pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.13096 · v1 · submitted 2025-11-17 · 💻 cs.RO

ResAlignNet: A Data-Driven Approach for INS/DVL Alignment

Guy Damari , Itzik Klein This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 22:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords INS/DVL alignmentautonomous underwater vehiclesResNetSim2Real transfersensor alignmentunderwater navigationdata-driven navigationinertial navigation
0
0 comments X

The pith

ResAlignNet uses a neural network to align INS and DVL sensors in 25 seconds without external aids.

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

The paper introduces ResAlignNet, a data-driven method that applies the 1D ResNet-18 architecture to estimate the alignment between an inertial navigation system and a Doppler velocity log. This approach converts the traditional alignment task into a neural network optimization problem that can be trained using synthetic data and then applied directly to real sensor readings on board an autonomous underwater vehicle. It eliminates the need for external positioning aids or specific vehicle movement patterns, allowing alignment to complete in just 25 seconds with accuracy within 0.8 degrees. A sympathetic reader would value this because current methods take much longer to converge and restrict operational flexibility, while this enables quicker and more flexible deployment for underwater missions where GPS is unavailable.

Core claim

ResAlignNet is a data-driven approach using the 1D ResNet-18 architecture that transforms the alignment problem between INS and DVL into deep neural network optimization. It operates as an in-situ solution requiring only onboard sensors, without external positioning aids or complex vehicle maneuvers, while achieving rapid convergence in seconds. The method demonstrates Sim2Real transfer by training on synthetic data and deploying on operational sensor measurements, with experimental validation showing alignment accuracy within 0.8° using only 25 seconds of data collection and a 65% reduction in convergence time compared to standard velocity-based methods.

What carries the argument

The 1D ResNet-18 neural network architecture that processes time-series sensor data to directly estimate the misalignment angles between the INS and DVL reference frames.

If this is right

  • Alignment no longer requires external aiding sensors such as GPS.
  • The process becomes independent of the vehicle's trajectory or prescribed motion patterns.
  • Convergence occurs in 25 seconds instead of longer periods required by velocity-based methods.
  • Training on synthetic data allows deployment without extensive real-world data collection.
  • It scales across different vehicles, sensors, and operational scenarios without retraining.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the Sim2Real transfer holds, similar neural network approaches could reduce calibration times for other multi-sensor systems in robotics.
  • Shorter alignment times could enable more frequent recalibrations during long underwater missions to maintain accuracy.
  • Eliminating motion pattern requirements might allow alignment during normal survey operations rather than dedicated setup phases.
  • Success here suggests data-driven methods could replace model-based techniques in other navigation alignment problems where analytic solutions are slow or restrictive.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network trained on synthetic data transfers reliably to real operational sensor measurements without significant performance degradation across different vehicles and scenarios.

What would settle it

Conducting an experiment on a new autonomous underwater vehicle with different INS and DVL sensors where the alignment error remains above 0.8 degrees after 25 seconds of data would falsify the performance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.13096 by Guy Damari, Itzik Klein.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ResAlignNet architecture utilizing 1D ResNet-18 structure with residual connections for alignment parameters estimation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the ResAlignNet training pipeline. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Detailed noising pipeline for simulation data gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated 200-second right-turn trajectory at constant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SVD method alignment RMSE sensitivity to IMU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results: RMSE alignment performance for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: AUV Snapir real trajectories: Trajectory #1 (straight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: RMSE alignment performance for an alignment range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Maximum alignment error comparison between SVD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Autonomous underwater vehicles rely on precise navigation systems that combine the inertial navigation system and the Doppler velocity log for successful missions in challenging environments where satellite navigation is unavailable. The effectiveness of this integration critically depends on accurate alignment between the sensor reference frames. Standard model-based alignment methods between these sensor systems suffer from lengthy convergence times, dependence on prescribed motion patterns, and reliance on external aiding sensors, significantly limiting operational flexibility. To address these limitations, this paper presents ResAlignNet, a data-driven approach using the 1D ResNet-18 architecture that transforms the alignment problem into deep neural network optimization, operating as an in-situ solution that requires only sensors on board without external positioning aids or complex vehicle maneuvers, while achieving rapid convergence in seconds. Additionally, the approach demonstrates the learning capabilities of Sim2Real transfer, enabling training in synthetic data while deploying in operational sensor measurements. Experimental validation using the Snapir autonomous underwater vehicle demonstrates that ResAlignNet achieves alignment accuracy within 0.8{\deg} using only 25 seconds of data collection, representing a 65\% reduction in convergence time compared to standard velocity-based methods. The trajectory-independent solution eliminates motion pattern requirements and enables immediate vehicle deployment without lengthy pre-mission procedures, advancing underwater navigation capabilities through robust sensor-agnostic alignment that scales across different operational scenarios and sensor specifications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ResAlignNet, a data-driven INS/DVL alignment method for AUVs that uses a 1D ResNet-18 architecture to recast sensor frame alignment as a neural network optimization problem. It operates in-situ with only onboard sensors, requires no external aids or prescribed maneuvers, and claims to achieve 0.8° accuracy after 25 seconds of data collection—a 65% reduction in convergence time relative to standard velocity-based methods—via Sim2Real transfer (synthetic training to real Snapir AUV deployment). The approach is presented as trajectory-independent and scalable across sensor specifications and operational scenarios.

Significance. If the performance numbers and Sim2Real generalization are substantiated with proper validation, the work could meaningfully advance underwater navigation by shortening alignment times and removing motion-pattern constraints, thereby increasing operational flexibility for AUVs in GPS-denied settings. The data-driven framing offers a practical alternative to lengthy model-based procedures, though its broader claims depend on demonstrating reliable transfer without retraining.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental validation] Experimental validation section: The abstract and results report concrete metrics (0.8° accuracy, 25 s convergence, 65 % time reduction) yet supply no information on training hyperparameters, data splits (synthetic vs. real), number of independent runs, error bars, or statistical tests; without these the central performance claim cannot be verified.
  2. [Sim2Real transfer] Sim2Real transfer discussion: The assertion that the network trained on synthetic INS/DVL sequences transfers reliably to real Snapir AUV measurements, supporting sensor-agnostic and scenario-scalable alignment, is not accompanied by domain-gap quantification, held-out real-test performance, or ablation on domain randomization; this leaves the weakest assumption untested.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Results] The comparison baseline labeled 'standard velocity-based methods' should be specified with exact algorithm references and implementation details to allow direct reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. The comments identify key areas where additional information would improve reproducibility and strengthen the claims. We respond to each major comment below and have prepared revisions to address them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental validation] Experimental validation section: The abstract and results report concrete metrics (0.8° accuracy, 25 s convergence, 65 % time reduction) yet supply no information on training hyperparameters, data splits (synthetic vs. real), number of independent runs, error bars, or statistical tests; without these the central performance claim cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the experimental validation section requires additional details to allow independent verification of the reported metrics. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to specify the training hyperparameters, the exact data splits and volumes used for synthetic training versus real evaluation, the number of independent runs performed, error bars on all quantitative results, and the statistical tests employed to compare against the velocity-based baseline. These additions will directly support the claims of 0.8° accuracy, 25 s convergence, and 65 % time reduction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sim2Real transfer] Sim2Real transfer discussion: The assertion that the network trained on synthetic INS/DVL sequences transfers reliably to real Snapir AUV measurements, supporting sensor-agnostic and scenario-scalable alignment, is not accompanied by domain-gap quantification, held-out real-test performance, or ablation on domain randomization; this leaves the weakest assumption untested.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the Sim2Real transfer discussion would benefit from explicit supporting analyses. We will revise the manuscript to include quantitative measures of the domain gap, performance results on held-out real-world test sequences from the Snapir AUV, and ablation experiments that isolate the contribution of domain randomization. These additions will provide stronger evidence for the reliability of the transfer and the sensor-agnostic nature of the approach. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical ML training and real-data validation are independent of reported metrics

full rationale

The paper frames alignment as a supervised learning task solved by training a 1D ResNet-18 on synthetic INS/DVL sequences and measuring performance on real Snapir AUV streams. No derivation chain, equations, or first-principles steps are presented that reduce to fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations. The 0.8° / 25 s result is an observed test-set outcome after training, not a quantity forced by construction from the training data itself. Domain-gap concerns affect generalization risk but do not create circularity under the defined criteria, as the evaluation remains externally falsifiable on held-out real measurements.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on the unstated assumption that the learned mapping generalizes from simulation to real sensor data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5532 in / 1065 out tokens · 29358 ms · 2026-05-17T22:33:50.788539+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A sur- vey of underwater vehicle navigation: Recent advances and new challenges,

    J. C. Kinsey, R. M. Eustice, and L. L. Whitcomb, “A sur- vey of underwater vehicle navigation: Recent advances and new challenges,” inIFAC conference of manoeuver- ing and control of marine craft, vol. 88. Lisbon, 2006, pp. 1–12

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Naviga- tion technologies for autonomous underwater vehicles,

    L. Stutters, H. Liu, C. Tiltman, and D. J. Brown, “Naviga- tion technologies for autonomous underwater vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 581–589, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    P. D. Groves,Principles of GNSS, Inertial, and Multi- sensor Integrated Navigation Systems. Norwood, MA, USA: Artech House, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Titterton and J

    D. Titterton and J. L. Weston,Strapdown inertial navi- gation technology. IET, 2004, vol. 17

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Reducing low-cost INS error accumulation in distance estimation using self- resetting,

    E. Akeila, Z. Salcic, and A. Swain, “Reducing low-cost INS error accumulation in distance estimation using self- resetting,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 177–184, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Matrix algorithm for Doppler sonar nav- igation,

    N. A. Brokloff, “Matrix algorithm for Doppler sonar nav- igation,” inProceedings of OCEANS’94, vol. 3. IEEE, 1994, pp. III–378

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    Farrell,Aided navigation: GPS with high rate sensors

    J. Farrell,Aided navigation: GPS with high rate sensors. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Dcnet: A data-driven frame- work for DVL calibration,

    Z. Yampolsky and I. Klein, “Dcnet: A data-driven frame- work for DVL calibration,”Applied Ocean Research, vol. 158, p. 104525, 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Towards in-situ calibration of gyro and doppler navigation sensors for precision underwater vehicle navigation,

    J. C. Kinsey and L. L. Whitcomb, “Towards in-situ calibration of gyro and doppler navigation sensors for precision underwater vehicle navigation,” inProceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 02CH37292), vol. 4. IEEE, 2002, pp. 4016–4023

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    New methods for in-situ calibration of attitude and Doppler sensors for underwa- ter vehicle navigation: Preliminary results,

    G. Troni and L. L. Whitcomb, “New methods for in-situ calibration of attitude and Doppler sensors for underwa- ter vehicle navigation: Preliminary results,” inOCEANS 2010 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–8

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    Advances in Doppler-based navigation of underwater robotic vehicles,

    L. Whitcomb, D. Yoerger, and H. Singh, “Advances in Doppler-based navigation of underwater robotic vehicles,” inProceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 99CH36288C), vol. 1. IEEE, 1999, pp. 399–406

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    On in situ “calibration

    T. M. Joyce, “On in situ “calibration” of shipboard adcps,”Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 169–172, 1989

    work page 1989

  13. [13]

    A method for calibrating ship- mounted acoustic doppler profilers and the limitations of gyro compasses,

    R. Pollard and J. Read, “A method for calibrating ship- mounted acoustic doppler profilers and the limitations of gyro compasses,”Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 859–865, 1989

    work page 1989

  14. [14]

    Adaptive identifica- tion on the group of rigid-body rotations and its appli- cation to underwater vehicle navigation,

    J. C. Kinsey and L. L. Whitcomb, “Adaptive identifica- tion on the group of rigid-body rotations and its appli- cation to underwater vehicle navigation,”IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 124–136, 2007

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    In situ alignment calibration of attitude and Doppler sensors for precision underwater vehicle naviga- tion: Theory and experiment,

    ——, “In situ alignment calibration of attitude and Doppler sensors for precision underwater vehicle naviga- tion: Theory and experiment,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 286–299, 2007

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Field performance evaluation of new methods for in-situ calibration of attitude and Doppler sensors for un- derwater vehicle navigation,

    G. Troni, J. C. Kinsey, D. R. Yoerger, and L. L. Whit- comb, “Field performance evaluation of new methods for in-situ calibration of attitude and Doppler sensors for un- derwater vehicle navigation,” in2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2012, pp. 5334–5339

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Online estimation of DVL misalignment angle in SINS/DVL integrated navigation system,

    L. Zhaopeng, T. Kanghua, and W. Meiping, “Online estimation of DVL misalignment angle in SINS/DVL integrated navigation system,” inIEEE 2011 10th In- ternational Conference on Electronic Measurement & Instruments, vol. 2. IEEE, 2011, pp. 336–339

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Alignment calibration of imu and doppler sensors for precision INS/DVL integrated navigation,

    W. Li, L. Zhang, F. Sun, L. Yang, M. Chen, and Y . Li, “Alignment calibration of imu and doppler sensors for precision INS/DVL integrated navigation,”Optik, vol. 126, no. 23, pp. 3872–3876, 2015

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    A calibration method of DVL in integrated navigation system based on particle swarm optimization,

    D. Li, J. Xu, B. Zhu, and H. He, “A calibration method of DVL in integrated navigation system based on particle swarm optimization,”Measurement, vol. 187, p. 110325, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Deep learning for inertial po- sitioning: A survey,

    C. Chen and X. Pan, “Deep learning for inertial po- sitioning: A survey,”IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 10 506–10 523, 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Inertial navigation meets deep learning: A survey of current trends and future direc- tions,

    N. Cohen and I. Klein, “Inertial navigation meets deep learning: A survey of current trends and future direc- tions,”Results in Engineering, p. 103565, 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    BeamsNet: A data-driven approach enhancing Doppler velocity log measurements for autonomous un- derwater vehicle navigation,

    ——, “BeamsNet: A data-driven approach enhancing Doppler velocity log measurements for autonomous un- derwater vehicle navigation,”Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 114, p. 105216, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    MissBeamNet: Learning missing doppler velocity log beam measurements,

    M. Yona and I. Klein, “MissBeamNet: Learning missing doppler velocity log beam measurements,”Neural Com- puting and Applications, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 4947–4958, 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Deep learning-based inertial navigation technology for autonomous underwater vehi- cle long-distance navigation—a review,

    Q. He, H. Yu, and Y . Fang, “Deep learning-based inertial navigation technology for autonomous underwater vehi- cle long-distance navigation—a review,”Gyroscopy and Navigation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 267–275, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    A novel SINS/DVL tightly integrated navigation method for complex environment,

    D. Wang, X. Xu, Y . Yao, T. Zhang, and Y . Zhu, “A novel SINS/DVL tightly integrated navigation method for complex environment,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- tation and Measurement, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 5183–5196, 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Adaptive Kalman-Informed Transformer,

    N. Cohen and I. Klein, “Adaptive Kalman-Informed Transformer,”Engineering Applications of Artificial In- telligence, vol. 146, p. 110221, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Adaptive neural unscented Kalman filter,

    A. Levy and I. Klein, “Adaptive neural unscented Kalman filter,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05490, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Reinforcement learning approaches in the motion systems of autonomous under- water vehicles,

    T. Yu, Q. Zhang, and T. Liu, “Reinforcement learning approaches in the motion systems of autonomous under- water vehicles,”Applied Ocean Research, vol. 161, p. 104682, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Deep reinforce- ment learning for adaptive path planning and control of an autonomous underwater vehicle,

    B. Hadi, A. Khosravi, and P. Sarhadi, “Deep reinforce- ment learning for adaptive path planning and control of an autonomous underwater vehicle,”Applied Ocean Research, vol. 129, p. 103326, 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    An experimental com- parison of deep learning strategies for auv navigation in dvl-denied environments,

    E. Topini, F. Fanelli, A. Topini, M. Pebody, A. Ridolfi, A. B. Phillips, and B. Allotta, “An experimental com- parison of deep learning strategies for auv navigation in dvl-denied environments,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 274, p. 114034, 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Integrated anomaly detection, rollback, and recovery for robust ins/dvl navigation,

    Y . Chen, Y . Zhao, S. Li, Y . He, W. Yao, and E. Kayacan, “Integrated anomaly detection, rollback, and recovery for robust ins/dvl navigation,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 342, p. 122715, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    A data-driven method for INS/DVL alignment,

    G. Damari and I. Klein, “A data-driven method for INS/DVL alignment,” inOCEANS Great Lakes confer- ence. Chicago, IL: MTS, 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    An innovative information fusion method with adap- tive Kalman filter for integrated INS/GPS navigation of autonomous vehicles,

    Y . Liu, X. Fan, C. Lv, J. Wu, L. Li, and D. Ding, “An innovative information fusion method with adap- tive Kalman filter for integrated INS/GPS navigation of autonomous vehicles,”Mechanical systems and signal processing, vol. 100, pp. 605–616, 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Correction of DVL error caused by seafloor gradient,

    B. Braginsky, A. Baruch, and H. Guterman, “Correction of DVL error caused by seafloor gradient,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, no. 19, pp. 11 652–11 659, 2020

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Compensating for partial Doppler velocity log outages by using deep-learning approaches,

    M. Yona and I. Klein, “Compensating for partial Doppler velocity log outages by using deep-learning approaches,” in2021 IEEE International Symposium on Robotic and Sensors Environments (ROSE). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–5

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Inertial navigation sys- tem/Doppler velocity log (INS/DVL) fusion with partial DVL measurements,

    A. Tal, I. Klein, and R. Katz, “Inertial navigation sys- tem/Doppler velocity log (INS/DVL) fusion with partial DVL measurements,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 415, 2017

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    A least squares estimate of satellite attitude,

    G. Wahba, “A least squares estimate of satellite attitude,” SIAM review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 409–409, 1965

    work page 1965

  38. [38]

    Estimating 3-d rigid body transformations: a comparison of four ma- jor algorithms,

    D. W. Eggert, A. Lorusso, and R. B. Fisher, “Estimating 3-d rigid body transformations: a comparison of four ma- jor algorithms,”Machine vision and applications, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 272–290, 1997

    work page 1997

  39. [39]

    Least-squares estimation of transforma- tion parameters between two point patterns,

    S. Umeyama, “Least-squares estimation of transforma- tion parameters between two point patterns,”IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 376–380, 1991

    work page 1991

  40. [40]

    A18-D AUV: Autonomous Under- water Vehicle,

    ECA Group, “A18-D AUV: Autonomous Under- water Vehicle,” https://www.ecagroup.com/en/solutions/ a18-d-auv-autonomous-underwater-vehicle, 2023, ac- cessed September 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    PHINS Subsea,

    iXblue, “PHINS Subsea,” https://www.ixblue.com/store/ phins-subsea/, 2023, accessed September 2023

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Doppler Velocity Logs,

    Teledyne Marine, “Doppler Velocity Logs,” https://www.teledynemarine.com/products/product-line/ navigation-positioning/doppler-velocity-logs, 2023, accessed September 2023

    work page 2023