VeloBins: Learning Velocity and Its Uncertainty via Bins and Error-Conditioned Gaussian Labels for Aerial Inertial Odometry

Traditional IO estimates the trajectory by integrating IMU measurements through a strapdown process[22], where the gyroscope is integrated once for the orientation and the accelerometer twice for the velocity and the position. The bias and noise of a low-cost IMU are amplified at every integration stage, rendering long-term estimates unreliable[7]. Classical systems suppress this drift with motion constraints such as zero-velocity conditions[23], which a UAV in continuous flight does not offer.

Learning-based IO instead learns a motion prior directly from data. Seminal works such as IONet[7] and RoNIN[2] used temporal networks to regress motion from IMU windows and sharply reduce long-term drift. Because a raw network estimate is still noisy, a parallel line fuses it with IMU propagation in a probabilistic filter. TLIO[3] feeds the network output and its predicted uncertainty into an EKF. AI-IMU[24] learns to adapt the noise covariances of the filter itself, while EqNIO[25] improves generalization through rotation equivariance. These methods target pedestrian or ground-robot motion, with limited vertical dynamics compared to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Learning-based IO for UAVs adapts these ideas to the platform. DIDO[26] feeds the network the measured rotor speeds of a quadrotor, while IMO[6] feeds the collective thrust, both alongside the IMU. DIVE[27] fuses a learned velocity into an inertial-only filter for quadrotors. AirIO[5] shows that keeping the IMU in its native body-frame representation lets the network capture the highly dynamic motion of drones. AI-IO[8] adds rotor-speed measurements to this body-frame formulation, motivated by quadrotor aerodynamics. TartanIMU[28] generalizes across robotics platforms with a foundation model and platform-specific decoders.

These methods nonetheless frame velocity estimation as direct regression and take the measurement covariance from a separate decoder trained apart from the estimate. We instead predict a probability distribution over discrete velocity bins, inspired by recent successes in monocular depth estimation (MDE)[14, 19].

Bin-based methods reformulate a continuous target as classification over discretized bins[10]. DORN[13] discretizes the depth range of MDE into ordered bins with an ordinal objective, while AdaBins[14] adapts the bin width per image and decodes the depth as an expectation over bin centers. BinsFormer[19] and IEBins[29] refine the same design for MDE. SimCC[15] and RTMPose[21] apply the same coordinate-classification view to human pose estimation. Deep reinforcement learning models the value function as a categorical distribution[17], where classification outperforms regression at scale[18].

Another important aspect of bin-based methods is the supervision of the bin distribution. Earlier works place no target on the distribution and supervise it through the decoded value, which leaves the variance unconstrained[14, 19]. SimCC[15] and RTMPose[21] supervise the distribution with a soft label of fixed width, which cannot reflect the per-sample uncertainty. Distributional losses also set the target width heuristically, both in regression [9] and in reinforcement learning [18]. RTMO[16] instead learns the target variance through a maximum-likelihood objective, which requires a separate decoder. In this work, we explore the bin-based formulation for aerial inertial odometry, where an error-conditioned Gaussian label trains the bin variance to reflect the per-sample uncertainty without needing a separate decoder.

For each velocity axis $i\in\{x,y,z\}$, we define an operating range $[v_{\min},v_{\max}]$ and discretize it into $N$ bins. Let $\mathbf{b}=(b_{0},b_{1},\ldots,b_{n},\ldots,b_{N-1})$ be the vector of bin centers. Each bin $n$ covers a continuous range of velocities defined by its lower and upper boundaries, $[b^{-}_{n},b^{+}_{n}]$. These boundaries are set at the midpoint between adjacent centers, such that $b^{+}_{n}=\tfrac{1}{2}(b_{n}+b_{n+1})$ and $b^{-}_{n}=\tfrac{1}{2}(b_{n-1}+b_{n})$, with the boundaries of the first and last bins extending to $v_{\min}$ and $v_{\max}$, respectively.

The velocity decoder predicts a per-axis distribution $\boldsymbol{\pi}_{i}=\{\pi_{i,0},\dots,\pi_{i,N-1}\}$ over the bins and decodes the velocity as the expectation of this distribution over bin centers,

Unlike prior learning-based IO methods that regress the uncertainty with a separate covariance decoder [3, 5, 8], VeloBins decodes the velocity uncertainty from the same bin distribution, taking it as the variance about the decoded velocity $\hat{v}_{i}$,

The architecture of VeloBins, as shown in Fig. 2, follows the encoder-decoder design of AI-IO [8] and replaces its velocity and covariance decoders with a single bin decoder. Per-modality 1-D convolutions and a two-layer transformer encoder map the input window of accelerometer, gyroscope, and per-rotor actuation signals to a last-step feature $\mathbf{h}\in\mathbb{R}^{D_{h}}$. We use the measured rotor speed where the platform provides ESC telemetry [8, 30], and the commanded motor signal otherwise [31, 32]. A rotor follows its command through a first-order response and a platform-dependent map [30], which the encoder learns per dataset.

A regression loss such as L1, L2, or Huber on the decoded velocity $\hat{v}_{i}$ of (1) leaves the bin distribution variance unconstrained as many possible distributions share the same expected value. To supervise the uncertainty explicitly, we construct an error-conditioned Gaussian $\bar{q}_{i}$ for each axis $i$, centered at the ground-truth velocity $v_{i}$ with a standard deviation $\sigma_{i}$ set by the velocity error $v_{e,i}=\left|\hat{v}_{i}-v_{i}\right|$ (Fig. 3),

We detach $v_{e,i}$ when building the label, so no gradient flows through $\sigma_{i}$. The velocity error $v_{e,i}$ is the per-sample stationary point of the Gaussian likelihood, and a zero-mean error gives $\mathbb{E}[\sigma_{i}^{2}]=\mathbb{E}[v_{e,i}^{2}]=\mathrm{Var}[\hat{v}_{i}-v_{i}]$, so the label variance is an unbiased target for the marginal error variance. The EKF instead consumes the error variance conditioned on the input, so we verify per update whether the bin variance matches the error it incurs in Sec. V-C.

The discrete label $\mathbf{q}_{i}$ integrates the continuous density $\bar{q}_{i}$ over each bin’s support $[b^{-}_{n},b^{+}_{n}]$,

where $\Phi$ is the standard normal CDF and $Z_{i}$ normalizes the $N$ bins to sum to one. Following the histogram loss of HL-Gauss [9, 18], each bin is assigned the probability mass over its support rather than the density evaluated at its center, so adjacent bins retain non-zero mass and the ordinal structure of the velocity range is preserved.

However, the decoded mean of (6) has a discretization bias [34] that grows as the label sharpens. We therefore tilt $\mathbf{q}_{i}$ to the closest distribution in Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence whose expectation is exactly $v_{i}$ [35],

where the per-axis scalar $\eta_{i}$ is fixed by the mean constraint and solved outside the autograd graph, and $\tilde{Z}_{i}$ renormalizes the tilted label. The correction changes the standard deviation $\sigma_{i}$ only to second order and vanishes ($\eta_{i}=0$) when the decoded mean of (6) is already exact.

The bin distribution is supervised by the KL divergence from the error-conditioned label to the prediction,

With $\sigma_{i}$ set by (5), matching this label brings the bin variance of (2) toward $\sigma_{i}^{2}$, so the velocity uncertainty is supervised explicitly rather than left as a by-product of training. Since (8) is linear in the detached label $\mathbf{q}_{i}$, its per-input optimum is the conditional mean of the labels, thereby encouraging the predicted distribution to reflect the input-conditioned prediction error.

We also retain a Huber loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{H},i}$ on the decoded velocity $\hat{v}_{i}$ [3, 8], which supervises $\boldsymbol{\pi}_{i}$ implicitly through (1). The KL divergence of (8) gives the decoded mean no special weight among the bins, whereas the Huber term with transition point $\delta$ penalizes a displaced mean directly,

The total objective is

where $\lambda_{\mathrm{H}}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{KL}}$ weight the Huber and KL terms.

We fuse the VeloBins prediction with the error-state EKF of AI-IO [8], retaining its state definition, IMU propagation, and measurement-update formulation. The filter state is $\mathbf{X}_{k}=(\mathbf{R}_{k},\kern 5.0pt{{}^{G}}\mathbf{v}_{k},\kern 5.0pt{{}^{G}}\mathbf{p}_{k},\kern 5.0pt\mathbf{b}_{a_{k}},\kern 5.0pt\mathbf{b}_{g_{k}})$, where $\mathbf{R}_{k}$ is the body-to-global rotation, ${}^{G}\mathbf{v}_{k}$ and ${}^{G}\mathbf{p}_{k}$ are the global-frame velocity and position, and $\mathbf{b}_{a,k}$ and $\mathbf{b}_{g,k}$ are the IMU biases. We refer the reader to [8] for the complete propagation and EKF update equations.

At each network update, VeloBins provides the decoded body-frame velocity $\hat{\mathbf{v}}_{k}$ of (1) as the measurement. Its observation model and covariance are

where $\hat{\sigma}_{i,k}^{2}$ is the bin variance decoded by (2). Thus, unlike AI-IO [8], which predicts the velocity and covariance using separate regression decoders, VeloBins obtains both from the same bin distribution. The predicted covariance is directly used as the EKF measurement covariance without rescaling or innovation gating.

Table II reports EKF-fused results. VeloBins achieves the lowest average AVE, RTE, and ATE on all four datasets. Compared to the strongest baseline, AI-IO [8], VeloBins lowers AVE by 3–27%, RTE by 8–40% and ATE by 6–53% across datasets, with the largest gains on TII-RATM. Since AI-IO and VeloBins share the same encoder, EKF modules, and training data, the improvements are attributable to the proposed bin reformulation and its error-conditioned Gaussian label supervision.

Against the remaining baselines, the margins are larger. TLIO [3] and EqNIO [25] are the least accurate on NanoBench, TII-RATM, and NeuroBEM, since their global-frame formulation does not capture the highly dynamic motion of aerial robots [5]. IMO [6] is competitive on NanoBench and TII-RATM thanks to its quadrotor-specific actuation inputs, but fails on the AI-IO dataset, where the free-form maneuvers reveal the overfitting of its data-intensive actuation-driven formulation. AirIO [5] remains less accurate than AI-IO and VeloBins on every dataset, owing to its sensitivity to orientation errors and online windowed inference [8].

Fig. 4 visualizes the estimated trajectories on one test sequence per dataset. On these sequences, VeloBins drifts least and matches the ground truth most closely.

To answer Q1, we compare the regression baseline against the bin-based formulation with Huber supervision (H). Using bins with H lowers the network AVE on all four datasets, by 2% on the AI-IO dataset up to 25% on NanoBench.

To answer Q2, we compare the network AVE and NLL across the supervision strategies in Table III.

The implicit supervision by H improves accuracy over the regression baseline, but its NLL is far worse than the regression baseline on every dataset, as it does not explicitly shape the uncertainty. For the MLE supervision M and M+H, either source alone yields a higher NLL than the regression baseline, and only combining both ($\circ^{B+C}$) approaches it.

In contrast, the proposed G^B and G+H^B achieve a better-calibrated bin variance, with G+H^B attaining the lowest NLL on all four datasets. Reg., M, and M+H all supervise their covariance with an NLL loss, yet they remain worse than the proposed variants that never optimize one.

The Huber term improves the proposed supervision, as G+H achieves a lower network AVE than G on all four datasets and also lowers the NLL on all four, whereas for M it helps neither consistently.

To answer Q3, we evaluate the fused accuracy and the filter consistency of each variant.

After fusion, the network-AVE ordering reverses, as G and G+H attain the lowest fused AVE on three of the four datasets, with G+H attaining the lowest ATE on the AI-IO dataset and NanoBench. This is attributable to the velocity uncertainty, since the EKF weights each update by it. While H predicts an accurate velocity, its over-spread bin variance leads the filter to discard its updates. The M and M+H variants are over-confident, like the regression baseline, while the proposed G+H is better-calibrated and ranks best overall.

Fig. 5 reports the per-update velocity NEES. The regression baseline and M+H^B+C are over-confident and H^B is under-confident. G+H^B is the closest to the ideal, with a median NEES of 3.08 against the ideal 2.37 and 73% of updates inside the 95% bounds, against 64% for M+H^B+C, 61% for the regression baseline, and 49% for H^B. The bin variance of G+H^B therefore supplies the measurement covariance without a separate covariance decoder or an NLL loss.

To answer Q4, we ablate the two structural choices of the bin decoder, which are the bin encoding and the bin resolution.