pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01773 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 💻 cs.RO

On the Characterization and Limits of 4D Radar for Aided Inertial Navigation

Morten Nissov , Kostas Alexis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords 4D radarFMCW radarinertial navigationfactor graphnoise modelingsensor fusionaided navigationrobotics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Derived first-principles noise models for FMCW 4D radar enable a factor graph estimator to achieve higher accuracy and robustness in aided inertial navigation than prior approaches.

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

The paper sets out to show that the noisy range, velocity, and angle measurements from frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar can be made useful for inertial navigation by deriving explicit noise models directly from the sensor's signal processing steps. These models then inform a factor graph estimator that propagates uncertainty with a first-order approximation, rather than treating noise as generic. A sympathetic reader would care because radar works in fog, dust, and darkness where cameras and lidar often fail, yet its adoption has been limited by unreliable estimation. Simulation checks confirm which noise terms matter most and that the approximation holds under realistic conditions. Real flight tests across varied environments then show the resulting system stays accurate even when the radar is pushed past its usual operating limits.

Core claim

Noise models are derived by applying first principles to the underlying signal processing of a typical FMCW radar sensor. These models guide the design of a factor graph-based estimator that uses a first-order approximation for measurement noise propagation. Simulations evaluate the significance of different noise sources, the validity of the approximation, and the state-dependent covariance. Extensive field experiments then demonstrate superior robustness and accuracy across diverse environments and flight profiles, including operation beyond the radar's standard range, while confirming that estimator configurations behave as the simulations predict.

What carries the argument

A factor graph estimator that incorporates first-order approximated noise propagation from first-principles models of FMCW radar range, Doppler, and angle measurements.

If this is right

  • The estimator maintains accuracy when the radar is operated beyond its manufacturer-specified range.
  • The relative importance of different noise sources changes with flight conditions and must be accounted for in the covariance.
  • State-dependent covariance expressions improve estimator consistency across varied trajectories.
  • Estimator performance matches simulation predictions when the first-order noise approximation is used.
  • The approach works reliably in environments that defeat vision and lidar sensors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same first-principles modeling step could be applied to other FMCW radar tasks such as mapping or target tracking.
  • Tighter coupling of the radar measurements directly into the inertial state might further reduce drift in long GPS-denied flights.
  • If the noise models prove hardware-independent, the estimator could be ported to different 4D radar units with minimal retuning.
  • Ground-vehicle tests would reveal whether the same models and approximation hold at lower speeds and different vibration profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The first-order approximation for how measurement noise propagates through the estimator is accurate enough, and the noise models derived from signal processing correctly describe the real sensor under operating conditions.

What would settle it

Real-world flight data in which the proposed estimator fails to outperform simpler baselines or in which measured noise statistics deviate markedly from the predicted covariances would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01773 by Kostas Alexis, Morten Nissov.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , where the resulting reduced quantization is clearly seen. Changes to the chirp will have ramifications on the Frequency Magnitude True Frequency Low-Resolution Bins Zero-Padded Bins FIGURE 4. A comparison of how FFT quantization can be reduced at the cost of additional compute by zero-padding the signal. resolution/maxima of other measurements, and changes to VOLUME , 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIGURE 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIGURE 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIGURE 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIGURE 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIGURE 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIGURE 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIGURE 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIGURE 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIGURE 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar is a promising sensor for aided inertial navigation, due to its robustness in environments that challenge traditional alternatives, such as LiDAR and vision. However, its widespread adoption is hindered by complex, noisy measurements, which make reliable estimation difficult. This manuscript addresses these challenges by analyzing the fundamental measurement relations of FMCW radar sensing and developing a reliable estimator. Noise models are derived by applying first principles to the underlying signal processing of a typical radar sensor. These models guide the design of a factor graph-based estimator, utilizing a first-order approximation for the measurement noise propagation. The approach is first examined through simulation, evaluating the significance of different noise sources, the validity of the first-order approximation, and the state-dependent nature of the covariance expressions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior robustness and accuracy of the proposed method across diverse field environments and flight profiles, including beyond the radar's standard operating range. Furthermore, the experiments confirm the insights from the simulation regarding the behavior and performance of different estimator configurations relative to their operating conditions. The evaluation data and estimator implementation are made available at https://github.com/ntnu-arl/rig.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes FMCW 4D radar for aided inertial navigation by deriving noise models from first principles of the underlying signal processing, incorporating them into a factor-graph estimator that employs a first-order approximation for measurement noise propagation, and validating the approach via simulations (assessing noise source significance, approximation validity, and state-dependent covariances) plus extensive real-world flight experiments across diverse environments and profiles, including beyond nominal operating range. The work reports superior robustness and accuracy relative to baselines, with public release of the estimator implementation and evaluation data.

Significance. If the derived models and approximation are accurate, the manuscript supplies a principled, sensor-specific foundation for radar-aided INS that could improve reliability in conditions where LiDAR and vision fail. The explicit public release of code and data at the cited GitHub repository is a clear strength, enabling direct reproducibility and extension by the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental results] § on experimental results (field experiments): trajectory error reductions are shown, but no innovation statistics, normalized innovation squared (NIS) tests, or covariance consistency checks are reported on the real data—particularly in the out-of-range regimes—to verify that the first-principles noise models and first-order propagation produce covariances that match empirical residuals. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the characterization and limits are correctly identified, as overall accuracy gains can occur even with mis-specified per-measurement covariances.
  2. [Noise model and estimator design] § on noise model derivation and estimator: the first-order approximation for noise propagation is stated to be evaluated in simulation, but the manuscript does not quantify the approximation error (e.g., via higher-order terms or Monte-Carlo comparison) as a function of operating range or SNR; this directly affects whether the state-dependent covariance expressions remain reliable at the claimed limits.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels in the simulation and experiment plots should explicitly state the units and the exact estimator configurations being compared.
  2. [Radar model section] A brief table summarizing the key radar parameters (e.g., bandwidth, chirp rate, array size) used for both the derivation and the experiments would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and outline revisions to strengthen the validation of the noise models and approximation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental results] § on experimental results (field experiments): trajectory error reductions are shown, but no innovation statistics, normalized innovation squared (NIS) tests, or covariance consistency checks are reported on the real data—particularly in the out-of-range regimes—to verify that the first-principles noise models and first-order propagation produce covariances that match empirical residuals. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the characterization and limits are correctly identified, as overall accuracy gains can occur even with mis-specified per-measurement covariances.

    Authors: We agree that reporting innovation statistics, NIS tests, and covariance consistency checks on the real data would provide direct verification that the derived noise models and first-order propagation yield covariances consistent with empirical residuals, especially beyond nominal range. While the simulations assess approximation validity and state-dependent covariances, and the field experiments demonstrate superior accuracy and robustness, these specific consistency metrics were not included for the experimental results. In the revised manuscript we will add NIS analysis and covariance consistency checks on the real-world data, with emphasis on the out-of-range regimes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Noise model and estimator design] § on noise model derivation and estimator: the first-order approximation for noise propagation is stated to be evaluated in simulation, but the manuscript does not quantify the approximation error (e.g., via higher-order terms or Monte-Carlo comparison) as a function of operating range or SNR; this directly affects whether the state-dependent covariance expressions remain reliable at the claimed limits.

    Authors: The manuscript evaluates the validity of the first-order approximation in simulation, including its influence on state-dependent covariances. We acknowledge, however, that an explicit quantification of the approximation error—via higher-order terms or Monte-Carlo comparisons—as a function of range and SNR would more rigorously confirm the reliability of the covariance expressions at the claimed limits. In the revised manuscript we will include such a quantitative analysis, for example by reporting approximation error metrics across a range of SNR and operating distances. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on first-principles signal processing and independent validation.

full rationale

The paper states that noise models are derived by applying first principles to the underlying signal processing of a typical radar sensor, then uses a first-order approximation for measurement noise propagation in a factor graph estimator. These steps are examined via simulation (evaluating noise sources, approximation validity, and state-dependent covariances) before field experiments. No quoted equations or sections reduce a claimed prediction or result to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or definitional tautology. The central claims rest on external simulation benchmarks and real-world data rather than internal re-labeling of inputs. This is the expected non-finding for a sensor-modeling paper whose load-bearing steps are stated as independent derivations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is limited to elements explicitly mentioned.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption First-order approximation for measurement noise propagation is valid
    Used to design the factor graph estimator as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1095 out tokens · 48046 ms · 2026-05-10T15:25:25.037859+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age,

    C. Cadena, L. Carlone, H. Carrillo, Y . Latif, D. Scaramuzza, J. Neira, I. Reid, and J. J. Leonard, “Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1309–1332, Dec. 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Present and future of SLAM in extreme environments: The DARPA SubT challenge,

    K. Ebadi, L. Bernreiter, H. Biggie, G. Catt, Y . Chang, A. Chatterjee, C. E. Denniston, S.-P. Deschênes, K. Harlow, S. Khattak, L. Nogueira, M. Palieri, P. Petráˇcek, M. Petrlík, A. Reinke, V . Krátký, S. Zhao, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, K. Alexis, C. Heckman, K. Khosoussi, N. Kottege, B. Morrell, M. Hutter, F. Pauling, F. Pomerleau, M. Saska, S. Scherer, R. S...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Degradation resilient lidar- radar-inertial odometry,

    M. Nissov, N. Khedekar, and K. Alexis, “Degradation resilient lidar- radar-inertial odometry,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2024, pp. 8587–8594

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Probabilistic degeneracy detection for point-to-plane error minimization,

    J. Hatleskog and K. Alexis, “Probabilistic degeneracy detection for point-to-plane error minimization,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 11 234–11 241, Dec. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Robust high-speed state estimation for off-road navigation using radar velocity factors,

    M. Nissov, J. A. Edlund, P. Spieler, C. Padgett, K. Alexis, and S. Khattak, “Robust high-speed state estimation for off-road navigation using radar velocity factors,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 11 146–11 153, Dec. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Informed, constrained, aligned: A field analysis on degeneracy-aware point cloud registration in the wild,

    T. Tuna, J. Nubert, P. Pfreundschuh, C. Cadena, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “Informed, constrained, aligned: A field analysis on degeneracy-aware point cloud registration in the wild,”IEEE Trans- actions on Field Robotics, vol. 2, pp. 485–515, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Keyframe-based thermal- inertial odometry,

    S. Khattak, C. Papachristos, and K. Alexis, “Keyframe-based thermal- inertial odometry,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 552– 579, Dec. 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    CERBERUS in the DARPA subterranean challenge,

    M. Tranzatto, T. Miki, M. Dharmadhikari, L. Bernreiter, M. Kulkarni, F. Mascarich, O. Andersson, S. Khattak, M. Hutter, R. Siegwart, and K. Alexis, “CERBERUS in the DARPA subterranean challenge,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabp9742, May 2022

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    A new wave in robotics: Survey on recent mmwave radar applications in robotics,

    K. Harlow, H. Jang, T. D. Barfoot, A. Kim, and C. Heckman, “A new wave in robotics: Survey on recent mmwave radar applications in robotics,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 4544–4560, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    GaRLIO: Gravity enhanced radar-lidar-inertial odometry,

    C. Noh, W. Yang, M. Jung, S. Jung, and A. Kim, “GaRLIO: Gravity enhanced radar-lidar-inertial odometry,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2025, pp. 9869–9875

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Single-frame radar odometry incorporat- ing bearing uncertainty,

    K. Thormann and M. Baum, “Single-frame radar odometry incorporat- ing bearing uncertainty,” in2023 IEEE Symposium Sensor Data Fusion and International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration (SDF-MFI). IEEE, Nov. 2023, pp. 1–7

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Incorporating point uncertainty in radar SLAM,

    Y . Xu, Q. Huang, S. Shen, and H. Yin, “Incorporating point uncertainty in radar SLAM,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2168–2175, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Robust 4D radar-aided inertial navigation for aerial vehicles,

    J. Zhu, J. Hu, X. Zhao, X. Lang, Y . Mao, and G. Huang, “Robust 4D radar-aided inertial navigation for aerial vehicles,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2025, pp. 9848–9854

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Are Doppler velocity measurements useful for spinning radar odometry?

    D. Lisus, K. Burnett, D. J. Yoon, R. Poulton, J. Marshall, and T. D. Barfoot, “Are Doppler velocity measurements useful for spinning radar odometry?”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 224–231, Jan. 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Precise ego-motion estimation with millimeter-wave radar under diverse and challenging conditions,

    S. H. Cen and P. Newman, “Precise ego-motion estimation with millimeter-wave radar under diverse and challenging conditions,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2018, pp. 6045–6052

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Radar-only ego-motion estimation in difficult settings via graph matching,

    ——, “Radar-only ego-motion estimation in difficult settings via graph matching,” in2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2019, pp. 298–304

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    ORORA: Outlier-robust radar odometry,

    H. Lim, K. Han, G. Shin, G. Kim, S. Hong, and H. Myung, “ORORA: Outlier-robust radar odometry,” in2023 IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2023, pp. 2046–2053

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Continuous-time radar- inertial and lidar-inertial odometry using a gaussian process motion prior,

    K. Burnett, A. P. Schoellig, and T. D. Barfoot, “Continuous-time radar- inertial and lidar-inertial odometry using a gaussian process motion prior,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 1059–1076, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Lidar-level localization with radar? the CFEAR approach to accurate, fast, and robust large-scale radar odometry in diverse environments,

    D. Adolfsson, M. Magnusson, A. Alhashimi, A. J. Lilienthal, and H. Andreasson, “Lidar-level localization with radar? the CFEAR approach to accurate, fast, and robust large-scale radar odometry in diverse environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 1476–1495, Apr. 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Instantaneous ego-motion estimation using Doppler radar,

    D. Kellner, M. Barjenbruch, J. Klappstein, J. Dickmann, and K. Di- etmayer, “Instantaneous ego-motion estimation using Doppler radar,” in16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013). IEEE, Oct. 2013, pp. 869–874

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Instantaneous full-motion estimation of arbitrary objects using dual Doppler radar,

    ——, “Instantaneous full-motion estimation of arbitrary objects using dual Doppler radar,” in2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings. IEEE, Jun. 2014, pp. 324–329

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    An EKF based approach to radar inertial odometry,

    C. Doer and G. F. Trommer, “An EKF based approach to radar inertial odometry,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI). IEEE, Sep. 2020, pp. 152–159

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Yaw aided radar inertial odometry using manhattan world assumptions,

    ——, “Yaw aided radar inertial odometry using manhattan world assumptions,” in2021 28th Saint Petersburg International Conference on Integrated Navigation Systems (ICINS). IEEE, May 2021, pp. 1–9

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    x-RIO: Radar inertial odometry with multiple radar sensors and yaw aiding,

    ——, “x-RIO: Radar inertial odometry with multiple radar sensors and yaw aiding,”Gyroscopy and Navigation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 329–339, Dec. 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    4D iRIOM: 4D imaging radar inertial odometry and mapping,

    Y . Zhuang, B. Wang, J. Huai, and M. Li, “4D iRIOM: 4D imaging radar inertial odometry and mapping,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3246–3253, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,

    G. Kim and A. Kim, “Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, pp. 4802–4809. VOLUME , 25 Nissov et al.: On the Characterization and Limits of 4D Radar for Aided Inertial Navigation TABLE 17. APE Performance (Position...

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    4D radar-based pose graph SLAM with ego-velocity pre-integration factor,

    X. Li, H. Zhang, and W. Chen, “4D radar-based pose graph SLAM with ego-velocity pre-integration factor,”IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 5124–5131, Aug. 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Rai-slam: Radar-inertial slam for autonomous vehicles,

    D. C. Herraez, M. Zeller, D. Wang, J. Behley, M. Heidingsfeld, and C. Stachniss, “Rai-slam: Radar-inertial slam for autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 5257–5264, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    DRIO: Robust radar-inertial odometry in dynamic environments,

    H. Chen, Y . Liu, and Y . Cheng, “DRIO: Robust radar-inertial odometry in dynamic environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5918–5925, Sep. 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    EFEAR-4D: Ego-velocity filtering for efficient and accurate 4D radar odometry,

    X. Wu, Y . Chen, Z. Li, Z. Hong, and L. Hu, “EFEAR-4D: Ego-velocity filtering for efficient and accurate 4D radar odometry,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 9828–9835, Nov. 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Radar-based localization for au- tonomous ground vehicles in suburban neighborhoods,

    A. J. Kramer and C. Heckman, “Radar-based localization for au- tonomous ground vehicles in suburban neighborhoods,”IEEE Trans- actions on Field Robotics, vol. 1, pp. 161–169, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Multi-state tightly-coupled EKF-based radar-inertial odometry with persistent landmarks,

    J. Michalczyk, R. Jung, C. Brommer, and S. Weiss, “Multi-state tightly-coupled EKF-based radar-inertial odometry with persistent landmarks,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2023, pp. 4011–4017

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Radar-inertial ego-velocity estimation for visually degraded environments,

    A. Kramer, C. Stahoviak, A. Santamaria-Navarro, A.-a. Agha- mohammadi, and C. Heckman, “Radar-inertial ego-velocity estimation for visually degraded environments,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2020, pp. 5739–5746

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Tightly-coupled EKF-based radar-inertial odometry,

    J. Michalczyk, R. Jung, and S. Weiss, “Tightly-coupled EKF-based radar-inertial odometry,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Oct. 2022, pp. 12 336–12 343. 26 VOLUME , <Society logo(s) and publication title will appear here.> TABLE 18. RPE Performance (Position RMSE±Std. Dev.) Across Experiments Sequen...

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    A multi-state constraint kalman filter for vision-aided inertial navigation,

    A. I. Mourikis and S. I. Roumeliotis, “A multi-state constraint kalman filter for vision-aided inertial navigation,” inProceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, Apr. 2007, pp. 3565–3572

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    A robust baro-radar-inertial odometry m-estimator for multicopter navigation in cities and forests,

    R. Girod, M. Hauswirth, P. Pfreundschuh, M. Biasio, and R. Siegwart, “A robust baro-radar-inertial odometry m-estimator for multicopter navigation in cities and forests,” in2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI). IEEE, Sep. 2024, pp. 1–8

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Doppler-SLAM: Doppler-aided radar-inertial and lidar- inertial simultaneous localization and mapping,

    D. Wang, H. Haag, D. C. Herraez, S. May, C. Stachniss, and A. Nüchter, “Doppler-SLAM: Doppler-aided radar-inertial and lidar- inertial simultaneous localization and mapping,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 9438–9445, Sep. 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Do we need scan-matching in radar odometry?

    V . Kubelka, E. Fritz, and M. Magnusson, “Do we need scan-matching in radar odometry?” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2024, pp. 13 710– 13 716

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Vgc- rio: A tightly integrated radar-inertial odometry with spatial weighted doppler velocity and local geometric constrained rcs histograms,

    J. Xiang, X. He, Z. Chen, L. Zhang, X. Luo, and J. Mao, “Vgc- rio: A tightly integrated radar-inertial odometry with spatial weighted doppler velocity and local geometric constrained rcs histograms,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 11 642–11 649, 2025

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Unbiased tracking with converted measurements,

    S. V . Bordonaro, P. Willett, and Y . Bar-Shalom, “Unbiased tracking with converted measurements,” in2012 IEEE Radar Conference. IEEE, May 2012, pp. 0741–0745

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    RIV-SLAM: Radar-inertial- velocity optimization based graph SLAM,

    D. Wang, S. May, and A. Nuechter, “RIV-SLAM: Radar-inertial- velocity optimization based graph SLAM,” in2024 IEEE 20th Inter- national Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, Aug. 2024, pp. 774–781. VOLUME , 27 Nissov et al.: On the Characterization and Limits of 4D Radar for Aided Inertial Navigation TABLE 19. APE Performance (Atti...

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    A noise analysis of 4D RADAR: Robust sensing for automotive?

    P. H. Chan, S. Shahbeigi Roudposhti, X. Ye, and V . Donzella, “A noise analysis of 4D RADAR: Robust sensing for automotive?”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 18 291–18 301, May 2025

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Second edition

    M. A. Richards,Fundamentals of Radar Signal Processing, 2nd ed., ser. McGraw-Hill’s AccessEngineering. Chicago, Ill.: McGraw-Hill Education LLC., 2014, "Second edition"– Cover

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    The fundamentals of millimeter wave radar sensors,

    C. Iovescu and S. Rao, “The fundamentals of millimeter wave radar sensors,” Texas Instruments Application Note, 2020

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering,

    B. Van Veen and K. Buckley, “Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering,”IEEE ASSP Magazine, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 4–24, Apr. 1988

    work page 1988

  46. [46]

    High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis,

    J. Capon, “High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1408–1418, 1969

    work page 1969

  47. [47]

    MIMO radar,

    S. Rao, “MIMO radar,” Texas Instruments, Application Note SWRA554A, May 2017

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Differential barometry in personal navigation,

    J. Parviainen, J. Kantola, and J. Collin, “Differential barometry in personal navigation,” in2008 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Nav- igation Symposium. IEEE, 2008, pp. 148–152

    work page 2008

  49. [49]

    borglab/gtsam,

    F. Dellaert and GTSAM Contributors, “borglab/gtsam,” May 2022. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/borglab/gtsam

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    iSAM2: Incremental smoothing and mapping with fluid relinearization and incremental variable reordering,

    M. Kaess, H. Johannsson, R. Roberts, V . Ila, J. Leonard, and F. Dellaert, “iSAM2: Incremental smoothing and mapping with fluid relinearization and incremental variable reordering,” in2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, May 2011, pp. 3281–3288

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual-inertial odometry,

    C. Forster, L. Carlone, F. Dellaert, and D. Scaramuzza, “On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual-inertial odometry,”IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–21, Feb. 2017

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    P. J. Huber,Robust Statistics, ser. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics - Applied Probability and Statistics Section Series. New 28 VOLUME , <Society logo(s) and publication title will appear here.> TABLE 20. RPE Performance (Attitude RMSE±Std. Dev.) Across Experiments Sequence RPE (∆ : 10 m) [°] base noise geometry x-RIO[24]ASL RIO[36] Corridor he...

    work page 2004

  53. [53]

    The normal distributions transform: a new approach to laser scan matching,

    P. Biber and W. Strasser, “The normal distributions transform: a new approach to laser scan matching,” in2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), vol. 3. IEEE, 2003, pp. 2743–2748

    work page 2003

  54. [54]

    4DRadarSLAM: A 4D imaging radar slam system for large-scale environments based on pose graph optimization,

    J. Zhang, H. Zhuge, Z. Wu, G. Peng, M. Wen, Y . Liu, and D. Wang, “4DRadarSLAM: A 4D imaging radar slam system for large-scale environments based on pose graph optimization,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2023, pp. 8333–8340

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    nanoflann: a C++ header-only fork of FLANN, a library for nearest neighbor (NN) with kd-trees,

    J. L. Blanco and P. K. Rai, “nanoflann: a C++ header-only fork of FLANN, a library for nearest neighbor (NN) with kd-trees,” https: //github.com/jlblancoc/nanoflann, 2014

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    ROAMER: Robust offroad autonomy using multimodal state estimation with radar velocity integration,

    M. Nissov, S. Khattak, J. A. Edlund, C. Padgett, K. Alexis, and P. Spieler, “ROAMER: Robust offroad autonomy using multimodal state estimation with radar velocity integration,” in2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, Mar. 2024, pp. 1–10

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976,

    NASA, NOAA, and USAF, “U.S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976,” Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, Tech. Rep. NASA-TM- X-74335, 1976, Technical Memorandum

    work page 1976

  58. [58]

    Simultaneous triggering and synchronization of sensors and onboard computers,

    M. Nissov, N. Khedekar, and K. Alexis, “Simultaneous triggering and synchronization of sensors and onboard computers,” 2025

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    PX4: A node-based multithreaded open source robotics framework for deeply embedded platforms,

    L. Meier, D. Honegger, and M. Pollefeys, “PX4: A node-based multithreaded open source robotics framework for deeply embedded platforms,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2015, pp. 6235–6240

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    PX4 autopilot,

    PX4 Development Team, “PX4 autopilot,” Open-source software,

    work page

  61. [61]

    Available: https://px4.io

    [Online]. Available: https://px4.io

    work page

  62. [62]

    Allan Variance ROS,

    R. Buchanan, “Allan Variance ROS,” Nov. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ori-drs/allan_variance_ros VOLUME , 29 Nissov et al.: On the Characterization and Limits of 4D Radar for Aided Inertial Navigation

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Generating large-scale trajectories efficiently using double descriptions of polynomials,

    Z. Wang, H. Ye, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Generating large-scale trajectories efficiently using double descriptions of polynomials,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2021, pp. 7436–7442

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    A benchmark for the evaluation of RGB-D SLAM systems,

    J. Sturm, N. Engelhard, F. Endres, W. Burgard, and D. Cremers, “A benchmark for the evaluation of RGB-D SLAM systems,” in2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, Oct. 2012, pp. 573–580

    work page 2012

  65. [65]

    evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and slam

    M. Grupp, “evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and slam.” https://github.com/MichaelGrupp/evo, 2017. 30 VOLUME ,

    work page 2017