CredibleDFGO: Differentiable Factor Graph Optimization with Credibility Supervision

Liang Qian; Li-Ta Hsu; Penggao Yan; Penghui Xu

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 11 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

CredibleDFGO trains a differentiable GNSS factor graph to produce credible covariances by supervising the East-North predictive distribution with proper scoring rules.

2026-06-30 23:32 UTC pith:JU2PD27V

load-bearing objection CDFGO layers proper scoring rule supervision onto DFGO for GNSS covariances and reports concrete gains on three UrbanNav scenes, but all evidence stays within those scenes. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.06100 v2 pith:JU2PD27V submitted 2026-05-07 eess.SP cs.AIcs.LGcs.RO

CredibleDFGO: Differentiable Factor Graph Optimization with Credibility Supervision

Liang Qian , Penggao Yan , Penghui Xu , Li-Ta Hsu This is my paper

classification eess.SP cs.AIcs.LGcs.RO

keywords GNSS positioningdifferentiable factor graph optimizationcovariance credibilityurban navigationproper scoring rulesweighting networkGauss-Newton solver

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper presents CredibleDFGO as an extension of differentiable factor graph optimization for GNSS positioning in cities. Prior approaches improve position fixes through learned measurement weights but leave the reported covariances unreliable in size or orientation. The new method adds a weighting generation network, runs a differentiable Gauss-Newton solver to obtain both the position and its Hessian-derived covariance, and applies negative log-likelihood or energy score losses directly to the predictive distribution. Experiments on three UrbanNav scenes demonstrate gains in both positioning accuracy and covariance metrics, with the largest improvements recorded on the harsh-urban Mong Kok scene. A reader would care because trustworthy uncertainty estimates matter for safe sensor fusion and decision-making when satellite signals are blocked by buildings.

Core claim

CredibleDFGO makes covariance credibility an explicit training target in differentiable factor graph optimization for GNSS. A Weighting Generation Network predicts per-satellite reliability weights, a differentiable Gauss-Newton solver maps these weights to a position estimate and a Hessian-derived posterior covariance, and proper scoring rules supervise the East-North predictive distribution end to end. On the harsh-urban Mong Kok scene, CDFGO-Combined reduces mean horizontal error from 13.77 m to 11.68 m, NLL from 40.63 to 6.59, and ES from 12.31 to 9.05 relative to DFGO (MAE). Case studies link the gains to better axis-wise consistency, more credible local covariance ellipses, and satelli

What carries the argument

The Weighting Generation Network that predicts per-satellite reliability weights, together with end-to-end supervision of the East-North predictive distribution via proper scoring rules applied to the Hessian-derived covariance from the differentiable solver.

Load-bearing premise

That proper scoring rules applied to the East-North predictive distribution will produce covariances whose credibility generalizes beyond the three UrbanNav test scenes and whose improvements are not artifacts of the particular weighting network or solver implementation.

What would settle it

Running CDFGO on a new GNSS dataset collected in a different city and checking whether the NLL and ES improvements over the baseline DFGO still appear.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

Positioning accuracy improves on medium-urban and harsh-urban scenes while covariance credibility metrics improve across all three scenes.
Both mean horizontal error and 95th-percentile error improve on the deep-urban scene.
Satellite-level reweighting produces better axis-wise consistency and more credible local covariance ellipses.
The combined NLL-plus-ES objective yields the largest recorded reductions in error and uncertainty scores on the Mong Kok scene.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Credible covariances could serve as more reliable inputs for downstream fusion with inertial or visual sensors in vehicle navigation stacks.
The same supervision pattern might apply to other differentiable optimization problems that require calibrated uncertainty, such as visual-inertial odometry.
If the credibility holds on new environments, the method could reduce the need for hand-tuned covariance inflation factors in production GNSS pipelines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

CDFGO layers proper scoring rule supervision onto DFGO for GNSS covariances and reports concrete gains on three UrbanNav scenes, but all evidence stays within those scenes.

read the letter

CDFGO adds credibility supervision to differentiable factor graph optimization for GNSS. The core move is training the weighting network so the Hessian-derived covariance matches the East-North predictive distribution under NLL, energy score, or both.

The paper shows this produces measurable lifts. On the harsh-urban Mong Kok scene the combined version drops mean horizontal error from 13.77 m to 11.68 m, NLL from 40.63 to 6.59, and ES from 12.31 to 9.05 versus the DFGO MAE baseline. The case studies connect the change to tighter axis consistency and more sensible satellite weights.

The method is a direct, incremental extension of prior DFGO work rather than a new solver or representation. That keeps the contribution focused and the implementation path clear.

The main limitation is scope. Every number comes from the same three UrbanNav scenes; there are no cross-dataset checks, no architecture ablations on the weighting network, and no sensitivity runs on the Gauss-Newton step. The abstract gives no training-split details or baseline code references, so it is still possible the gains trace to end-to-end differentiability or network capacity instead of the scoring-rule term. The stress-test worry about generalization therefore lands.

This is for people working on calibrated urban GNSS. The central claim is narrow but the reported deltas are large enough to justify referee time. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CredibleDFGO (CDFGO), extending differentiable factor graph optimization (DFGO) for GNSS urban positioning by adding explicit supervision of covariance credibility. A Weighting Generation Network predicts per-satellite weights that feed a differentiable Gauss-Newton solver; the resulting East-North position and Hessian-derived covariance are trained end-to-end with proper scoring rules (NLL, energy score, or their combination). Experiments on three UrbanNav scenes report gains in both positioning accuracy and covariance metrics, e.g., on the harsh-urban Mong Kok scene the combined variant reduces mean horizontal error from 13.77 m to 11.68 m, NLL from 40.63 to 6.59, and ES from 12.31 to 9.05 relative to DFGO (MAE).

Significance. If the credibility gains prove robust, the work would provide a practical route to trustworthy uncertainty estimates in urban GNSS, where conventional solvers produce unreliable covariances. The explicit use of proper scoring rules as differentiable training targets, rather than position-only losses, is a clear methodological advance that directly addresses the mismatch between improved point estimates and mis-calibrated covariances.

major comments (3)

[Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation (Mong Kok results paragraph): the reported reductions in horizontal error, NLL and ES are obtained on the same three UrbanNav scenes used for training the scoring-rule objectives; without explicit held-out splits, cross-dataset testing, or ablation of the WGN architecture versus the credibility loss, it is impossible to determine whether the gains arise from the credibility supervision or from end-to-end differentiability and network capacity.
[Method] Method and solver description: the Hessian-derived posterior covariance is central to the credibility claim, yet no sensitivity analysis or comparison against alternative covariance estimators (e.g., Monte-Carlo or bootstrap) is provided; this leaves open whether the observed NLL/ES improvements are artifacts of the particular Gauss-Newton linearization rather than the scoring-rule supervision.
[Results] Results tables/figures: baseline DFGO (MAE) implementation details, hyper-parameter search ranges, and any data-exclusion criteria are omitted, rendering the quantitative claims (e.g., NLL drop from 40.63 to 6.59) unverifiable and load-bearing for the assertion that credibility supervision is the operative factor.

minor comments (2)

[Method] Notation for the East-North predictive distribution and the precise form of the combined scoring rule could be stated more explicitly in the method section to aid reproducibility.
[Case studies] Figure captions for the covariance ellipses should include the exact percentile or scaling used so that visual credibility claims can be directly compared to the quantitative NLL/ES numbers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment point by point below, providing the strongest honest defense of the manuscript while acknowledging where clarifications or additions are warranted.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation (Mong Kok results paragraph): the reported reductions in horizontal error, NLL and ES are obtained on the same three UrbanNav scenes used for training the scoring-rule objectives; without explicit held-out splits, cross-dataset testing, or ablation of the WGN architecture versus the credibility loss, it is impossible to determine whether the gains arise from the credibility supervision or from end-to-end differentiability and network capacity.

Authors: The DFGO (MAE) baseline employs the identical WGN architecture and differentiable Gauss-Newton solver, differing solely in the training objective. This comparison therefore isolates the contribution of the proper scoring rules. The three UrbanNav scenes correspond to distinct urban regimes (medium-urban, harsh-urban, deep-urban), and per-scene results are reported to demonstrate behavior across difficulty levels. We acknowledge that explicit held-out splits, cross-dataset testing, and a dedicated ablation of WGN capacity versus credibility loss are not present. In revision we will add a limitations paragraph on data partitioning and include an ablation that varies the loss while holding the network fixed. revision: partial
Referee: [Method] Method and solver description: the Hessian-derived posterior covariance is central to the credibility claim, yet no sensitivity analysis or comparison against alternative covariance estimators (e.g., Monte-Carlo or bootstrap) is provided; this leaves open whether the observed NLL/ES improvements are artifacts of the particular Gauss-Newton linearization rather than the scoring-rule supervision.

Authors: The Hessian-derived covariance is the direct, differentiable output of the Gauss-Newton solver used in the original DFGO formulation; this choice preserves end-to-end differentiability and consistency with the baseline. Monte-Carlo or bootstrap estimators are non-differentiable and computationally prohibitive for the joint training objective. Because the baseline DFGO (MAE) uses exactly the same linearization and solver yet shows markedly worse NLL and ES, the observed gains are attributable to the scoring-rule supervision rather than the linearization itself. A short justification paragraph will be added to the method section. revision: partial
Referee: [Results] Results tables/figures: baseline DFGO (MAE) implementation details, hyper-parameter search ranges, and any data-exclusion criteria are omitted, rendering the quantitative claims (e.g., NLL drop from 40.63 to 6.59) unverifiable and load-bearing for the assertion that credibility supervision is the operative factor.

Authors: We agree that these details are required for reproducibility. The revised manuscript will add an appendix (or expanded experimental section) that fully specifies the DFGO (MAE) baseline implementation, hyper-parameter ranges explored, and any data-exclusion criteria applied to the UrbanNav scenes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; training objective and evaluation are distinct

full rationale

The derivation uses a standard differentiable Gauss-Newton solver to produce position and Hessian-derived covariance from WGN weights, then applies independent proper scoring rules (NLL/ES) as the training loss on the predictive distribution versus ground-truth positions. This is not self-definitional, does not rename a fitted quantity as a prediction, and does not rely on self-citation chains or imported uniqueness theorems. Reported gains are empirical results on the three UrbanNav scenes; even if train/test splits are internal to those scenes, the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. No load-bearing step matches the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5837 in / 1145 out tokens · 22852 ms · 2026-06-30T23:32:53.936478+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) positioning is widely used for urban navigation, but the covariance reported by the GNSS solver is often unreliable in urban canyons. Existing differentiable factor graph optimization (DFGO) methods learn measurement weighting through the solver, but they still use position-only objectives. As a result, the position estimate may improve while the reported covariance remains too small, too large, or incorrectly oriented. We propose CredibleDFGO (CDFGO), a differentiable GNSS factor graph framework that makes covariance credibility an explicit training target. A Weighting Generation Network (WGN) predicts per-satellite reliability weights, and a differentiable Gauss-Newton solver maps these weights to a position estimate and a Hessian-derived posterior covariance. We use proper scoring rules to supervise the East-North predictive distribution end to end. We study negative log-likelihood (NLL), the energy score (ES), and their combination. Results on three UrbanNav test scenes show consistent gains in covariance credibility. Positioning accuracy also improves on the medium-urban and harsh-urban scenes; on the deep-urban scene, both the mean horizontal error and the 95th-percentile error improve. On the harsh-urban Mong Kok (MK) scene, CDFGO-Combined reduces the mean horizontal error from 13.77 m to 11.68 m, reduces NLL from 40.63 to 6.59, and reduces ES from 12.31 to 9.05 relative to DFGO (MAE). Case studies link the MK improvement to better axis-wise consistency, more credible local covariance ellipses, and satellite-level reweighting.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Received: Under review Revised: – Accepted: – DOI: – R E G U L A R P A P E R S CredibleDFGO: Differentiable Factor Graph Optimization with Credibility Supervision Liang Qian|Penggao Yan|Penghui Xu|Li-Ta Hsu* 1Department of Aeronautical and Aviation Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China Correspondence *Corresponding author: Li...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[2]

We study three variants

uses as per-factor information weights, and the gradients flow directly through the solver back to the WGN parameters (Amos & Kolter, 2017). We study three variants. CDFGO-NLL optimizes the Gaussian NLL of the East–North posterior, CDFGO-ES optimizes the energy score, and CDFGO-Combined trains against both. We evaluate CDFGO on three UrbanNav test scenes ...

work page 2017
[3]

then refine these vectors to U (1) t and U (2) t , allowing each satellite representation to incorporate the other visible satellites at the same epoch. A final MLP head outputs the per-factor scoresz t fromU (2) t : U (0) t =g proj(Ft),(6) U (1) t =g (1) tr (U (0) t ),U (2) t =g (2) tr (U (1) t ),(7) zt = WGN(Ft; ˜ϕ) =g head(U (2) t ),(8) where ˜ϕdenotes...

work page 2017
[4]

Given the factor weightsΩ i from the WGN, the state ˆXis obtained by solving ˆX= arg min X 1 2 X i∈I ∥fi(X)∥2 Ωi(˜ϕ) ,(11) where fi(X) is the residual of factor i and ∥r∥2 Ω =r ⊤Ωr

Each epoch contributes its own state and pseudorange factors, and the sliding window is used only to form a local batch; no additional inter-epoch factor is introduced. Given the factor weightsΩ i from the WGN, the state ˆXis obtained by solving ˆX= arg min X 1 2 X i∈I ∥fi(X)∥2 Ωi(˜ϕ) ,(11) where fi(X) is the residual of factor i and ∥r∥2 Ω =r ⊤Ωr. For sc...

work page 2017
[5]

After convergence, the solver returns the state estimate ˆX and the posterior covariance (Dellaert & Kaess, 2017), as indicated in Fig

H(k)δX=−g (k),(18) with the gradient termg (k) and the Hessian approximationH (k) given by g(k) = (J(k))⊤Ωr(X (k)),H (k) = (J(k))⊤ΩJ (k).(19) The iterative solver uses a differentiable Gauss–Newton scheme implemented in the Theseus differentiable optimization library (Pineda et al., 2022; Yi et al., 2021). After convergence, the solver returns the state e...

work page 2022
[6]

For the combined objective, α=β= 0.5

The ES objective is estimated with Monte Carlo reparameterization using K= 2048 samples per batch. For the combined objective, α=β= 0.5 . The differentiable Gauss–Newton solver is implemented with Theseus (Pineda et al., 2022), and all reported results use the same pseudorange-only solver setting with a fixed five-epoch sliding time window. 3.2 Metrics, B...

work page 2048
[7]

(b)Adjacent epochs on the same road segment

(a)Selected epoch (epoch 1904). (b)Adjacent epochs on the same road segment. F I G U R E 4Map-domain comparison for the selected MK epoch. In both panels, the colored markers and ellipses denote the horizontal estimates and the corresponding EN posterior covariance. Black stars mark the ground-truth positions. 3.6 Satellite-Level Mechanism Analysis on the...

work page 1904
[8]

Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,

on the MK data. The left panel shows DFGO (MAE), and the right panel shows CDFGO-Combined. Marker color encodes the normalized weight ¯wi, with warmer colors indicating lower trust. Comparing the two panels shows how the credibility objective redistributes weight across azimuth. 4 DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS The experiment results in Section 3 indicate tha...

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.00443 2021
[9]

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155540 Li, L., Elhajj, M., Feng, Y., & Ochieng, W. Y. (2023). Machine learning based gnss signal classification and weighting scheme design in the built environment: A comparative experiment.Satellite Navigation,4,

work page doi:10.3390/s22155540 2023
[10]

R., Zhao, Z., & Li, X.-B

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43020- 023-00101-w Li, X. R., Zhao, Z., & Li, X.-B. (2012). Evaluation of estimation algorithms: Credibility tests.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans,42(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2158095 Li, Z., Yan, P., & Hsu, L.-T. (2026). Logistic-aided Huber M-estimator for rob...

work page doi:10.1186/s43020- 2012
[11]

https://doi.org/10.3390/s19245402 Mohanty, A., & Gao, G. (2023). Learning GNSS positioning corrections for smartphones using graph convolution neural networks.NAVIGATION: Journal of the Institute of Navigation,70(4), navi.622. https://doi.org/10.33012/navi.622 Mohanty, A., & Gao, G. (2024). Tightly coupled graph neural network and kalman filter for smartp...

work page doi:10.3390/s19245402 2023

[1] [1]

Received: Under review Revised: – Accepted: – DOI: – R E G U L A R P A P E R S CredibleDFGO: Differentiable Factor Graph Optimization with Credibility Supervision Liang Qian|Penggao Yan|Penghui Xu|Li-Ta Hsu* 1Department of Aeronautical and Aviation Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China Correspondence *Corresponding author: Li...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

[2] [2]

We study three variants

uses as per-factor information weights, and the gradients flow directly through the solver back to the WGN parameters (Amos & Kolter, 2017). We study three variants. CDFGO-NLL optimizes the Gaussian NLL of the East–North posterior, CDFGO-ES optimizes the energy score, and CDFGO-Combined trains against both. We evaluate CDFGO on three UrbanNav test scenes ...

work page 2017

[3] [3]

then refine these vectors to U (1) t and U (2) t , allowing each satellite representation to incorporate the other visible satellites at the same epoch. A final MLP head outputs the per-factor scoresz t fromU (2) t : U (0) t =g proj(Ft),(6) U (1) t =g (1) tr (U (0) t ),U (2) t =g (2) tr (U (1) t ),(7) zt = WGN(Ft; ˜ϕ) =g head(U (2) t ),(8) where ˜ϕdenotes...

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Given the factor weightsΩ i from the WGN, the state ˆXis obtained by solving ˆX= arg min X 1 2 X i∈I ∥fi(X)∥2 Ωi(˜ϕ) ,(11) where fi(X) is the residual of factor i and ∥r∥2 Ω =r ⊤Ωr

Each epoch contributes its own state and pseudorange factors, and the sliding window is used only to form a local batch; no additional inter-epoch factor is introduced. Given the factor weightsΩ i from the WGN, the state ˆXis obtained by solving ˆX= arg min X 1 2 X i∈I ∥fi(X)∥2 Ωi(˜ϕ) ,(11) where fi(X) is the residual of factor i and ∥r∥2 Ω =r ⊤Ωr. For sc...

work page 2017

[5] [5]

After convergence, the solver returns the state estimate ˆX and the posterior covariance (Dellaert & Kaess, 2017), as indicated in Fig

H(k)δX=−g (k),(18) with the gradient termg (k) and the Hessian approximationH (k) given by g(k) = (J(k))⊤Ωr(X (k)),H (k) = (J(k))⊤ΩJ (k).(19) The iterative solver uses a differentiable Gauss–Newton scheme implemented in the Theseus differentiable optimization library (Pineda et al., 2022; Yi et al., 2021). After convergence, the solver returns the state e...

work page 2022

[6] [6]

For the combined objective, α=β= 0.5

The ES objective is estimated with Monte Carlo reparameterization using K= 2048 samples per batch. For the combined objective, α=β= 0.5 . The differentiable Gauss–Newton solver is implemented with Theseus (Pineda et al., 2022), and all reported results use the same pseudorange-only solver setting with a fixed five-epoch sliding time window. 3.2 Metrics, B...

work page 2048

[7] [7]

(b)Adjacent epochs on the same road segment

(a)Selected epoch (epoch 1904). (b)Adjacent epochs on the same road segment. F I G U R E 4Map-domain comparison for the selected MK epoch. In both panels, the colored markers and ellipses denote the horizontal estimates and the corresponding EN posterior covariance. Black stars mark the ground-truth positions. 3.6 Satellite-Level Mechanism Analysis on the...

work page 1904

[8] [8]

Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,

on the MK data. The left panel shows DFGO (MAE), and the right panel shows CDFGO-Combined. Marker color encodes the normalized weight ¯wi, with warmer colors indicating lower trust. Comparing the two panels shows how the credibility objective redistributes weight across azimuth. 4 DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS The experiment results in Section 3 indicate tha...

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.00443 2021

[9] [9]

https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155540 Li, L., Elhajj, M., Feng, Y., & Ochieng, W. Y. (2023). Machine learning based gnss signal classification and weighting scheme design in the built environment: A comparative experiment.Satellite Navigation,4,

work page doi:10.3390/s22155540 2023

[10] [10]

R., Zhao, Z., & Li, X.-B

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43020- 023-00101-w Li, X. R., Zhao, Z., & Li, X.-B. (2012). Evaluation of estimation algorithms: Credibility tests.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans,42(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2158095 Li, Z., Yan, P., & Hsu, L.-T. (2026). Logistic-aided Huber M-estimator for rob...

work page doi:10.1186/s43020- 2012

[11] [11]

https://doi.org/10.3390/s19245402 Mohanty, A., & Gao, G. (2023). Learning GNSS positioning corrections for smartphones using graph convolution neural networks.NAVIGATION: Journal of the Institute of Navigation,70(4), navi.622. https://doi.org/10.33012/navi.622 Mohanty, A., & Gao, G. (2024). Tightly coupled graph neural network and kalman filter for smartp...

work page doi:10.3390/s19245402 2023