MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415353261 · doi:10.1109/lra.2025.3623436

Breaking the Static Assumption: A Dynamic-Aware LIO Framework via Spatio-Temporal Normal Analysis

2025· article· W4415353261 on OpenAlexaff
Cedric Le Gentil, Minghao Lu, Qiyuan Qiao, Bowen Xu, Yuhua Qi, Peng Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Point cloudPoint (geometry)Face (sociological concept)Perspective (graphical)Identification (biology)Dynamic dataDependency (UML)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the challenge of Lidar-Inertial Odometry (LIO) in dynamic environments, where conventional methods often fail due to their static-world assumptions. Traditional LIO algorithms perform poorly when dynamic objects dominate the scenes, particularly in geometrically sparse environments. Current approaches to dynamic LIO face a fundamental challenge: accurate localization requires a reliable identification of static features, yet distinguishing dynamic objects necessitates precise pose estimation. Our solution breaks this circular dependency by integrating dynamic awareness directly into the point cloud registration process. We introduce a novel dynamic-aware iterative closest point algorithm that leverages spatio-temporal normal analysis, complemented by an efficient spatial consistency verification method to enhance static map construction. Experimental evaluations demonstrate significant performance improvements over state-of-the-art LIO systems in challenging dynamic environments with limited geometric structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207