aiqbench analysis
This study isolates the actual contribution of learned motion priors in visual-inertial systems by rigorously controlling for backend changes, calibration, and initialization variables. The findings reveal that performance degradation often stems from inconsistent evaluation metrics or unstable system configurations rather than the prior itself being ineffective. For researchers building robust SLAM pipelines, the key takeaway is that fusion gains cannot be assumed without ensuring strict consistency across all non-learned components of the estimator.
When Do Learned Priors Help Visual Inertial Estimation? A Controlled Study of Prior Integration, Calibration, Initialization, and Backend Consistency
arXiv:2609.13777v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Learned components are increasingly integrated into geometric visual--inertial estimators to provide motion, depth, bias, uncertainty, or confidence cues. Yet it remains unclear whether gains arise from useful learned priors or from changes in the backend, calibration, initialization, temporal association, or evaluation gauge. We present a controlled framework for learning-augmented visual--inertial estimation that separates fusion gain from the incremental value of a learned prior and evaluates four evidence layers: local motion consistency, global trajectory accuracy, physical-state correctness, and numerical consistency. We instantiate the framework with a MonoViT-based monocular motion prior added as a local relative-motion factor to an unchanged VINS backend. We compare Original VINS and learned-prior VINS under matched sensor streams, timestamps, initialization, frontend/backend settings, and camera--IMU extrinsics, while probing calibration, initialization, state coupling, scale, bundle adjustment, and loop closure. On KITTI, with fixed reference extrinsics, translation APE RMSE is 31.4 m for Original VINS and 31.8 m with the learned prior. Across four recordings, the prior changes mean APE by only -0.2%, while a five-times-higher weight worsens it by 8.2%. Online extrinsic updates increase mean APE by 45.7% and 52.1%, respectively, while mean RPE changes by less than 2%. These results show that fusion performance alone cannot establish the value of learned priors. Reliable evaluation requires same-backend controls and joint analysis of prior compatibility, calibration, initialization, global drift, physical-state error, and backend consistency.
Title:When Do Learned Priors Help Visual Inertial Estimation? A Controlled Study of Prior Integration, Calibration, Initialization, and Backend Consistency
Abstract:Learned components are increasingly integrated into geometric visual--inertial estimators to provide motion, depth, bias, uncertainty, or confidence cues. Yet it remains unclear whether gains arise from useful learned priors or from changes in the backend, calibration, initialization, temporal association, or evaluation gauge. We present a controlled framework for learning-augmented visual--inertial estimation that separates fusion gain from the incremental value of a learned prior and evaluates four evidence layers: local motion consistency, global trajectory accuracy, physical-state correctness, and numerical consistency. We instantiate the framework with a MonoViT-based monocular motion prior added as a local relative-motion factor to an unchanged VINS backend. We compare Original VINS and learned-prior VINS under matched sensor streams, timestamps, initialization, frontend/backend settings, and camera--IMU extrinsics, while probing calibration, initialization, state coupling, scale, bundle adjustment, and loop closure. On KITTI, with fixed reference extrinsics, translation APE RMSE is 31.4 m for Original VINS and 31.8 m with the learned prior. Across four recordings, the prior changes mean APE by only -0.2%, while a five-times-higher weight worsens it by 8.2%. Online extrinsic updates increase mean APE by 45.7% and 52.1%, respectively, while mean RPE changes by less than 2%. These results show that fusion performance alone cannot establish the value of learned priors. Reliable evaluation requires same-backend controls and joint analysis of prior compatibility, calibration, initialization, global drift, physical-state error, and backend consistency.
Robotics (cs.RO); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
arXiv:2609.13777 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2609.13777v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13777 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 342 words
