Spatial Calibration of IMU/Radar Sensors Using Single Target and Differential IMU Measurements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we address the problem of spatial calibration between a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor. Radar-IMU calibration is particularly valuable as a GPS-independent navigation solution especially in challenging weather conditions where other sensors may fail. Our approach employs a non-linear least squares formulation using the LevenbergMarquardt (LM) optimization algorithm to estimate the extrinsic parameters between the two sensors using a single target. We overcome the challenge of IMU's drift accumulation by using the relative poses of the sensor, and the calibration algorithm is extensively tested under varying poses of the sensor system and noise levels. We use a RANSAC-based plane-fitting algorithm for robust target detection. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, showing that using a single target reflector with approximately 10-20 sensor poses achieves robust alignment, with rotation errors under <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\pm 1$</tex> degree and translation errors under <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\pm 1 ~\text{cm}$</tex>. The proposed technique, therefore, provides an efficient and practical method for calibrating the radar-IMU system.
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.
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 it