When to Trust the BIM: Identifiability-Aware LiDAR-Inertial--BIM Fusion under As-Built Deviations
When to Trust the BIM: Identifiability-Aware LiDAR-Inertial--BIM Fusion under As-Built Deviations
This research presents a method for robot localization that fuses LiDAR-inertial odometry with building information models (BIM) while accounting for as-built deviations.
Source: arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · Read original article ↗
Loading article text…
What the source reports
Publisher-reported claims, with original evidence. These results have not been independently verified by RoboSignal.
Reported numbers
conditions
0
View original evidence
bution 5,574 times, with no incorrect attributions. In paired fault injections in a laboratory room with its IFC model and on three floors of the SLABIM dataset, it raised no off-target attribution (0 of 168 conditions in the laboratory; 0 of 1,302 on SLABIM) and attributed all eight laboratory faults predicted to be attributable, whereas both reproduced baselines raised off-target structural flags in every setting.
Open source S5cases
1,302
View original evidence
bution 5,574 times, with no incorrect attributions. In paired fault injections in a laboratory room with its IFC model and on three floors of the SLABIM dataset, it raised no off-target attribution (0 of 168 conditions in the laboratory; 0 of 1,302 on SLABIM) and attributed all eight laboratory faults predicted to be attributable, whereas both reproduced baselines raised off-target structural flags in every setting.
Open source S5faults
8
View original evidence
bution 5,574 times, with no incorrect attributions. In paired fault injections in a laboratory room with its IFC model and on three floors of the SLABIM dataset, it raised no off-target attribution (0 of 168 conditions in the laboratory; 0 of 1,302 on SLABIM) and attributed all eight laboratory faults predicted to be attributable, whereas both reproduced baselines raised off-target structural flags in every setting.
Open source S5conditions
168
View original evidence
bution 5,574 times, with no incorrect attributions. In paired fault injections in a laboratory room with its IFC model and on three floors of the SLABIM dataset, it raised no off-target attribution (0 of 168 conditions in the laboratory; 0 of 1,302 on SLABIM) and attributed all eight laboratory faults predicted to be attributable, whereas both reproduced baselines raised off-target structural flags in every setting.
Open source S5cases
5,600
View original evidence
s BIM updates and BIM-based pose corrections in the ambiguous directions, and recovers once new references arrive. In the pre-registered two-dimensional study, on cases whose fault is detectable but not attributable, the method's conditional error rate was 0.83%, against 31.67% for a baseline with uncertainty-based abstention at the same answer rate. On the 5,600 attributable cases, the method reported a unique attri
Open source S4
- paper: not_reported
Source excerpts and review record
Automatically extracted; no manual editorial approval recorded.
s BIM updates and BIM-based pose corrections in the ambiguous directions, and recovers once new references arrive. In the pre-registered two-dimensional study, on cases whose fault is detectable but not attributable, the method's conditional error rate was 0.83%, against 31.67% for a baseline with uncertainty-based abstention at the same answer rate. On the 5,600 attributable cases, the method reported a unique attri
Open source S4
bution 5,574 times, with no incorrect attributions. In paired fault injections in a laboratory room with its IFC model and on three floors of the SLABIM dataset, it raised no off-target attribution (0 of 168 conditions in the laboratory; 0 of 1,302 on SLABIM) and attributed all eight laboratory faults predicted to be attributable, whereas both reproduced baselines raised off-target structural flags in every setting.
Open source S5
Source：arXiv Robotics — research abstracts · arxiv.org