pith. sign in

arxiv: 2310.07844 · v2 · pith:L4IEZOVTnew · submitted 2023-10-11 · 💻 cs.RO

Saturation-Aware Angular Velocity Estimation: Extending the Robustness of SLAM to Aggressive Motions

Simon-Pierre Desch\^enes , Dominic Baril , Mat\v{e}j Boxan , Johann Laconte , Philippe Gigu\`ere , Fran\c{c}ois Pomerleau This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 05:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords SLAMangular velocity estimationgyroscope saturationaggressive motionsaccelerometerrobot localizationTIGS datasettumbling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Estimating angular velocity from accelerometers allows SLAM to maintain accuracy when gyroscopes saturate during aggressive robot motions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a method that recovers angular velocity estimates from accelerometer readings specifically when gyroscopes reach saturation limits during fast tumbling rotations. This addresses a failure mode in field robotics where steep terrain or instability causes extreme motions that corrupt standard SLAM sensor fusion. The approach is tested on a new outdoor dataset featuring angular velocities four times higher than prior collections, yielding a 71.5 percent drop in median translation error and 65.5 percent in rotation error. It also prevents mapping failures that otherwise appear in 37.5 percent of trials. A sympathetic reader would care because robots that physically survive a tumble can still complete their mission only if their world model remains intact.

Core claim

The authors establish that angular velocity can be estimated from accelerometers during gyroscope saturation induced by tumbling, thereby extending SLAM robustness. Their saturation-aware estimator reduces median localization error by 71.5 percent in translation and 65.5 percent in rotation relative to standard pipelines. The same method eliminates mapping failures observed in 37.5 percent of experiments without it. They further release the TIGS dataset of mechanical-lidar recordings under these extreme conditions.

What carries the argument

The saturation-aware angular velocity estimator that substitutes accelerometer-derived rotation rates for saturated gyroscope measurements.

If this is right

  • SLAM pipelines continue producing usable maps and poses through motions that would otherwise saturate gyroscopes and trigger failure.
  • Median translation and rotation errors fall by more than 65 percent under the tested tumbling conditions.
  • Mapping failures drop from 37.5 percent of trials to zero in the reported experiments.
  • Outdoor lidar datasets can now include angular rates four times larger than previous collections while still supporting accurate localization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The estimator could be combined with existing bias and scale calibration routines to handle repeated saturation events across longer missions.
  • Similar accelerometer fallback logic might apply to other high-dynamic platforms such as drones or legged robots encountering sudden drops.
  • A direct test would compare the method against an independent motion-capture ground truth during controlled tumble sequences on different robot chassis.

Load-bearing premise

Accelerometer measurements remain usable and contain sufficient information to recover angular velocity during extreme rotations that saturate gyroscopes, without additional unmodeled disturbances such as linear acceleration coupling or sensor saturation in the accelerometers themselves.

What would settle it

Run the SLAM pipeline on a tumbling sequence where measured accelerations deviate from pure centripetal and tangential components predicted by the estimator; if localization error does not drop by roughly 70 percent, the central claim fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2310.07844 by Dominic Baril, Fran\c{c}ois Pomerleau, Johann Laconte, Mat\v{e}j Boxan, Philippe Gigu\`ere, Simon-Pierre Desch\^enes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our robot localization system tumbling down a steep hill. At the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The angular speed is shown through time for the saturated gyroscope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of important quantities in our angular velocity estimation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The left plot shows an example of the angular speed through time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Localization error for every run in the dataset. The percentiles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Density map of the TIGS dataset. The color represents the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Side view of the ground-truth map built for the dataset. The color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a novel angular velocity estimation method to increase the robustness of Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM) algorithms against gyroscope saturations induced by aggressive motions. Field robotics expose robots to various hazards, including steep terrains, landslides, and staircases, where substantial accelerations and angular velocities can occur if the robot loses stability and tumbles. These extreme motions can saturate sensor measurements, especially gyroscopes, which are the first sensors to become inoperative. While the structural integrity of the robot is at risk, the robustness of the SLAM framework is oftentimes given little consideration. Consequently, even if the robot is physically capable of continuing the mission, its operation will be compromised due to a corrupted representation of the world. Regarding this problem, we propose a method to estimate the angular velocity using accelerometers during extreme rotations caused by tumbling. We show that our method reduces the median localization error by 71.5 % in translation and 65.5 % in rotation and is robust to mapping failures, which occurred in 37.5 % of the experiments without our method. We also propose the Tumbling-Induced Gyroscope Saturation (TIGS) dataset, which consists of outdoor experiments recording the motion of a mechanical lidar subject to angular velocities four times higher than other similar datasets available. The dataset is available online at https://github.com/norlab-ulaval/Norlab_wiki/wiki/TIGS-Dataset.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a saturation-aware angular velocity estimation technique that uses accelerometer measurements to recover angular velocity when gyroscopes saturate during aggressive tumbling motions. It claims this improves SLAM robustness, reducing median localization error by 71.5% in translation and 65.5% in rotation while eliminating mapping failures that occurred in 37.5% of baseline experiments, and introduces the TIGS dataset of outdoor mechanical-lidar tumbling sequences with angular velocities four times higher than prior datasets.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work would meaningfully extend SLAM applicability to extreme field conditions where robots lose stability, a scenario common in steep terrain or stair navigation. The TIGS dataset itself is a concrete contribution for benchmarking high-angular-velocity robustness.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the reported 71.5 % / 65.5 % error reductions rest on the unverified premise that accelerometer-derived angular velocity remains unbiased when linear accelerations are present; the body-frame specific-force equation f = a_linear − g − ω × (ω × r) + … is never shown to be inverted without an explicit a_linear model or multi-sensor differencing, so the downstream SLAM gains cannot yet be attributed to the proposed estimator.
  2. [Experiments] Experimental validation section: no quantitative check is described that confirms accelerometer saturation or linear-acceleration coupling remain negligible in the TIGS tumbling sequences; without such a test (e.g., comparison against an external motion-capture reference during peak rotation), the 37.5 % failure-rate improvement cannot be isolated from possible confounding sensor behavior.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The TIGS dataset release link is given only as a wiki page; a direct DOI or permanent archive reference would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below with clarifications on the method derivation and experimental considerations. We agree that explicit details will improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the reported 71.5 % / 65.5 % error reductions rest on the unverified premise that accelerometer-derived angular velocity remains unbiased when linear accelerations are present; the body-frame specific-force equation f = a_linear − g − ω × (ω × r) + … is never shown to be inverted without an explicit a_linear model or multi-sensor differencing, so the downstream SLAM gains cannot yet be attributed to the proposed estimator.

    Authors: The estimator uses multi-accelerometer differencing at known lever arms from the sensor origin. Subtracting pairwise measurements cancels the common a_linear and gravity terms, isolating the centripetal ω × (ω × r) components that are then inverted for ω. We will add an explicit algebraic derivation of this inversion to the method section in the revision so that the SLAM improvements can be directly attributed to the estimator. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments] Experimental validation section: no quantitative check is described that confirms accelerometer saturation or linear-acceleration coupling remain negligible in the TIGS tumbling sequences; without such a test (e.g., comparison against an external motion-capture reference during peak rotation), the 37.5 % failure-rate improvement cannot be isolated from possible confounding sensor behavior.

    Authors: The TIGS sequences are outdoor field recordings; motion-capture ground truth is therefore unavailable. The multi-sensor differencing already removes linear-acceleration coupling by construction. In revision we will add a sensor-range analysis (maximum observed accelerations versus accelerometer specifications) and a discussion of residual coupling effects to strengthen the experimental section. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct motion-capture comparison during peak rotations for the outdoor TIGS dataset

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; experimental error reductions rest on external dataset comparisons

full rationale

The paper's central claims consist of an accelerometer-based angular velocity estimator for SLAM during gyroscope saturation, with reported median error reductions (71.5% translation, 65.5% rotation) and robustness to mapping failures on the TIGS dataset. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes appear in the abstract or description that would reduce any prediction to its inputs by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained via empirical validation against an independent tumbling dataset rather than self-referential definitions or load-bearing prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the method is described at the level of a proposal without mathematical formulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5816 in / 1044 out tokens · 22633 ms · 2026-05-24T05:45:21.717153+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Emergency response to the nuclear accident at the fukushima daiichi nuclear power plants using mo- bile rescue robots,

    K. Nagatani, S. Kiribayashi, Y . Okada, et al. , “Emergency response to the nuclear accident at the fukushima daiichi nuclear power plants using mo- bile rescue robots,” Journal of Field Robotics (JFR) , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 44–63, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    MiniCoRe: A Minia- ture, Foldable, Collision Resilient Quadcopter,

    L. Dilaveroglu and O. Ozcan, “MiniCoRe: A Minia- ture, Foldable, Collision Resilient Quadcopter,” in 3rd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (Ro- boSoft), 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Present and Future of SLAM in Extreme Environments: The DARPA SubT Challenge,

    K. Ebadi, L. Bernreiter, H. Biggie, et al. , “Present and Future of SLAM in Extreme Environments: The DARPA SubT Challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01787, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Information-Theoretic Model Predictive Control: Theory and Applications to Au- tonomous Driving,

    G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information-Theoretic Model Predictive Control: Theory and Applications to Au- tonomous Driving,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T-RO), vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1603–1622, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Lidar Scan Registration Robust to Ex- treme Motions,

    S.-P. Desch ˆenes, D. Baril, V . Kubelka, P. Gigu`ere, and F. Pomerleau, “Lidar Scan Registration Robust to Ex- treme Motions,” in 2021 18th Conference on Robots and Vision (CRV) , IEEE, 2021, pp. 17–24

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Angular velocity estimation of rotating plate using extended Kalman fil- ter with accelerometer bias model,

    J. Lee, H. Kim, S. H. Oh, et al. , “Angular velocity estimation of rotating plate using extended Kalman fil- ter with accelerometer bias model,” Microsystem Tech- nologies, vol. 25, pp. 2855–2867, 7 Jul. 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    LIO-SAM: Tightly-coupled lidar in- ertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,

    T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “LIO-SAM: Tightly-coupled lidar in- ertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 5135–5142

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    LOCUS 2.0: Robust and Computationally Efficient Lidar Odome- try for Real-Time 3D Mapping,

    A. Reinke, M. Palieri, B. Morrell, et al., “LOCUS 2.0: Robust and Computationally Efficient Lidar Odome- try for Real-Time 3D Mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 7, pp. 9043–9050, 4 Oct. 2022

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T-RO) , vol. 38, pp. 2053–2073, 4 Aug. 2022

    work page 2053

  10. [10]

    Di- rect LiDAR-Inertial Odometry: Lightweight LIO with Continuous-Time Motion Correction,

    K. Chen, R. Nemiroff, and B. T. Lopez, “Di- rect LiDAR-Inertial Odometry: Lightweight LIO with Continuous-Time Motion Correction,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3983–3989

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Gyro- free INS Theory,

    M. Pachter, T. C. Welker, and R. E. Huffman, “Gyro- free INS Theory,” NA VIGATION, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 85–96, 2013

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Generalized- ICP,

    A. Segal, D. Haehnel, and S. Thrun, “Generalized- ICP,” in Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) V , Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, 2009

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    LOCUS: A Multi-Sensor Lidar-Centric Solution for High- Precision Odometry and 3D Mapping in Real-Time,

    M. Palieri, B. Morrell, A. Thakur, et al. , “LOCUS: A Multi-Sensor Lidar-Centric Solution for High- Precision Odometry and 3D Mapping in Real-Time,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 421–428, 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Sensor Saturation Compensated Smoothing Algorithm for Inertial Sensor Based Mo- tion Tracking,

    Q. Dang and Y . Suh, “Sensor Saturation Compensated Smoothing Algorithm for Inertial Sensor Based Mo- tion Tracking,” Sensors, vol. 14, pp. 8167–8188, 5 May 2014

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Flydar: Magnetometer-based High Angular Rate Estimation during Gyro Saturation for SLAM,

    C. H. Tan, D. S. bin Shaiful, E. Tang, J.-Y . Khaw, G. S. Soh, and S. Foong, “Flydar: Magnetometer-based High Angular Rate Estimation during Gyro Saturation for SLAM,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 8532–8537

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Correcting Current-Induced Magnetometer Errors on UA Vs: An Online Model- Based Approach,

    M. Silic and K. Mohseni, “Correcting Current-Induced Magnetometer Errors on UA Vs: An Online Model- Based Approach,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 20, pp. 1067–1076, 2 Jan. 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    The Newer College Dataset: Handheld LiDAR, Inertial and Vision with Ground Truth,

    M. Ramezani, Y . Wang, M. Camurri, D. Wisth, M. Mattamala, and M. Fallon, “The Newer College Dataset: Handheld LiDAR, Inertial and Vision with Ground Truth,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 4353–4360

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Hilti- Oxford Dataset: A Millimeter-Accurate Benchmark for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping,

    L. Zhang, M. Helmberger, L. F. T. Fu, et al. , “Hilti- Oxford Dataset: A Millimeter-Accurate Benchmark for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 8, pp. 408–415, 1 Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? The KITTI vision benchmark suite,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun, “Are we ready for autonomous driving? The KITTI vision benchmark suite,” in 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 3354–3361

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    A White- Noise-on-Jerk Motion Prior for Continuous-Time Tra- jectory Estimation on SE(3),

    T. Y . Tang, D. J. Yoon, and T. D. Barfoot, “A White- Noise-on-Jerk Motion Prior for Continuous-Time Tra- jectory Estimation on SE(3),” IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 594–601, 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Full STEAM ahead: Exactly sparse gaussian process regression for batch continuous-time trajectory estimation on SE(3),

    S. Anderson and T. D. Barfoot, “Full STEAM ahead: Exactly sparse gaussian process regression for batch continuous-time trajectory estimation on SE(3),” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 157–164

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Estimation of IMU and MARG ori- entation using a gradient descent algorithm,

    S. O. H. Madgwick, A. J. L. Harrison, and R. Vaidyanathan, “Estimation of IMU and MARG ori- entation using a gradient descent algorithm,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, pp. 1–7

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Kilometer-scale autonomous navigation in subarc- tic forests: challenges and lessons learned,

    D. Baril, S.-P. Desch ˆenes, O. Gamache, et al. , “Kilometer-scale autonomous navigation in subarc- tic forests: challenges and lessons learned,” Field Robotics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1628–1660, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Into the Robotic Depths: Analysis and Insights from the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,

    T. H. Chung, V . Orekhov, and A. Maio, “Into the Robotic Depths: Analysis and Insights from the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 477–502, 2023

    work page 2023