speed measurements with inertial navigation systems (INS) and global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). Telemetry-based applications typically source speed data from the On-Board Diagnostic II (OBD-II) system. However, the method of deriving speed, as well as the types of sensors used to measure wheel speed, differs across vehicles. These differences result in varying error characteristics that must be accounted for in navigation and autonomy applications. This paper addresses this gap by examining the diverse speed-sensing technologies employed in standard automotive systems and alternative techniques used in advanced systems designed for higher levels of autonomy, such as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), Autonomous Driving (AD), or surveying applications. We propose a method to identify the type of speed sensor in a vehicle and present strategies for accurately modeling its error characteristics. To validate our approach, we collected and analyzed data from three long real road trajectories conducted in urban environments in Toronto and Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The results underscore the critical role of integrating multiple sensor modalities to achieve more accurate speed estimation, thus improving automotive navigation state estimation, particularly in GNSS-denied environments.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".