Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Equivariant Filter for Relative Attitude and Target's Angular Velocity Estimation

T0 review · 3 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 An Equivariant Filter built on an SE(3) symmetry estimates a target's relative attitude and angular velocity from two known non-collinear vector measurements, with Monte Carlo and real-camera validation.

desk verdict The paper is a plausible EqF extension with real hardware validation, but Eq. (58) is algebraically wrong—no innovation term, nonzero correction at truth—so the published filter cannot reproduce the reported results. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06016 v3 pith:EGORKRTA submitted 2025-06-06 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Gil Serrano , Bruno J. Guerreiro , Pedro Lourenço , Rita Cunha This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY
keywords equivariantfilterrelativeattitudeestimationangularvelocitySE(3)symmetryLiegroupobserversuncooperativespacecrafteventcameraMonteCarlovalidation
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 claims that a filter built on the symmetry of the relative-motion problem can estimate, at the same time, the relative attitude between two rigid bodies and the angular velocity of a target, using only noisy measurements of two known non-collinear vectors fixed in the target frame. The filter is an Equivariant Filter (EqF): it lifts the state manifold $SO(3)\times\mathbb{R}^3$ to the Lie group $SE(3)$ through a proposed equivariant lift, applies Kalman-style corrections on the group, and projects back to the manifold. The authors show the system is observable, analyze local convergence, and validate the approach in Monte Carlo simulations, against an EKF, and in experiments with a conventional camera and an event camera. A sympathetic reader would take the claimed result to be that geometric structure, not extra sensors or process models, is enough to recover both attitude and spin reliably.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the right group action $\phi((Q,q),(R,\omega)) = (RQ, Q^T(\omega-q))$ of $SE(3)$, the special Euclidean group of rotations and translations, together with the equivariant lift $\Lambda((R,\omega),(u,a,v,w)) = ((u-\omega+v)^\wedge, -a+u\times w+\omega\times v)$. The lift carries the system dynamics onto the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{se}(3)$, turning the estimation problem into one of tracking a group element $(Q,q)$; the filter's internal model and correction terms $(\Delta_Q,\delta_q)$ live on $SE(3)$, so the estimated attitude stays on $SO(3)$ by construction. The same equivariance makes the output residual linearizable with $O(\|\varepsilon\|^3)$ error, and the pair $(\mathring{A}_t,C_t)$ uniformly completely observable under the boundedness of $\hat{q}$, which underpins the Riccati-based convergence argument via the Lyapunov function $V = \varepsilon^T \Sigma^{-1} \varepsilon$.

What would settle it

Take the published filter equations with a large initial $\hat{q}$ and integrate them numerically; if $\|\hat{q}\|$ grows without bound while the estimation error does not converge to zero, or the Riccati equation becomes ill-conditioned, then the local convergence claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the combined state $(R,\omega)$ — relative attitude and target angular velocity expressed in the chaser frame — admits a right $SE(3)$ group action, with an equivariant lift $\Lambda((R,\omega),(u,a,v,w)) = ((u-\omega+v)^\wedge, -a+u\times w+\omega\times v)$. Under this action, the two-vector measurement model is equivariant, so the global error dynamics can be linearized on the group rather than on the manifold. The resulting EqF evolves on $SE(3)$, with correction terms $\Delta_Q = k_N(\Sigma_R\cdot(\hat{Q}^T \mathring{d}_1 \times \mathring{d}_1 + \hat{Q}^T \mathring{d}_2 \times \mathring{d}_2))^\wedge$ and $\delta_q = -k_N \Sigma_{R\omega}^T \cdot(\hat{Q}^T \mathring{d}_1 \times \mathring{d}_1 + \hat{Q}^T \mathring{d}_2 \times \mathring{d}_2)$, and its Riccati equation uses the linearized error dynamics $\mathring{A}_t = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -I \\ 0 & (\hat{q})^\wedge \end{pmatrix}$ and output matrix $C_t$. The paper reports that this filter converges in Monte Carlo simulations with 999 of 1000 runs succeeding, converges faster than an EKF in the tested scenario, and estimates relative attitude and spin from real fiducial-marker measurements with both a conventional and an event camera.

Load-bearing premise

The convergence proof assumes that the filter's lifted-state estimate stays bounded at all times, but the paper does not prove this boundedness, and the local convergence guarantee depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, relative attitude and target angular velocity can be estimated jointly from direction measurements alone, without needing gyroscopes on the target or inertia-tensor knowledge.
  • The EqF's convergence is faster and less sensitive to gain tuning than the tested EKF, so symmetry-guided filtering can replace ad hoc quaternion normalization in relative space navigation filters.
  • The iterative update strategy extends the usable measurement rate: at 1 Hz measurements, iterating the update step restores convergence, which matters for space-grade hardware with slow cameras.
  • Event cameras allow the same filter to track targets spinning an order of magnitude faster than with a conventional camera, since asynchronous measurements avoid motion blur.
  • The observability result, obtained by augmenting the two-vector output with fictitious identity-column measurements, clarifies that two non-collinear vectors plus the rotation constraint are enough to observe the full 12-dimensional state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proposed symmetry may extend to estimating gyroscope bias or relative position, since the $SE(3)$ action already carries a translational component $q$ that is currently unused as a physical quantity; the paper's own future-work paragraph points the same direction.
  • A natural testable extension is to replace the fictitious identity measurements in the observability proof with an explicit algebraic observability argument, which would remove the rank-condition subtlety that leaves one unobserved direction before augmentation.
  • The boundedness gap in $\hat{q}$ could be closed by inserting a projection or saturation step on the group estimate; if that works, the local convergence proof becomes fully self-contained.
  • The comparison with EKF suggests that any geometry-ignoring filter will show larger steady-state error on the same problem; a systematic study across noise levels and measurement rates would quantify how much of the gain comes from the symmetry versus the Riccati tuning.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an Equivariant Filter (EqF) on SE(3) for estimating the relative attitude R between a chaser and a target and the target's angular velocity ω expressed in the chaser frame, using noisy measurements of two known non-collinear vectors fixed in the target frame. The authors define a right symmetry action on SO(3)×R^3, derive an equivariant lift, formulate the filter with a Riccati-based correction law, and give observability and convergence arguments. They validate the approach with Monte Carlo simulations, an EKF comparison, a low-measurement-rate iteration strategy, and experiments with a conventional camera and an event camera using a rotating ArUco marker.

Significance. If the filter equations are correct, the paper would provide a geometrically consistent, symmetry-preserving estimator for a practically relevant aerospace problem, with compelling validation: 1000 Monte Carlo runs, a favorable comparison to an EKF, a low-rate mitigation strategy, and hardware experiments with two camera modalities. The work also gives useful runtime figures for the prediction and update steps. However, the published correction law in Eq. (58) is algebraically inconsistent with the preceding derivation and does not vanish at the true state, so the reported simulation and experimental results cannot be reproduced from the printed equations. The observability analysis in Section II-D and the convergence proof in Section IV-F also contain load-bearing gaps. These issues are substantial but appear fixable in revision, so the central idea remains promising.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-E, Eq. (58)] The printed correction terms are algebraically inconsistent with the preceding derivation and do not vanish at the true state. With C_t^* from Eq. (53), the first block of the gain direction γ in Eq. (56) is, up to the positive factor k_N, Qhat Σ_i (d_i × hat d_i); using hat d_i = Qhat^T ˚d_i this equals Σ_i ((Qhat d_i) × ˚d_i). At the true filter state Qhat = R and d_i = R^T ˚d_i, so each term is ˚d_i × ˚d_i = 0. Eq. (58), however, uses Qhat^T ˚d_i × ˚d_i, which at truth is (R^T ˚d_i) × ˚d_i, generically nonzero for non-collinear ˚d_i. Thus the update law as printed drives the estimate away from the true state even with perfect measurements, and the simulations and hardware results cannot be reproduced from the published equations. The factor should be replaced by the frame-consistent expression derived from Eqs. (52)-(56), and the simulations and experiments should be re-run or the discrepancy explained. The statement in Section IV-E that using either C_t or C_t^* yields the same correction terms is also not supported by the algebra.
  2. [Section II-D] The observability analysis is not valid as stated. The state is embedded in R^12 via x = [vect(R)^T, ω^T]^T, and the rank test gives rank 9 with singular direction x_unobs = R^T(˚d1 × ˚d2). But x_unobs is exactly d1 × d2, which is directly measurable from the two vector outputs, so the claimed unobservable direction is an artifact of the redundant R^9 parametrization rather than a property of the original system. The subsequent addition of 'fictitious measurements' RR^T e_i in Eq. (14) cannot repair the argument: on the constraint RR^T = I these functions are identically e_i, their differentials vanish on the tangent space of SO(3), and they carry no state information. Please perform the observability rank test in a local chart of SO(3) × R^3, or otherwise account for the embedding redundancy, and state the result for the original state space.
  3. [Section IV-F] The convergence proof is conditional on an unproved boundedness assumption. The text states that 'if qhat remains bounded for all time' then (˚A_t, C_t) is uniformly completely observable, the Riccati solution is bounded, and the Lyapunov argument goes through. However, boundedness of qhat is never established from the filter equations (34)-(35), and the correction law could in principle drive qhat unbounded. Without a proof of boundedness, or an explicit statement that the result is local under an invariant-domain assumption, the claimed convergence guarantee is incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-B] The sentence 'SO(3) the SO(3)-torsor' appears to be a formatting artifact; please clarify the intended definition.
  2. [Section II-D, Eq. (14)] The second entry of the expanded output µh duplicates R^T ˚ d1; it should presumably be R^T ˚ d2.
  3. [Section IV-C] The symbol d_i is used for both the true output and the measured output; with the noisy model in Eq. (11) the two differ, so the definitions of y and ŷ in Eq. (52) should be made explicit.
  4. [Section VI-C] The camera name 'Prophesse EVK3' should be 'Prophesee EVK3'.
  5. [Abstract and Section I] There are minor typos, including 'decribed' and 'the the industry standard', which should be corrected in a final revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EqF derivation is self-contained and externally validated; the main defects (Eq. (58) correction-term inconsistency, unproved boundedness in Sec. IV-F) are correctness gaps, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The symmetry action (23), input action (27), output action (28), and equivariant lift (29) are verified in the Appendix by direct computation, not imported from the authors' prior work. The Riccati equation (54), gain direction (56), and correction terms (57) are algebraic consequences of the cited EqF framework [29], and the simulations and hardware experiments are external validation rather than fitted outputs; no parameter is tuned to force the convergence plots. The self-citations [23] and [42] are related-work and runtime references, and neither supplies a load-bearing premise. Two genuine weaknesses are present but are not circularity: Section IV-F conditions convergence on the unproved boundedness of qhat, and Eq. (58) appears algebraically inconsistent with (52)-(56) because it uses (Qhat^T ˚d_i) x ˚d_i instead of the frame-consistent term that vanishes at the true state; either defect would undermine the proof or reproducibility, but neither makes the claimed result equivalent to its assumptions by definition. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The filter relies on standard kinematic models and the existing EqF theory. The only hand-chosen quantities are the tuning gains and initial covariance, which are not fitted to the validation data. The key unproved premise is the boundedness of qhat in the convergence argument.

free parameters (4)
  • State gain matrix M_t = I (simulation); not reported for experiments
    Hand-chosen process-noise gain in the Riccati equation (54); filter dynamics and convergence depend on it.
  • Output gain matrix N_t = 0.1 I (simulation); not reported for experiments
    Hand-chosen measurement-noise gain used in the correction terms (56)-(58).
  • Initial Riccati state Sigma_0 = I (simulation)
    Initial covariance in local error coordinates; affects transient behavior.
  • Measurement noise standard deviation sigma_theta = 0.1 rad (simulation)
    Simulation noise level; experimental noise levels are not reported.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The target's angular velocity is constant in the target frame (a_T = 0).
    Stated in Section II-B after Eq. (5): the target's angular velocity is 'unknown but constant, i.e., dot omega_T = 0'. The filter model and simulations rely on this.
  • domain assumption Two known, non-collinear vectors fixed in the target frame are measured in the chaser frame.
    Measurement model in Section II-C (Eq. (9)-(10)). The filter requires these directions to be known a priori.
  • domain assumption The measurement noise is a multiplicative rotation noise with zero-mean Gaussian angle.
    Noise model in Eq. (11), Section II-C. Used in simulations but not in the filter derivation.
  • domain assumption The chaser's angular velocity u is known perfectly.
    Assumed in Section II-B; gyroscope bias is not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The lifted-state estimate qhat remains bounded for all time.
    Invoked in Section IV-F to establish uniform complete observability and Riccati bounds; no proof of boundedness is given.
  • domain assumption The initial error is sufficiently small and stays within the local chart where the matrix logarithm is defined.
    Section IV-A notes the logarithm is undefined for 180 degree rotation errors; the convergence proof in Section IV-F assumes local validity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equivariant Filter for Relative Attitude and Target's Angular Velocity Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGORKRTA

@misc{pith2026250606016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equivariant Filter for Relative Attitude and Target's Angular Velocity Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGORKRTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06016}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate estimation of the relative attitude and angular velocity between two rigid bodies is fundamental in aerospace applications such as spacecraft rendezvous and docking. In these scenarios, a chaser vehicle must determine the orientation and angular velocity of a target object using onboard sensors. This work addresses the challenge of designing an Equivariant Filter (EqF) that can reliably estimate both the relative attitude and the target angular velocity using noisy observations of two known, non-collinear vectors fixed in the target frame. To derive the EqF, a symmetry for the system is proposed and an equivariant lift onto the symmetry group is calculated. Observability and convergence properties are analyzed. Simulations demonstrate the filter's performance, with Monte Carlo runs yielding statistically significant results. The impact of low-rate measurements is also examined and a strategy to mitigate this effect is proposed. Experimental results, using fiducial markers and both conventional and event cameras for measurement acquisition, further validate the approach, confirming its effectiveness in a realistic setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chaser and target scenario with relevant reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Chaser and target attitudes, expressed in Euler angles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Filter correction terms. the relative attitude error norm is 0.019, which corresponds to a mean error norm of 0.572°, 0.437°, and 0.435° for roll, pitch and yaw, respectively. The mean of the target’s angular velocity error norm is 0.023 rad/s, or 1.318 °/s, that is, a relative error of 1.11 % with respect to the true target’s angular velocity norm. C. Monte Carlo Simulations For a broader analysis of the filter in … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Norm of the error on the group (with the identity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the logarithm of the errors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Log-Error norm on the group (with the identity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic representation of the experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Conventional Camera Experiment: Chaser’s angular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Conventional Camera Experiment: Error norm on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Event Camera Experiment: Error norm on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Event Camera Experiment: True relative attitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Event Camera Experiment: Chaser’s angular velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A review of space robotics technologies for on-orbit servicing,

    A. Flores-Abad, O. Ma, K. Pham, and S. Ulrich, “A review of space robotics technologies for on-orbit servicing,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 68, pp. 1–26, July 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    e.Deorbit – ESA’s active debris removal mission,

    R. Biesbroek, L. Innocenti, A. Wolahan, and S. M. Serrano, “e.Deorbit – ESA’s active debris removal mission,” in Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Space Debris, vol. 7. ESA Space Debris Office, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Viability of on-orbit servicing spacecraft to prolong the operational life of satellites,

    I. Hatty, “Viability of on-orbit servicing spacecraft to prolong the operational life of satellites,” Journal of Space Safety Engineering, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 263–268, June 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Effect of large constellations on lifetime of satellites in low earth orbits,

    W. Ailor, G. Peterson, J. Womack, and M. Youngs, “Effect of large constellations on lifetime of satellites in low earth orbits,” Journal of Space Safety Engineering, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 117–123, Sept. 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Stereovision-based pose and inertia estimation of unknown and uncooperative space objects,

    V . Pesce, M. Lavagna, and R. Bevilacqua, “Stereovision-based pose and inertia estimation of unknown and uncooperative space objects,” Advances in Space Research, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 236–251, Jan. 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Monocular-based pose determination of uncooperative space objects,

    V . Capuano, K. Kim, A. Harvard, and S.-J. Chung, “Monocular-based pose determination of uncooperative space objects,”Acta Astronautica, vol. 166, pp. 493–506, Jan. 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A relative navigation sensor for CubeSats based on LED fiducial markers,

    F. Sansone, F. Branz, and A. Francesconi, “A relative navigation sensor for CubeSats based on LED fiducial markers,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 146, pp. 206–215, May 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Pose determination of pas- sively cooperative spacecraft in close proximity using a monocular camera and AruCo markers,

    C. Vela, G. Fasano, and R. Opromolla, “Pose determination of pas- sively cooperative spacecraft in close proximity using a monocular camera and AruCo markers,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 201, pp. 22–38, Dec. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Satellite Pose Estimation Challenge: Dataset, Com- petition Design, and Results,

    M. Kisantal, S. Sharma, T. H. Park, D. Izzo, M. M ¨artens, and S. D’Amico, “Satellite Pose Estimation Challenge: Dataset, Com- petition Design, and Results,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 4083–4098, Oct. 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Neural network-based pose estimation for noncooperative spacecraft rendezvous,

    S. Sharma and S. D’Amico, “Neural network-based pose estimation for noncooperative spacecraft rendezvous,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 4638–4658, Dec. 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Deep learning-based relative navigation about uncooperative space objects,

    D. Kaidanovic, M. Piazza, M. Maestrini, and P. Di Lizia, “Deep learning-based relative navigation about uncooperative space objects,” in 73rd International Astronautical Congress, 09 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Robust spacecraft relative pose estimation via CNN-aided line segments detection in monocular images,

    M. Bechini, G. Gu, P. Lunghi, and M. Lavagna, “Robust spacecraft relative pose estimation via CNN-aided line segments detection in monocular images,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 215, pp. 20–43, Feb. 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Adaptive neural-network-based unscented Kalman filter for robust pose tracking of noncooperative spacecraft,

    T. H. Park and S. D’Amico, “Adaptive neural-network-based unscented Kalman filter for robust pose tracking of noncooperative spacecraft,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1671– 1688, Sept. 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Survey of nonlin- ear attitude estimation methods,

    J. L. Crassidis, F. L. Markley, and Y . Cheng, “Survey of nonlin- ear attitude estimation methods,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 12–28, Jan. 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    Comparison of filtering techniques for relative attitude estimation of uncooperative space objects,

    V . Pesce, M. F. Haydar, M. Lavagna, and M. Lovera, “Comparison of filtering techniques for relative attitude estimation of uncooperative space objects,” Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 84, pp. 318– 328, Jan. 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Minimum-energy filtering for attitude estimation,

    M. Zamani, J. Trumpf, and R. Mahony, “Minimum-energy filtering for attitude estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 2917–2921, Nov. 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Second-order- optimal minimum-energy filters on Lie groups,

    A. Saccon, J. Trumpf, R. Mahony, and A. P. Aguiar, “Second-order- optimal minimum-energy filters on Lie groups,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 2906–2919, Oct. 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Stereovision-based relative states and inertia parameter estimation of noncooperative spacecraft,

    X. Wang, Z. Wang, and Y . Zhang, “Stereovision-based relative states and inertia parameter estimation of noncooperative spacecraft,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G, vol. 233, no. 7, pp. 2489–2502, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Au- tonomous relative navigation around uncooperative spacecraft based on a single camera,

    V . Pesce, R. Opromolla, S. Sarno, M. Lavagna, and M. Grassi, “Au- tonomous relative navigation around uncooperative spacecraft based on a single camera,” Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 84, pp. 1070–1080, Jan. 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    LIDAR- based multi-step approach for relative state and inertia parameters determination of an uncooperative target,

    A. Nocerino, R. Opromolla, G. Fasano, and M. Grassi, “LIDAR- based multi-step approach for relative state and inertia parameters determination of an uncooperative target,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 181, Apr. 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Dual quaternion Kalman filtering and observability analysis for satellite relative navigation with line-of- sight measurements,

    Y . Zivan and D. Choukroun, “Dual quaternion Kalman filtering and observability analysis for satellite relative navigation with line-of- sight measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 754–765, Apr. 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Relative visual navigation around an unknown and uncooperative spacecraft,

    T. Barbier and Y . Gao, “Relative visual navigation around an unknown and uncooperative spacecraft,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 206, pp. 144– 155, May 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Globally convergent near- optimal pose and inertia estimation of on-orbit uncooperative targets,

    J. L. Parreira, P. Lourenc ¸o, and P. Batista, “Globally convergent near- optimal pose and inertia estimation of on-orbit uncooperative targets,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 4479–4491, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    The exogenous Kalman filter (XKF),

    T. A. Johansen and T. I. Fossen, “The exogenous Kalman filter (XKF),” International Journal of Control, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 161–167, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Observers for kinematic systems with symmetry,

    R. Mahony, J. Trumpf, and T. Hamel, “Observers for kinematic systems with symmetry,” IFAC Proceedings V olumes, vol. 46, no. 23, pp. 617–633, Jan. 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Equivariant systems theory and observer design,

    R. Mahony, T. Hamel, and J. Trumpf, “Equivariant systems theory and observer design,” Aug. 2020, arXiv:2006.08276

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Observer design for nonlinear systems with equivariance,

    R. Mahony, P. v. Goor, and T. Hamel, “Observer design for nonlinear systems with equivariance,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 5, no. V olume 5, 2022, pp. 221–252, May 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Equivariant filter design for kinematic systems on Lie groups,

    R. Mahony and J. Trumpf, “Equivariant filter design for kinematic systems on Lie groups,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 253– 260, Jan. 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Equivariant filter (EqF),

    P. van Goor, T. Hamel, and R. Mahony, “Equivariant filter (EqF),” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3501– 3512, June 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Attitude observation for second order attitude kinematics,

    Y . Ng, P. van Goor, R. Mahony, and T. Hamel, “Attitude observation for second order attitude kinematics,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec. 2019, pp. 2536–2542

    2019

  23. [31]

    Equivariant systems theory and observer design for second order kinematic systems on matrix Lie groups,

    Y . Ng, P. van Goor, T. Hamel, and R. Mahony, “Equivariant systems theory and observer design for second order kinematic systems on matrix Lie groups,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec. 2020, pp. 4194–4199

    2020

  24. [32]

    Overcoming bias: Equivariant filter design for biased attitude estima- tion with online calibration,

    A. Fornasier, Y . Ng, C. Brommer, C. B ¨ohm, R. Mahony, and S. Weiss, “Overcoming bias: Equivariant filter design for biased attitude estima- tion with online calibration,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 12 118–12 125, Oct. 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Equivariant filter design for inertial navigation systems with input measurement biases,

    A. Fornasier, Y . Ng, R. Mahony, and S. Weiss, “Equivariant filter design for inertial navigation systems with input measurement biases,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2022, pp. 4333–4339

    2022

  26. [34]

    Nonlinear controllability and observ- ability,

    R. Hermann and A. Krener, “Nonlinear controllability and observ- ability,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 728–740, 1977

    1977

  27. [35]

    Nijmeijer and A

    H. Nijmeijer and A. Schaft, Nonlinear Dynamical Control Systems. Springer New York, NY , 1990

    1990

  28. [36]

    Design of a navigation filter by analysis of local observability,

    P.-J. Bristeau, N. Petit, and L. Praly, “Design of a navigation filter by analysis of local observability,” in 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec. 2010, pp. 1298–1305

    2010

  29. [37]

    A note on uniform observability,

    B. Delyon, “A note on uniform observability,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1326–1327, 2001

    2001

  30. [38]

    The convergence of the extended Kalman filter,

    A. J. Krener, “The convergence of the extended Kalman filter,” in Directions in Mathematical Systems Theory and Optimization. Springer, 2003, pp. 173–182

    2003

  31. [39]

    The invariant extended Kalman filter as a stable observer,

    A. Barrau and S. Bonnabel, “The invariant extended Kalman filter as a stable observer,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1797–1812, Apr. 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Eickhoff, Onboard Computers, Onboard Software and Satellite Operations: An Introduction

    J. Eickhoff, Onboard Computers, Onboard Software and Satellite Operations: An Introduction. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    On ground validation of debris removal technologies,

    P. Colmenarejo, M. Graziano, G. Novelli, D. Mora, P. Serra, A. Tomassini, K. Seweryn, G. Prisco, and J. G. Fernandez, “On ground validation of debris removal technologies,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 158, pp. 206–219, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Verifi- cation & validation of optimisation-based control systems: Methods and outcomes of VV4RTOS,

    P. Lourenc ¸o, H. Costa, J. Branco, P.-L. Garoche, A. Sadeghzadeh, J. Frey, G. Frison, A. Comellini, M. Barbero, and V . Preda, “Verifi- cation & validation of optimisation-based control systems: Methods and outcomes of VV4RTOS,” in ESA 12th International Conference on Guidanc...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Automatic generation and detection of highly re- liable fiducial markers under occlusion,

    S. Garrido-Jurado, R. Mu ˜noz-Salinas, F. Madrid-Cuevas, and M. Mar´ın-Jim´enez, “Automatic generation and detection of highly re- liable fiducial markers under occlusion,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2280–2292, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

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