Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

AniTrack: A Power-Efficient, Time-Slotted and Robust UWB Localization System for Animal Tracking in a Controlled Setting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that battery-powered UWB anchors can track animals to 13.96 cm average accuracy for about 25 days by time-slotted ranging and self-localization.

desk verdict Solid integrated UWB system with real measurements, but the headline 25-day battery claim fails the paper's own arithmetic: 20.44 mW anchors on 2600 mAh give ~19.6 days, not 25. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00216 v1 pith:MYM6IPHU submitted 2025-05-30 cs.RO

Victor Luder , Lukas Schulthess , Silvano Cortesi , Leyla Rivero Davis , Michele Magno This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords Ultra-Widebandlocalizationanimaltrackingtime-slottedschedulingsingle-sidedtwo-wayrangingLoRaWANbattery-poweredanchorsself-localizingreal-timelocatingsystem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that animal tracking does not require mains-powered anchor infrastructure: a UWB real-time locating system can run entirely on batteries and still deliver decimeter-level positions. It does so by scheduling every anchor and tag to sleep except during its own brief time slot, so the UWB radio and the LoRaWAN uplink dominate power only every 40 seconds. If the claim is right, this closes a practical gap, because existing UWB systems typically keep anchors continuously active and therefore tethered to power. The result matters for zoos, farms, and field ecology, where researchers want fine-grained positions over weeks without running cabling.

What carries the argument

The time-slotted localization schedule is the central mechanism: a 3900 ms active phase repeats each localization period, with the master anchor broadcasting synchronization messages, each anchor getting 200 ms to range with other anchors for self-localization, and each tag getting 100 ms to run SS-TWR against the anchors. This turns a system that would otherwise keep every anchor transceiver continuously powered into one where each node sleeps between its slots. The second load-bearing piece is anchor self-localization, where anchors measure mutual distances and solve the same least-squares problem used for tags, so a deployment needs no manual surveying and any displacement of an anchor is detected and corrected automatically in the next active phase.

What would settle it

Run the system for a full 25 days at a 40 s localization interval on a LoRaWAN network that enforces the European 1% airtime cap, logging every rejected or retransmitted uplink. If any substantial fraction of the 4.17-second SF12 transmissions is blocked or repeated, the measured average power will exceed the claimed 20.44 mW per anchor and 7.19 mW per tag, and the 25-day runtime will not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports an end-to-end UWB localization system, AniTrack, whose anchors and tags share one battery-powered hardware design. The tag initiates single-sided two-way ranging (SS-TWR), measuring distance by the round-trip time of a request-response exchange; anchors wake only in assigned time slots, first ranging among themselves to keep their own positions updated and then responding to tags. Positions are computed server-side by solving the least-squares problem $p^* = \arg\min_p \sum_i (\|p - a_i\| - d_i)^2$ over the measured distances. In a 600 m2 test with five anchors and seven tag positions, the reported average 2D error was 13.96 cm with a standard deviation of 6.77 cm when anchors used self-localized coordinates. At a 40 s localization interval, the average power was 20.44 mW per anchor and 7.19 mW per tag, which the authors calculate supports up to 25 days of battery operation, and a two-hour deployment in a tropical biome enclosure with ten anchors and two tags demonstrated the full data path.

Load-bearing premise

The 25-day runtime assumes that a single 4.17-second LoRaWAN uplink every 40 seconds is permitted and succeeds without retransmissions, while typical European airtime rules allow only about one tenth of that transmission volume.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Anchor deployment becomes a matter of placing nodes and switching them on, since anchors compute their own coordinates each cycle instead of requiring a laser survey.
  • Enclosures, barns, and fields without mains power can be monitored for weeks at 40 s position updates, with the option of denser 10 s updates when power budget allows.
  • Because tags initiate ranging and anchors only listen during their slots, the same anchor field can serve additional tags by extending the tag-slot section of the schedule.
  • Ranging data reaches a server in near real time over LoRaWAN, so the system acts as a live monitoring tool rather than a logger that has to be collected later.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the reported 4.17 s LoRaWAN transmission every 40 s corresponds to roughly 10.4% airtime, above the 1% cap typical European LoRaWAN regulations allow, so a compliant deployment would need a longer period, a lower spreading factor, or batched uplinks, all of which change the stated power and runtime figures.
  • Inference: because self-localized anchors gave better average accuracy (13.96 cm) than the manually surveyed ground-truth positions (16.57 cm), the manual laser survey may have carried more error than the mutual ranging, and a higher-precision independent survey would separate the two error sources.
  • Inference: a natural extension is to wake tags on animal movement using the onboard IMU rather than on a fixed schedule, which would save power during inactive periods or allow faster updates during activity bursts.
  • Inference: the same time-slotted self-localizing architecture could transfer to indoor asset tracking or mobile robot fleets, where removing mains-powered anchors is equally valuable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. AniTrack presents a battery-powered UWB localization system for animal tracking, combining SS-TWR ranging with a time-slotted schedule to duty-cycle anchors and tags, and LoRaWAN for backend data upload. The anchors self-localize by ranging against each other, following an earlier approach cited as [25]. The paper reports a 2D average accuracy of 13.96 cm using self-localized anchors on a 600 m2 test area, average power consumptions of 20.44 mW per anchor and 7.19 mW per tag at a 40 s localization period, and a claimed 25-day battery runtime with 2600 mAh anchor and 1200 mAh tag LiPo batteries. A field deployment in a zoological enclosure with ten anchors and two tags is described as validating the system.

Significance. If the reported figures hold, the paper would demonstrate a genuinely integrated, battery-powered UWB RTLS with self-localizing anchors, measured accuracy against independent laser-surveyed ground truth, and low measured power consumption. The strengths include direct power profiling of individual states, a real deployment in a challenging environment, and a complete data path from UWB ranging through LoRaWAN to a web interface. The accuracy and power measurements are not fitted parameters but measured quantities, which is a clear positive. However, the headline runtime claim and the LoRaWAN duty-cycle compatibility are load-bearing issues that need correction or careful restatement before the claimed contribution is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section IV-B, Conclusion] The battery runtime arithmetic is internally inconsistent. The abstract and conclusion state that at 20.44 mW per anchor and 7.19 mW per tag the system enables 'fully battery-powered operation for up to 25 days.' With the stated battery sizes (2600 mAh anchors, 1200 mAh tags at 3.7 V), the anchor energy is 9.62 Wh, so 9.62 Wh / 0.02044 W ≈ 470 h ≈ 19.6 days, not 25 days. The 25.7-day figure in Section IV-B corresponds to the tag at 7.19 mW with 1200 mAh, and the 29.96-day figure corresponds to anchors only if LoRa uploads are stopped (13.38 mW). Thus the 'entire system' 25-day claim is not supported by the stated measurements and appears to conflate two operating modes. Please state precisely which configuration yields 25 days and correct the anchor arithmetic accordingly.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table III] The LoRaWAN duty-cycle implications are not addressed. Table III reports a LoRa transmission duration of 4.17 s per localization cycle; at a 40 s localization period this is a 10.4% transmit duty cycle, which exceeds the typical 1% duty-cycle limit in EU LoRaWAN regulations. The paper does not state a regulatory exemption, nor does it analyze the effect of duty-cycle shaping or retransmissions on the average power figures. If the schedule is not actually permissible or retries are required, the average power numbers and the runtime claim lose their basis. Please include a duty-cycle analysis or explicitly state the regulatory assumption under which the measurements apply.
  3. [Section IV-A, Table II] The coordinate alignment between the self-localized anchor frame and the laser-surveyed ground-truth frame is not described. The accuracy comparison reports 16.57 cm with ground-truth anchors and 13.96 cm with self-localized anchors, but to compare these values one must transform the self-localized coordinate system into the survey coordinate system. If this alignment is performed with a best-fit transform using the same tag measurements, the comparison could be biased in favor of the self-localized result. Please specify the alignment procedure, report per-position errors, and provide confidence intervals; with a single tag at seven positions and no per-position data, the reported accuracy advantage is not yet fully substantiated.
  4. [Section III-D] The self-localization algorithm is adopted from the cited prior work [25], but the paper does not explain why self-localized anchors achieve better tag accuracy (13.96 cm) than ground-truth-surveyed anchors (16.57 cm). Since self-localization error generally propagates into tag position estimates, this result is surprising and needs at least a qualitative explanation, such as redundancy in inter-anchor measurements or error averaging over repeated self-localization cycles. Without this, the central accuracy claim based on self-localizing anchors is not fully supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The power comparison in Table I mixes units: for example, the ULOC tag power is given as 31 µJ per localization while AniTrack is given as 7.19 mW at 0.025 Hz. Consider normalizing all entries to average power at a stated update rate, or to energy per localization, to make the comparison meaningful.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table III] Table III is labeled as running at 3.7 V and lists 'Average (10 s period)' but does not show the duty-cycle calculation. Please include the sleep/active time budget that yields the 81.6 mW and 28.6 mW averages, and the corresponding 40 s averages.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] The captions of Figures 3 and 4 are terse and the figures lack axis labels; adding explicit annotations for the time slots and for the numbered tag positions would improve reproducibility of the experimental description.
  4. [Abstract, Section V] The abstract and conclusion repeat the '25 days' claim without mentioning that the anchor lifetime at the stated 20.44 mW operating point is about 19.6 days; the wording 'entire system' should be revised to match the corrected operating-mode statement.
  5. [Section IV-C] The field deployment section reports a two-hour trial with two manually moved tags. Given that the claimed 25-day operation is a headline result, a longer or at least overnight continuous run would strengthen the validation; please clarify whether any continuous multi-day data was collected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: accuracy and power claims are direct measurements against independent ground truth and current profiling; the flagged 25-day issue is an arithmetic inconsistency, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical characterizations, not predictions derived from the quantities they are supposed to validate. Localization accuracy (13.96 cm) is obtained by comparing UWB-based tag positions against laser-surveyed ground truth positions (Section IV-A), an independent reference external to the ranging measurements. The power figures (20.44 mW per anchor, 7.19 mW per tag) are computed from per-state current measurements taken with a Power Profiler Kit II and weighted by the time-slot durations (Section IV-B); no parameter is fitted to the reported accuracy or to the battery runtime. The 25-day runtime statement is the only questionable derivation: at the quoted 20.44 mW and a 2600 mAh/3.7 V battery, the anchor lifetime is about 19.6 days, not 25, and the 25-day figure appears to conflate the measured operating point with the anchors-stopped-uploading case (13.38 mW). This is an internal numerical inconsistency and a correctness risk, but it is not circular reasoning: the runtime is not an input to the power measurements. Self-citations are present in the related-work and background references, but none is load-bearing for the system's claimed contributions; the self-localization concept is explicitly credited to external prior work [25] and the TDMA scheme to [20]. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted output to the same data used to fit it, and no central premise depends on an unverified self-citation. The surprising observation that self-localized anchors yield slightly better accuracy than ground-truth anchors is not explained, but it is an empirical comparison rather than a construction-based equivalence. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system introduces no new physical entities. Its central claims depend on measured hardware states, hand-chosen protocol parameters, and the cited self-localization algorithm; the most significant unstated assumptions are LoRaWAN duty-cycle feasibility and the representativeness of the accuracy test.

free parameters (4)
  • Localization period = 40 s (10 s high-rate mode)
    User-selected scheduling interval; directly controls average power (20.44 mW anchor, 7.19 mW tag) and battery life.
  • Time-slot durations = 200 ms anchor self-localization, 100 ms tag localization, 3900 ms active phase for 10 anchors and 10 tags
    Protocol design parameters determining how many devices can be served and how much energy is spent per cycle.
  • LoRa spreading factor and packet schedule = SF12, 4.17 s transmit duration per localization cycle
    Chosen by hand to maximize range; this measured duration dominates average power and battery life, but its necessity and regulatory compliance are not justified.
  • Battery capacities = 2600 mAh anchors, 1200 mAh tag
    Hardware choices used to convert measured average power into the 25 day runtime claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SS-TWR distance estimates are unbiased with independent errors across anchor pairs.
    The least-squares cost in Eq. (1) assumes unbiased range measurements; no bias model or error covariance is provided in Section IV-A.
  • domain assumption The self-localization method from [25] produces a correct 2D anchor constellation.
    Section III-D adopts the method by citation; the paper does not derive error propagation or validate constellation accuracy independently.
  • domain assumption LoRaWAN permits periodic 4.17 s transmissions at spreading factor 12 without duty-cycle or regulatory constraint.
    Table III measures 4.17 s LoRa transmission per cycle; at 40 s period this exceeds typical 1% EU duty-cycle limits, and no exemption is mentioned.
  • domain assumption Master, relay, and passive anchor time-slot synchronization is maintained throughout operation.
    Section III-C relies on broadcast sync messages and relay retransmission; failure or drift would desynchronize slots and reduce accuracy and power performance.
  • domain assumption Laser-surveyed ground truth positions are accurate enough to serve as reference.
    Section IV-A uses laser positions (BOSCH GLM150-27C) as ground truth; the accuracy of the laser survey procedure is not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AniTrack: A Power-Efficient, Time-Slotted and Robust UWB Localization System for Animal Tracking in a Controlled Setting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYM6IPHU

@misc{pith2026250600216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AniTrack: A Power-Efficient, Time-Slotted and Robust UWB Localization System for Animal Tracking in a Controlled Setting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYM6IPHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00216}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate localization is essential for a wide range of applications, including asset tracking, smart agriculture, and animal monitoring. While traditional localization methods, such as Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), offer varying levels of accuracy and coverage, they have drawbacks regarding power consumption, infrastructure requirements, and deployment flexibility. Ultra-Wideband (UWB) is emerging as an alternative, offering centimeter-level accuracy and energy efficiency, especially suitable for medium to large field monitoring with capabilities to work indoors and outdoors. However, existing UWB localization systems require infrastructure with mains power to supply the anchors, which impedes their scalability and ease of deployment. This underscores the need for a fully battery-powered and energy-efficient localization system. This paper presents an energy-optimized, battery-operated UWB localization system that leverages Long Range Wide Area Network (LoRaWAN) for data transmission to a server backend. By employing single-sided two-way ranging (SS-TWR) in a time-slotted localization approach, the power consumption both on the anchor and the tag is reduced, while maintaining high accuracy. With a low average power consumption of 20.44 mW per anchor and 7.19 mW per tag, the system allows fully battery-powered operation for up to 25 days, achieving average accuracy of 13.96 cm with self-localizing anchors on a 600 m2 testing ground. To validate its effectiveness and ease of installation in a challenging application scenario, ten anchors and two tags were successfully deployed in a tropical zoological biome where they could be used to track Aldabra Giant Tortoises (Aldabrachelys gigantea).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00216 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The hardware setup includes sensors, a UWB transceiver, and a power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Accuracy evaluation in a test setup with five anchors and tag positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The localization phase, for anchors (1) and tags (2), is divided into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Possible real-world application; monitoring the location of Aldabra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power consumption of the anchor during each phase: self-localization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tracking position within the enclosure by simulating the behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Self-localization of ultra-wideband anchors: From theory to practice,

    P. Corbal ´an, G. P. Picco, M. Coors, and V . Jain, “Self-localization of ultra-wideband anchors: From theory to practice,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 29 711–29 725, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3261567

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Advancing zoo animal welfare through data science: scaling up continuous improvement efforts,

    M. Liptovszky, “Advancing zoo animal welfare through data science: scaling up continuous improvement efforts,” Frontiers in V eterinary Science, vol. V olume 11 - 2024, 2024. [Online]. Available: http: //dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1313182

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Status of animal welfare research in zoos and aquariums: Where are we, where to next?

    S. Binding, H. Farmer, L. Krusin, and K. Cronin, “Status of animal welfare research in zoos and aquariums: Where are we, where to next?” Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research , vol. 8, no. 3, p. 166–174, Jul

    work page

  4. [3]

    Smart Feeding Station: Non-Invasive, Automated IoT Monitoring of Goodman's Mouse Lemurs in a Semi-Natural Rainforest Habitat

    J. Peter, V . Luder, L. R. Davis, L. Schulthess, and M. Magno, “Smart feeding station: Non-invasive, automated iot monitoring of goodman’s mouse lemurs in a semi-natural rainforest habitat,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.09238

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.09238 2025

  5. [4]

    Moving toward evidence-based care: Measuring preferences in zoo-housed aquatic turtles using 24-h remote monitoring

    K. A. C. Shannon L O’Brien, Spencer Koenig, “Moving toward evidence-based care: Measuring preferences in zoo-housed aquatic turtles using 24-h remote monitoring.” Zoo Biology , vol. 43, pp. 491– 498, 10 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21856

    work page doi:10.1002/zoo.21856 2024

  6. [5]

    A review of indoor localization techniques and wireless technologies,

    H. Obeidat, W. Shuaieb, O. Obeidat, and R. Abd-Alhameed, “A review of indoor localization techniques and wireless technologies,” Wireless Personal Communications , vol. 119, 07 2021. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11277-021-08209-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11277-021-08209-5 2021

  7. [6]

    A lora- based energy-efficient sensing system for urban data collection,

    L. Schulthess, T. Salzmann, C. V ogt, and M. Magno, “A lora- based energy-efficient sensing system for urban data collection,” in 2023 9th International Workshop on Advances in Sensors and Interfaces (IWASI) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 69–74. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10164426

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    A survey of latest wi-fi assisted indoor positioning on different principles,

    J. Dai, M. Wang, B. Wu, J. Shen, and X. Wang, “A survey of latest wi-fi assisted indoor positioning on different principles,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 18, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/ 1424-8220/23/18/7961

    work page 2023

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Ble-based indoor localization: Analysis of some solutions for performance improvement,

    F. Milano, H. da Rocha, M. Laracca, L. Ferrigno, A. Esp ´ırito Santo, J. Salvado, and V . Paciello, “Ble-based indoor localization: Analysis of some solutions for performance improvement,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 2,

  2. [9]

    On the reliable localization of wifi access points,

    J. Shen, B. Huang, Y . Tian, and L. Zhao, “On the reliable localization of wifi access points,” IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 90 931–90 940, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8759043

    2019

  3. [10]

    A proximity-based approach for dynamically matching industrial assets and their operators using low-power iot devices,

    S. Cortesi, M. Crabolu, P.-V . Mekikis, G. Bellusci, C. V ogt, and M. Magno, “A proximity-based approach for dynamically matching industrial assets and their operators using low-power iot devices,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 3350–3362, 2025. [Online]...

    2025

  4. [11]

    Ieee standard for low-rate wireless networks–amendment 1: Enhanced ultra wideband (uwb) physical layers (phys) and associated ranging techniques,

    I. SA, “Ieee standard for low-rate wireless networks–amendment 1: Enhanced ultra wideband (uwb) physical layers (phys) and associated ranging techniques,” IEEE Std 802.15.4z-2020 (Amendment to IEEE Std 802.15.4-2020), pp. 1–174, 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Smartphones with uwb: Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of uwb ranging,

    A. Heinrich, S. Krollmann, F. Putz, and M. Hollick, “Smartphones with uwb: Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of uwb ranging,”

  6. [13]

    Angle of arrival and centimeter distance estimation on a smart uwb sensor node,

    T. Margiani, S. Cortesi, M. Keller, C. V ogt, T. Polonelli, and M. Magno, “Angle of arrival and centimeter distance estimation on a smart uwb sensor node,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–10, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10...

    2023

  7. [14]

    Uwb based indoor localization techniques,

    S. Mohanty, A. Tripathy, and B. Das, “Uwb based indoor localization techniques,” 05 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Ultra-wideband-based time occupancy analysis for safety studies,

    S. Fakhoury and K. Ismail, “Ultra-wideband-based time occupancy analysis for safety studies,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 17, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/17/7551

    2023

  9. [16]

    Wakeloc: an ultra-low power, accurate and scalable on-demand rtls using wake-up radios,

    S. Cortesi, C. V ogt, and M. Magno, “Wakeloc: an ultra-low power, accurate and scalable on-demand rtls using wake-up radios,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20545

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Uloc: Low-power, scalable and cm-accurate uwb- tag localization and tracking for indoor applications,

    M. Zhao, T. Chang, A. Arun, R. Ayyalasomayajula, C. Zhang, and D. Bharadia, “Uloc: Low-power, scalable and cm-accurate uwb- tag localization and tracking for indoor applications,” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 5, no. ...

    2021 doi

  11. [18]

    An overview of uwb standards and organizations (ieee 802.15.4, fira, apple): Interoperability aspects and future research directions,

    D. Coppens, A. Shahid, S. Lemey, B. V . Herbruggen, C. Marshall, and E. D. Poorter, “An overview of uwb standards and organizations (ieee 802.15.4, fira, apple): Interoperability aspects and future research directions,” IEEE Access , vol. 10, pp. 70 219–70 241, 2022. [Online]....

    2022

  12. [19]

    A robot self-localization system using one-way ultra-wideband communication,

    A. Ledergerber, M. Hamer, and R. D’Andrea, “A robot self-localization system using one-way ultra-wideband communication,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 9 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IROS. 2015.7353810

    2015

  13. [20]

    Flextdoa: Robust and scalable time-difference of arrival localization using ultra-wideband devices,

    G.-C. P ˘atru, L. Flueratoru, I. Vasilescu, D. Niculescu, and D. Rosner, “Flextdoa: Robust and scalable time-difference of arrival localization using ultra-wideband devices,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 28 610– 28 627, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS...

    2023

  14. [21]

    Global uwb system: a high-accuracy mobile robot localization system with tightly coupled integration,

    S.-H. Bach, P.-B. Khoi, and S.-Y . Yi, “Global uwb system: a high-accuracy mobile robot localization system with tightly coupled integration,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 16 618–16 626, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ JIOT.2024.3354786

    2024

  15. [22]

    Ranging methods utilizing carrier frequency offset estimation,

    I. Dotlic, A. Connell, and M. McLaughlin, “Ranging methods utilizing carrier frequency offset estimation,” in 2018 15th Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and Communications (WPNC) , 10 2018, p. nil. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WPNC.2018.8555809

    2018

  16. [23]

    Positioning using time-difference of arrival measurements,

    F. Gustafsson and F. Gunnarsson, “Positioning using time-difference of arrival measurements,” in 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings. (ICASSP ’03)., - 2003. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP. 200...

    2003 arXiv

  17. [24]

    High precision real-time location estimates in a real-life barn environment using a commercial ultra wideband chip,

    P. Hindermann, S. N ¨uesch, D. Fr ¨uh, A. R ¨ust, and L. Gygax, “High precision real-time location estimates in a real-life barn environment using a commercial ultra wideband chip,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 170, p. 105250, 2020. [Online]. Available: http...

    2020

  18. [2020]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v8i3.505

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v8i3.505

    doi

  19. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11220

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11220

    arXiv

  20. [2024]

    Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/2/376

    [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/2/376

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.