In Vangrid, ground truth is not a marketing term — it is a precisely defined data quality guarantee. Every observation labeled as ground truth was captured by physical sensors in the real world, corroborated by multiple independent nodes, and signed with a cryptographic hash that proves it hasn’t been altered. This distinguishes Vangrid’s output from inferred, modeled, or synthetic spatial data, which may be statistically plausible but cannot be independently verified.Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.vangrid.io/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
What ground truth means in Vangrid’s context
A ground truth observation in Vangrid meets three criteria:- Physical capture — The observation originates from a real sensor in the real world at a specific location and time. No portion of the observation is generated by a model or interpolated from adjacent data.
- Multi-node corroboration — At least one additional independent node has captured a consistent observation of the same feature within the same spatiotemporal window. Single-node observations are returned with a low
ground_truth_scoreand clearly marked as unconfirmed. - Cryptographic provenance — The observation carries a
provenance_hashgenerated on the originating node. The hash ties the observation to a specific device, timestamp, and content, giving you tamper-evident proof of its origin.
How ground_truth_score is calculated
The ground_truth_score is a confidence metric between 0.0 and 1.0 that reflects the degree of multi-node corroboration for a given observation.
The score increases as:
- More independent nodes report consistent observations of the same feature
- The contributing nodes use different sensor modalities (cross-modal agreement is weighted more heavily than same-sensor agreement)
- The temporal spread between contributing observations is smaller (nodes that agree within milliseconds provide stronger corroboration than nodes that agree across minutes)
- Only one node contributed to the observation
- Contributing nodes disagree on position, classification, or velocity beyond the configured tolerance thresholds
- One or more contributing nodes have a degraded hardware quality rating
A
ground_truth_score of 1.0 does not mean certainty — it means the maximum corroboration achievable given the nodes that responded to your query. Always consider node_count alongside the score: a 1.0 from two nodes in a sparse area carries less weight than a 0.92 from fourteen nodes in a dense urban deployment.| Use case | Recommended minimum ground_truth_score |
|---|---|
| Archival or audit records | 0.5 — include with metadata for human review |
| Autonomous system inputs | 0.85 — high corroboration required for safety-critical decisions |
| Real-time situational awareness | 0.7 — balance between coverage and confidence |
| Historical analysis | 0.6 — broader inclusion for statistical work |
Ground truth vs. inferred and synthetic data
It is important to understand what Vangrid’s ground truth is not. Inferred data is produced by a model that estimates the state of a scene based on partial observations or prior patterns. For example, a system that predicts vehicle positions between sensor captures using a motion model is producing inferred data, not ground truth. Inferred data can be highly accurate, but it cannot be verified against a physical observation. Synthetic data is generated entirely by simulation or generative models. It is useful for training and testing, but it describes a virtual world, not the physical one. Vangrid does not mix inferred or synthetic observations into its ground truth responses. Every feature in a Vangrid API response either originated from a physical sensor or is explicitly flagged with adata_source value of interpolated (for gap-filled historical records) or estimated (for low-confidence single-node observations pending corroboration).
If you need synthetic or inferred data — for simulation environments, training datasets, or counterfactual analysis — Vangrid does not provide it. Vangrid’s value proposition is physical ground truth, not modeled approximations.
How cryptographic provenance proves authenticity
Every observation in a Vangrid response includes aprovenance_hash field. This hash is generated on the originating edge node using the node’s hardware-backed private key. It encodes:
- The node’s unique identifier
- The capture timestamp (GPS-synchronized, sub-second precision)
- A SHA-256 hash of the observation’s feature payload
provenance_hash, you submit it to the Vangrid Provenance API along with the feature payload. The API checks the signature against the node’s public key and returns a verification result. If the payload was modified at any point after capture — in transit, in Vangrid’s infrastructure, or in your own systems — the verification will fail.
Real-time vs. historical ground truth
Vangrid supports two query modes, and the choice affects how you should interpretground_truth_score and provenance_hash.
Real-time ground truth
Real-time ground truth
Real-time queries return observations captured within a short rolling window (typically the last few seconds to minutes). Because the aggregation window is short, some nodes may not have contributed yet when your response is assembled. This means:
node_countmay be lower than what a historical query for the same time and place would showground_truth_scoremay be lower than it will be once all nodes have reported- The response is assembled quickly, but it reflects the network state at query time, not the fully-corroborated state
Historical ground truth
Historical ground truth
Historical queries retrieve observations from Vangrid’s provenance archive, where corroboration has had time to complete. For any given point in time, a historical query will typically return higher
ground_truth_score values and higher node_count values than a real-time query for the same moment would have returned.Historical responses also include the full set of contributing node identifiers and their individual signed payloads — useful for audits or forensic reconstruction of a scene.Use historical ground truth for compliance records, incident investigation, training data generation, and any workflow where completeness matters more than latency.Example API response with ground truth fields
The following shows a single feature from a real-time spatial query. Note theground_truth_score, provenance_hash, and supporting fields that together constitute a verified ground truth observation.
| Field | Value | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
ground_truth_score | 0.91 | High corroboration — 4 independent nodes agreed within 312ms. |
provenance_hash | sha256:c7f2... | Cryptographic proof of origin. Submit to the Provenance API to verify. |
node_count | 4 | Four independent nodes contributed to this observation. |
sensor_modalities | ["camera", "depth"] | Both camera and depth sensors agreed — cross-modal corroboration. |
data_source | ground_truth | This is a physical observation, not interpolated or estimated. |
corroboration_window_ms | 312 | All four nodes reported within 312 milliseconds of each other. |