IMU as an Input vs a Measurement of the State in Inertial-Aided State Estimation
<|reference_start|>IMU as an Input vs a Measurement of the State in Inertial-Aided State Estimation: In this technical report, we compare treating an IMU as an input to a motion model against treating it as a measurement of the state in a continuous-time state estimation framework. Treating IMU measurements as inputs to a motion model and then preintegrating these measurements has almost become a de-facto standard in many robotics applications. However, this approach has a few shortcomings. First, it conflates the IMU measurement noise with the underlying process noise. Second, it is unclear how the state will be propagated in the case of IMU measurement dropout. Third, it does not lend itself well to dealing with multiple high-rate sensors such as a lidar and an IMU or multiple IMUs. In this work, we methodically compare the performance of these two approaches on a 1D simulation and show that they perform identically, assuming that each method's hyperparameters have been tuned on a training set. We show how to preintegrate heterogeneous factors using Gaussian process interpolation. We also provide results for our continuous-time lidar-inertial odometry in simulation and on the Newer College Dataset. Code for our lidar-inertial odometry can be found at: https://github.com/utiasASRL/steam_icp<|reference_end|>
@article{burnett2024imu,
    title={IMU as an Input vs. a Measurement of the State in Inertial-Aided State
  Estimation},
    author={Keenan Burnett, Angela P. Schoellig, Timothy D. Barfoot},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05968},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2403.05968},
    primaryClass={cs.RO}
}