Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Contact-Anchored Proprioceptive Odometry for Legged and Wheel-Legged Robots

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A legged robot can navigate hundreds of meters with only its own joints and an IMU, by locking onto footfall anchors.

desk verdict The point-foot results are the real contribution; the wheel-legged claims are oversold given the paper's own slip caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.17393 v3 pith:ZLZQQHYO submitted 2026-02-19 cs.RO eess.SP

Minxing Sun , Yao Mao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROeess.SP
keywords proprioceptiveodometryleggedrobotswheel-leggedcontactanchoringfootfallrecordscubatureKalmanfilterdeadreckoningstateestimation
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

This paper claims that a legged or wheel-legged robot can estimate its own position accurately over long distances using only proprioceptive sensors—an IMU and joint motor encoders—with no cameras or LiDAR. The key idea is to treat each footfall as a kinematic anchor: at touchdown, the foot's world position is recorded and treated as a fixed constraint while the foot stays on the ground. These intermittent anchors suppress the drift that normally accumulates in inertial integration. In closed-loop experiments, a point-foot quadruped returns to its start with just 0.16 m error after a roughly 200 m walk, and a wheel-legged robot manages 0.23 m on the same course. The paper also introduces mechanisms to control vertical drift (height clustering of touchdown heights) and yaw drift (geometric consistency of multiple contacts).

What carries the argument

The central object is the footfall record: the world-frame position of an end-effector recorded at touchdown and assumed stationary during stance. During stance, the robot's body pose is inferred by subtracting the current forward-kinematics end-effector position (rotated into the world frame) from the stored footfall point. This converts each stance phase into an intermittent absolute position constraint, suppressing long-horizon drift without exteroceptive sensing. Surrounding mechanisms include torque-based wrench stance detection, support-plane height clustering with time decay, effective wheel rolling compensation for wheel-legged platforms, an inverse-kinematics cubature Kalman filter

What would settle it

Run a wheel-legged robot over a known distance on a deliberately slippery surface, such as a wet vinyl floor or loose gravel, while measuring ground truth with motion capture; if the estimated path error grows with the number of slip events and exceeds the paper's reported drift, the no-slip contact-propagation assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that contact anchoring with touchdown footfall records provides accurate long-horizon proprioceptive odometry in practice. The estimator records the world-frame foot position at each touchdown, treats it as stationary during stance, and derives body position and velocity constraints from forward kinematics. A torque-based wrench estimate selects which legs are in contact. A support-plane height clustering snaps newly recorded footfall heights to previously observed heights, preventing elevation drift. For wheel-legged robots, the recorded contact is propagated by an effective wheel rolling angle that subtracts shank-pitch-induced encoder motion, and a cubature Kalman fil

Load-bearing premise

For wheel-legged robots, the contact propagation assumes no wheel–ground slip and locally flat ground; slip is not detected or compensated, so the long-horizon accuracy claim for those platforms depends on the ground being non-slippery and locally flat.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Legged robots can maintain accurate pose estimates in low-texture or illumination-challenged environments where camera- or LiDAR-based SLAM fails, using only onboard proprioception.
  • Elevation drift over long traversals can be controlled by clustering touchdown heights onto previously observed support planes, even over repeated stair ascents and descents.
  • Wheel-legged platforms can be folded into the same estimator by propagating the contact point through wheel rolling, but the accuracy depends on the no-slip and locally-flat-ground assumptions.
  • Yaw drift, a known weak point of inertial-only estimation, can be arrested by enforcing geometric consistency of multiple stance contacts, providing a fallback heading reference when IMU yaw is unreliable.
  • The contact-set formulation is morphology-agnostic and extends to bipeds and multi-limbed robots by varying the number of contacting end-effectors over time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If slip detection and weighting were added to the wheel-legged branch, the large horizontal error on the 700 m wheel-legged loop (7.68 m) might be reduced to near point-foot levels, a testable extension of the paper's own analysis.
  • The height-clustering step effectively learns a discrete map of support planes from touchdown history; this could be repurposed as a lightweight terrain representation for footstep planning or traversability assessment.
  • The multi-contact yaw correction could be combined with a magnetometer or with occasional visual heading fixes to provide a redundant heading reference that is robust to both IMU drift and contact-model violations.
  • The local-flatness assumption in wheel-contact propagation could be relaxed by estimating a sloped support plane from multi-contact geometry, which would broaden the estimator's applicability to ramps and general uneven terrain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents CAPO, a proprioceptive state estimator for legged and wheel-legged robots that uses only IMU and motor measurements. The method records footfall positions at touchdown, treats stance contacts as world-frame kinematic anchors, adds a support-plane height clustering correction to reduce elevation drift, and propagates wheel contacts by an effective rolling angle. An optional inverse-kinematics cubature Kalman filter suppresses encoder-quantization velocity spikes, and a multi-contact geometric consistency term provides a yaw correction. The estimator is evaluated in Gazebo on an AlienGo model and on four real platforms—Unitree Go2 EDU and three Astrall robots—with closed-loop trajectories. The paper reports, for example, 0.1638 m planar closure error over a ~200 m loop on a point-foot robot, and 7.68 m over a ~700 m loop on a wheel-legged robot. The central claim is that contact anchoring provides accurate long-horizon proprioceptive odometry for both legged and wheel-legged robots.

Significance. If the point-foot results are representative, the paper makes a useful contribution: purely proprioceptive odometry with decimeter-level loop closure over hundreds of meters is notable, and the public release of code and ROS bags is a real strength. The closed-form rolling-bias analysis (Eq. 18) and the CKF recursion are clearly presented and appear internally consistent. However, the paper's evidence for the wheel-legged portion of the central claim is substantially weaker, and the single-run nature of the experimental validation limits confidence. The manuscript would be strengthened by repeated trials, explicit parameter values or sensitivity analysis, and either slip handling for wheel-legged contacts or a narrowed claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eqs. (21)-(25); Section VI.C-a; Table II] The wheel-legged claim is not supported by the current evidence. The contact-propagation model assumes no wheel–ground slip and locally flat ground: Eq. (23) integrates the encoder-derived rolling increment into the world-frame footfall record, so under slip the erroneous displacement is baked into the anchor. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section VI.C-a that slip is not detected or compensated, and attributes the 7.68 m closure error over the 700 m Astrall C loop to slip. That is the only long-horizon wheel-legged experiment, and it contains a known violation of the core model. The 200 m wheel-legged result (0.2264 m) may be on favorable, high-friction flat ground, but one run does not establish long-horizon capability. The Section VII conclusion that contact anchoring provides accurate long-horizon proprioceptive odometry for wheel-legged robots overreaches; either slip-aware pr
  2. [Table II and Section VI.B] The real-world validation consists of a single run per condition with no repeated trials, error bars, or statistical summary. Table II reports one closure error per platform/loop, and Section VI.B describes 'representative' traces. With several configurable thresholds and gains, it is impossible to tell whether the reported numbers are typical or selected favorable outcomes. At minimum, the authors should report the number of runs and mean/standard deviation for each condition, or clearly state that these are single demonstrations. This is load-bearing for the claim of accurate 'in practice' odometry because the headline numbers—especially the difference between Astrall A/B and Astrall C—are otherwise anecdotal.
  3. [Eqs. (1), (10), (11), (35); Sec IV-B (Q, R)] At least six algorithm parameters are configurable but no values are reported: f_th in Eq. (1), Delta_h and T_fade in Eqs. (10)-(11), kappa in Eq. (11), alpha_0 and T_psi in Eq. (35), plus the CKF noise covariances Q and R after Eq. (48). While the code is public, the paper does not state how these were chosen, whether they are fixed across platforms, or how sensitive the results are to them. This matters because a method with many free parameters can be accidentally tuned to the evaluated trajectories. Please provide the exact values used for each platform and a sensitivity or ablation study on at least the most influential thresholds (e.g., Delta_h and f_th).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The title says 'Quadruped Robots' but the abstract and introduction claim a unified formulation for biped, quadruped, and wheel-legged robots. Please align the title and scope statements.
  2. [Section VI.B-2-a] The text refers to 'Robot A (MP)' and 'Robot B (MW)' in Fig. 18 without defining MP/MW. Define these abbreviations or use the point-foot/wheel-legged terminology consistently.
  3. [Section III-A, Fig. 5] In Eq. (18), the notation 'a_1 measured from the +x axis' should be stated in the figure caption as well. The closed-form result is helpful, but the derivation would benefit from a one-line sign convention reminder near the equation.
  4. [Section II-D] The support-plane height correction is described only in prose. A pseudo-code block or explicit algorithm box for the match/snap/prune logic in Eqs. (9)-(11) would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section VI.A] The simulation comparison is against a LiDAR SLAM baseline. This is reasonable, but the paper does not state whether the SLAM baseline had access to the same closed-loop control or whether it was optimized per trajectory. Please clarify.
  6. [Section V-B, Eq. (35)] The yaw correction gain schedule uses alpha_0 and T_psi, but the paper does not state how 'full support' is determined beyond all four feet being in stance. A precise condition (e.g., continuous stance duration) would avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the contact-anchored estimate is validated against external simulation ground truth, and the self-referential footfall anchoring is standard map-based odometry rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation builds footfall records from the estimator's own pose (Eq. 5 via Eq. 4) and then uses those records to constrain body pose (Eq. 6). Read at a single timestep, this is self-referential: at touchdown, the position observation equals the state that produced the anchor. However, over time the loop is not a logical equivalence or a fitted-input prediction; the anchor is fixed at touchdown and the body pose evolves through forward kinematics and IMU propagation, which is the standard map-based contact-aided odometry formulation. The paper does not claim a first-principles uniqueness theorem, and it does not rely on a same-author citation to justify the anchor mechanism; the self-citations [16], [22] appear only in comparisons of Kalman-filter variants and are not load-bearing. The central claim is externally supported: in Gazebo simulation with ground-truth base states, CAPO and CAPO-CKE track ground truth and outperform a LiDAR-SLAM baseline on low-texture trajectories (Table I, Figs. 10-15). Real-robot loop closures are consistency metrics rather than absolute ground truth, and the acknowledged wheel-slip and flat-ground limitations (Sec. VI.C-a,c) are correctness/scope concerns, not circularity. The configurable thresholds (e.g., f_th, Delta_h, T_fade, alpha_0) are tuning parameters, not predictions derived from the fitted data. Hence no circular step rises to the level required by the analysis rules; the overall score is low, reflecting only the inherent self-referential nature of map-based proprioceptive anchoring.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is mostly a re-implementation of known contact-aided odometry with several heuristics. The central claim depends on domain assumptions (quasi-static wrench, no slip, flat ground, piecewise-constant height) that hold only under favorable conditions, and on a set of unspecified tuning parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • f_th (stance force threshold)
    Configurable threshold in Eq. (1) for contact classification; likely tuned per platform.
  • Delta_h (support-plane match resolution)
    Resolution for associating touchdown heights to support planes (Eq. (10)).
  • T_fade (support-plane fade time)
    Pruning time for stale support-plane records (Eq. (11)).
  • kappa (confidence time-decay constant)
    Time-decay constant in Eq. (11); controls plane confidence update.
  • alpha_0 (base yaw correction gain)
    Base gain for kinematic yaw correction (Eq. (34)).
  • T_psi (yaw ramp time constant)
    Time constant for ramping yaw gain during full support (Eq. (35)).
  • CKF noise covariances Q and R
    Process/measurement noise matrices for the IKVel-CKF (Appendix B); values not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Joint torque measurement satisfies the quasi-static wrench mapping tau = J^T f (Eq. 42), ignoring leg inertial/dynamic effects.
    Used for stance selection in Section II-B; invalid during fast dynamic motion or impacts.
  • domain assumption No wheel–ground slip and locally flat terrain for wheel contact propagation (Eqs. 23-25).
    Authors state slip is not detected/compensated and is a likely source of the 7.68 m error on the 700 m loop.
  • domain assumption Support-plane heights are piecewise constant within resolution Delta_h and new touchdown heights snap to existing planes (Eq. 10).
    Assumes discrete terrain levels; ramps or gradual slopes violate this.
  • domain assumption IMU roll and pitch are sufficiently accurate for tilt compensation in yaw correction (Section V).
    The yaw estimate from contact geometry relies on correct tilt; if roll/pitch drift, the yaw correction is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Foot-end velocity follows a constant-velocity prior in the IKVel-CKF (Eq. 46).
    A modeling choice for filter simplicity; not derived from leg dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contact-Anchored Proprioceptive Odometry for Legged and Wheel-Legged Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZLZQQHYO

@misc{pith2026260217393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contact-Anchored Proprioceptive Odometry for Legged and Wheel-Legged Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZLZQQHYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.17393}
}
read the original abstract

Reliable odometry for legged robots without cameras or LiDAR remains challenging due to IMU drift and noisy joint velocity sensing. This paper presents a purely proprioceptive state estimator that uses only IMU and motor measurements to estimate body pose and velocity, with a unified formulation applicable to quadruped and wheel-legged robots and extensible to other legged morphologies. The key idea is to treat each reliable contact as a kinematic anchor: joint-torque--based foot wrench estimation selects stance contacts, and the corresponding footfall records provide intermittent world-frame constraints that suppress long-term drift. To prevent elevation drift during extended traversal, we introduce a lightweight height clustering and time-decay correction that snaps newly recorded footfall heights to previously observed support planes. For wheel-legged platforms, the recorded contact is further propagated by effective wheel rolling displacement with shank-motion compensation and a slope-aware rolling direction. To improve foot velocity observations under encoder quantization, we retain an inverse-kinematics cubature Kalman filter as an optional velocity-enhancement module that filters foot-end velocities from joint angles and velocities. The implementation further mitigates yaw drift through multi-contact geometric consistency, which is injected as a soft heading prior rather than as a hard reset of the attitude state. The method is evaluated on four quadruped platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Footfall records provide continuous body position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Footstep tracking correction strategy flowchart. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Correction of footstep position. Directly recorded footfall heights are sensitive to small biases; without correction, vertical drift accu￾mulates over long traversal. We maintain a discrete set of support-plane height records H = {(hn, wn, tn)} Nh n=1, (9) where hn is the plane height, wn a confidence weight, and tn the last update time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sagittal-plane model of a rounded point foot. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rolling-contact modeling bias for R = 0.03 m and touchdown pitch a1 = 80◦ , with a2 ∈ [60◦ , 140◦ ]. The curves plot ∆x (red) and ∆z (blue) from (18). c) Displacement bias.: We define the modeling error as the difference between the displacement predicted by Model A an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimated body linear velocity. Red/green/blue correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Representative hip–foot velocity feedback (leg 1). Blue: raw forward-kinematics velocity using encoder-derived joint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the geometric cue exploited for yaw correction. The blue model denotes the initial configuration and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Locomotion trajectories in simulation. The flat-ground loop is shown in blue and the stair-climbing loop in red. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Estimated x-position during flat￾ground walking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Estimated z-velocity during stair climbing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Unitree Go2 EDU planar closed-loop traversal on a basketball court. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Unitree Go2 EDU repeated ascent/descent over a single low step. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Astrall closed-loop trials: real-time estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Astrall Robot C closed-loop trials: real-time estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references

  1. [1]

    MPC-based Controller with Terrain Insight for Dynamic Legged Locomotion,

    O. Villarreal, V . Barasuol, P. M. Wensing, D. G. Caldwell, and C. Semini, “MPC-based Controller with Terrain Insight for Dynamic Legged Locomotion,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2020, pp. 2436–2442

    2020

  2. [2]

    Perceptive Autonomous Stair Climbing for Quadrupedal Robots,

    S. Qi, W. Lin, Z. Hong, H. Chen, and W. Zhang, “Perceptive Autonomous Stair Climbing for Quadrupedal Robots,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Sep. 2021, pp. 2313–2320

    2021

  3. [3]

    Fast and Continuous Foothold Adaptation for Dynamic Locomotion Through CNNs,

    O. A. V . Maga ˜na, V . Barasuol, M. Camurri, L. Franceschi, M. Focchi, M. Pontil, D. G. Caldwell, and C. Semini, “Fast and Continuous Foothold Adaptation for Dynamic Locomotion Through CNNs,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 2140–2147, Apr. 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Perceptive Locomotion through Nonlinear Model Predictive Control,

    R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, S. Yang, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Perceptive Locomotion through Nonlinear Model Predictive Control,” Aug. 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Direct LiDAR Odometry: Fast Localization With Dense Point Clouds,

    K. Chen, B. T. Lopez, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, and A. Mehta, “Direct LiDAR Odometry: Fast Localization With Dense Point Clouds,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2000–2007, Apr. 2022

    2000

  6. [6]

    State estimation for legged robots on unstable and slippery terrain,

    M. Bloesch, C. Gehring, P. Fankhauser, M. Hutter, M. A. Hoepflinger, and R. Siegwart, “State estimation for legged robots on unstable and slippery terrain,” in2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Nov. 2013, pp. 6058–6064

    2013

  7. [7]

    Estimation of external forces acting on the legs of a quadruped robot using two nonlinear disturbance observers,

    N. Dini, V . J. Majd, F. Edrisi, and M. Attar, “Estimation of external forces acting on the legs of a quadruped robot using two nonlinear disturbance observers,” in2016 4th International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (ICROM), Oct. 2016, pp. 72–77

    2016

  8. [8]

    Multi-IMU proprioceptive odometry for legged robots,

    S. Yang, Z. Zhang, B. Bokser, and Z. Manchester, “Multi-IMU proprioceptive odometry for legged robots,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 2023, pp. 774–779

    2023

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Probabilistic Contact Estimation and Impact Detection for State Estimation of Quadruped Robots,

    M. Camurri, M. Fallon, S. Bazeille, A. Radulescu, V . Barasuol, D. G. Caldwell, and C. Semini, “Probabilistic Contact Estimation and Impact Detection for State Estimation of Quadruped Robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1023–1030, Apr. 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Contact-aided invariant extended Kalman filtering for robot state estimation,

    R. Hartley, M. Ghaffari, R. M. Eustice, and J. W. Grizzle, “Contact-aided invariant extended Kalman filtering for robot state estimation,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 402–430, Mar. 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Legged Robot State Estimation With Invariant Extended Kalman Filter Using Neural Measurement Network,

    D. Youm, H. Oh, S. Choi, H. Kim, and J. Hwangbo, “Legged Robot State Estimation With Invariant Extended Kalman Filter Using Neural Measurement Network,” Feb. 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Cerberus: Low-Drift Visual-Inertial-Leg Odometry For Agile Locomotion,

    S. Yang, Z. Zhang, Z. Fu, and Z. Manchester, “Cerberus: Low-Drift Visual-Inertial-Leg Odometry For Agile Locomotion,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2023, pp. 4193–4199

    2023

  5. [13]

    A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,

    R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,”Journal of Basic Engineering, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 35–45, Mar. 1960

    1960

  6. [14]

    A framework for state-space estimation with uncertain models,

    A. H. Sayed, “A framework for state-space estimation with uncertain models,”IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 998–1013, Jul. 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Sensitivity penalization based robust state estimation for uncertain linear systems,

    T. Zhou, “Sensitivity penalization based robust state estimation for uncertain linear systems,”IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1018–1024, Apr. 2010. 25

    2010

  8. [16]

    A robust state estimator with adaptive factor,

    M. Sun, Y . Mao, and H. Liu, “A robust state estimator with adaptive factor,”IEEE ACCESS, vol. 8, pp. 144 514–144 521, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    The iterated kalman filter update as a gauss-newton method,

    B. Bell and F. Cathey, “The iterated kalman filter update as a gauss-newton method,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 294–297, Feb. 1993

    1993

  10. [18]

    A robust iterated extended kalman filter for power system dynamic state estimation,

    J. Zhao, M. Netto, and L. Mili, “A robust iterated extended kalman filter for power system dynamic state estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3205–3216, Jul. 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    The unscented kalman filter for nonlinear estimation,

    E. Wan and R. Van Der Merwe, “The unscented kalman filter for nonlinear estimation,” inProceedings of the IEEE 2000 Adaptive Systems for Signal Processing, Communications, and Control Symposium (Cat. No.00EX373), Oct. 2000, pp. 153–158

    2000

  13. [21]

    Unscented filtering and nonlinear estimation,

    S. Julier and J. Uhlmann, “Unscented filtering and nonlinear estimation,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 401–422, Mar. 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Intention inference-based interacting multiple model estimator in photoelectric tracking,

    M. Sun, H. Liu, Q. Duan, J. Wang, Y . Mao, and Q. Bao, “Intention inference-based interacting multiple model estimator in photoelectric tracking,”IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1210–1222, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Cubature kalman filters,

    I. Arasaratnam and S. Haykin, “Cubature kalman filters,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1254–1269, Jun. 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Seamless GPS/inertial navigation system based on self-learning square-root cubature kalman filter,

    C. Shen, Y . Zhang, X. Guo, X. Chen, H. Cao, J. Tang, J. Li, and J. Liu, “Seamless GPS/inertial navigation system based on self-learning square-root cubature kalman filter,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 499–508, Jan. 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Automated vehicle sideslip angle estimation considering signal measurement characteristic,

    W. Liu, X. Xia, L. Xiong, Y . Lu, L. Gao, and Z. Yu, “Automated vehicle sideslip angle estimation considering signal measurement characteristic,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 19, pp. 21 675–21 687, Oct. 2021. APPENDIXA LEGKINEMATICS ANDWRENCHESTIMATION This appendix summa...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.