mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Attribution and Uncertainty Behavior of Learned Residual Gyro Correction for Gyro-Stellar Estimation

arXiv 2607.24608 ↗First posted 27 Jul 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This work investigates uncertainty decomposition and explainability in a deep learning-based framework for gyroscope bias correction. A 1-D Convolutional Neural Network is trained to predict residual angular rate corrections from multi-sensor inputs, including gyroscope and star tracker measurements. The bias corrections are sent to a flight-representative Gyro-Stellar Estimator. The network produces both mean corrections and input-dependent (heteroscedastic) aleatoric uncertainty, while epistemic uncertainty is estimated via an ensemble of independently trained models. The proposed approach is trained under nominal conditions and evaluated in both nominal and structured perturbations that include additive and temporally correlated noise. Gradient-based attribution methods are applied to both the correction and uncertainty outputs, enabling a decomposition of the evidence that drives state updates and uncertainty estimates. By aggregating attribution patterns across rotational axes and regimes, we reveal axis-specific behaviors and characterize how structured perturbations influence the collaboration between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Uncertainty analysis shows that aleatoric uncertainty increases with perturbation intensity, but the distributions overlap and the calibration is not consistent across regimes. On the other hand, epistemic uncertainty gives a clear signal that gets clearer as the distributional shift happens, showing that the models disagree more. These results show that aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty work well together and that epistemic uncertainty is better at distinguishing between nominal and perturbed operating conditions. The results provide insight into the behavior of hybrid learning-based state estimation components and motivate the use of uncertainty for downstream monitoring and fault detection.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.

Builds on

12 of 20 references.

References · 12

  1. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  3. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
  4. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  5. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
  6. 2018BOHB: Robust and Efficient Hyperparameter Optimization at Scalecited by 466
  7. 2018Accurate Uncertainties for Deep Learning Using Calibrated Regressioncited by 417
  8. 2021KalmanNet: Neural Network Aided Kalman Filtering for Partially Known Dynamicscited by 128
  9. 2025TIMING: Temporality-Aware Integrated Gradients for Time Series Explanationcited by 9
  10. 2022Time to Focus: A Comprehensive Benchmark Using Time Series Attribution Methodscited by 8
  11. 2023Gradient-based Uncertainty Attribution for Explainable Bayesian Deep Learningcited by 8
  12. 2025Time series saliency maps: explaining models across multiple domainscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.