Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Deployment-Ready UWB Localization for Industrial Ground Robots with Automatic Anchor Calibration and Terrain-Aware Fusion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single calibration trajectory plus a bias-aware UWB range model keeps a warehouse robot within 0.131 m indoors and 0.555 m outdoors, without manual tuning.

desk verdict Solid, honest UWB-odometry integration paper with a reproducible bias-aware filter and dataset; indoor numbers are partly in-sample and the terrain assumption is the real weak point, but the held-out tests support the main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15807 v2 pith:6TJXCEJ7 submitted 2026-07-17 cs.RO

Alexander Raab , Giulio Delama , Roland Jung , Stephan Weiss This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords UWBlocalizationanchorauto-calibrationbias-awarerangemodelSchmidt-Kalmanfilterterrain-awareEKFindustrialAMRindoor-outdoortransitionsmulti-sensorfusion
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 tries to establish that UWB localization can be made deployment-ready for industrial warehouse robots: anchors are calibrated automatically from one short trajectory, and a terrain-aware filter fuses UWB ranges with odometry to track the robot accurately and consistently, with no manual UWB tuning. The central technical move is replacing the ideal range model with a bias-aware one, treating each anchor-tag pair's constant and range-dependent biases as explicit parameters, and holding the calibrated parameters as fixed Schmidt states whose uncertainty is folded into the measurement noise. On a commercial logistics AMR indoors, errors stay below 0.131 m and 4.81 degrees, and estimator consistency (NEES) improves from a mean of 625.3 to 3.1. The same single calibration supports localization in previously unvisited outdoor space with mean trajectory error 0.175 m, and the estimator transfers to an independent forklift dataset. The reason to care is that it removes the two barriers that block real UWB deployments: tedious anchor surveying and fragile fusion tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bias-aware range measurement model embedded in a manifold error-state EKF, with Schmidt-Kalman handling of calibrated parameters. The model z_ij = gamma_ij * ||sigma^{-1}(t_R) + R_W^R r_RS,j - r_A,i|| + beta_ij treats each anchor-tag pair's constant and range-dependent biases as explicit state parameters, along with anchor positions and onboard tag offsets. The terrain constraint comes from the surface manifold M: a planar pose is lifted to (x,y,S(x,y)) on a known ground model, and heading is composed with the surface gradient. What makes the pipeline deployment-ready is the Schmidt step: after the initial calibration, these parameters stay fixed during filteri

What would settle it

The paper's own outdoor result is close to a falsifier: on mildly uneven ground, mean NEES is 39.5 instead of the ideal 3. A decisive test would be to take the indoor-calibrated pipeline into an area where the true surface elevation differs from S(x,y) by more than a few centimeters (a steeper ramp or rough outdoor patch) and check whether the adapted filter's mean NEES stays near 3 and ATE below 0.2 m. Another decisive test is to calibrate in one hall and localize in a neighboring hall with different anchor geometry; if accuracy or consistency collapses, the single-calibration-run claim is li

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that UWB ranging, with a bias-aware measurement model and a terrain-aware error-state filter, can be deployed on industrial ground robots after a single automatic calibration step. The ideal range model is replaced by z_ij = gamma_ij * distance + beta_ij, giving each anchor-tag pair its own constant and range-dependent bias. Anchor positions, tag offsets, and biases are estimated once from a short trajectory using pose priors, then held as fixed Schmidt states whose covariance is folded into measurement noise as R = R_m + J P_c J^T. The pose is constrained to a ground-surface manifold via (x,y,theta) -> (x,y,S(x,y)). Indoor errors stay below 0.131 m and 4.81 degrees, and

Load-bearing premise

The estimator assumes a known, sufficiently smooth ground-surface model S(x,y) onto which the planar pose is lifted; if the actual floor deviates from that model (a steeper ramp than the B-spline, or outdoor unevenness), the motion model injects errors that the fixed calibration states cannot absorb, and the consistency claims break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single indoor calibration trajectory is enough to initialize all anchors; no manual surveying or per-deployment UWB tuning is required.
  • The bias-aware measurement model improves consistency by a factor of roughly 200 indoors (mean NEES 625.3 to 3.1) while reducing max errors from 0.744 m to 0.131 m.
  • Calibration transfers to outdoor and previously unvisited space: mean ATE 0.175 m, max 0.555 m, using only the indoor calibration.
  • The system remains accurate with a reduced set of four anchors or even a single onboard tag, indicating graceful degradation under sparse coverage.
  • The adapted estimator carries over to a different AMR platform (a forklift dataset) with pre-calibrated anchors, suggesting the bias-aware model is not platform-specific.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because calibration states are held fixed after the initial trajectory, the pipeline inherits a hidden dependency: if the calibration trajectory is not representative (different LOS conditions, different floor, different anchor geometry), the filter cannot adapt, and residual bias surfaces as overconfidence. The outdoor NEES of 39.5 is an early sign of this; a direct stress test would be to calibr
  • The observation that using fewer tags improved consistency suggests residual pairwise biases are corrupting the error distribution more than geometry; a natural extension is to model bias correlations between tags or add range-dependent NLOS compensation, which the paper lists as future work.
  • The method's 'automatic' calibration still requires a pose-prior source during initialization; in facilities without onboard localization such as LiDAR, the pipeline would need a different bootstrapping modality, so the automation is relative to the robot's existing localization stack.
  • The terrain-aware lift to S(x,y) is a two-way street: it exploits known floor geometry for accuracy, but any mismatch (e.g., a ramp steeper than the B-spline, or outdoor unevenness) enters directly as unmodeled motion. Online surface adaptation, mentioned only as future work, would be the natural way to close this loop.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage UWB localization pipeline for industrial ground robots: automatic anchor and bias calibration from pose priors and UWB ranges (Sec. IV-A), followed by terrain-aware M-ESEKF localization with a bias-aware range model that treats anchor positions and pairwise biases as Schmidt states (Sec. IV-C). The method is evaluated on a commercial logistics AMR in a warehouse, including an indoor trajectory used for calibration and an outdoor trajectory in previously unvisited space, and on an independent forklift dataset. The central claim is that the adapted bias-aware model materially improves accuracy and estimator consistency relative to the earlier range-only formulation while eliminating manual UWB calibration, with ATE below 0.131 m and mean NEES 3.1 indoors, 0.175 m / NEES 39.5 outdoors, and transferability to a second platform.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the pipeline would reduce deployment effort for UWB-based industrial AMR localization. The strengths are an explicit measurement model with analytically derived Jacobians, the use of Schmidt states to preserve calibration uncertainty, real-world evaluation on two platforms, and the publication of the warehouse dataset. The main weaknesses are that the headline indoor results are in-sample with respect to the calibration trajectory and that the terrain-surface assumption is not validated despite being violated in the outdoor experiment.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V-A-2 / §V-A-3] Section V-A-2 states that the indoor trajectory 'was used to calibrate anchors'; the same trajectory is then used in V-A-3 to report the adapted model's ATE_t ≤ 0.131 m and NEES 3.1. The anchor positions and pairwise biases are estimated from the pose priors and range residuals of that run and held fixed as Schmidt states during the localization evaluation. This is an in-sample evaluation of the calibrated quantities, so the headline accuracy and consistency numbers do not demonstrate generalization. The out-of-sample outdoor trial (Tab. II) shows mean NEES 39.5, which is far from the ideal 1. Please re-evaluate on a held-out indoor trajectory or provide cross-validated calibration; otherwise the central consistency claim rests on data used for fitting.
  2. [§IV-B (Eq. 2) / §V-A-4] Equation (2) defines the robot position as the exact lift σ^{-1}(t_R)=[x,y,S(x,y)]^T; this lift is used both in odometry propagation and in the range residual (Eq. 12). The outdoor experiment (Sec. V-A-4) uses a flat S on terrain with 'minor floor unevenness' and reports mean NEES 39.5 (Tab. II), which the authors attribute in part to surface-model mismatch; the conclusion lists 'a provided surface model' as a limiting assumption. However, no experiment validates S, compares S to surveyed ground truth, or quantifies sensitivity to S errors. Because the 'terrain-aware' and consistency claims are load-bearing on this assumption, the paper needs either a validation/sensitivity study or a narrowed claim.
  3. [§V-A-4 / Tab. II] The only out-of-sample deployment is the outdoor trajectory, where the adapted model yields mean ATE 0.175 m but mean NEES 39.5 and max NEES 192.7 (Tab. II). The authors attribute the overconfidence to NLOS/multipath, surface mismatch, and neglected correlations, but the estimator includes no mechanism to handle position-dependent or environment-dependent errors; the fixed Schmidt states for biases are constants and cannot absorb such errors. Thus the 'consistent pose estimation' claim is not established for the indoor–outdoor transition that is a central use case of the paper. Please either model/compensate these effects or explicitly limit the consistency claim to the indoor, calibrated-surface setting.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V-B / §V-A-4] The section heading 'Experimental F orklift AMR' and the phrase 'Prior works on anchor calibration with UA Vs' contain typos; please proofread.
  2. [§IV-C, Eq. (18)] The terms P_c and J are used without formal definition. Specify that P_c is the covariance of the Schmidt states and J is the Jacobian of h with respect to those states.
  3. [§V-A-2] When describing the indoor trajectory, make explicit that the same dataset is used for calibration and for the results in §V-A-3. This is currently only implied and should be stated prominently, as it affects the interpretation of the reported metrics.
  4. [Tables II and III] The units line 'A TEt [m],A TEθ [rad]' is malformed; insert spaces and correct the notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Indoor results are partially in-sample: anchors/biases are fit with the same LiDAR poses used as ground truth on the same trajectory, and the NEES drop is mechanically aided by Schmidt-inflated R; outdoor and forklift results retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V-A-2 and V-A-3, with Eq. (18)]
    "The indoor trajectory corresponds to a typical load-carrier transport sequence and was used to calibrate anchors... In comparison, both accuracy and consistency improve substantially with the adapted formulation. Here, errors remain below 0.131 m and 4.81°, and mean NEES decreases from 625.3 to 3.1."

    Calibration and evaluation use the same pose source: Sec. IV-A estimates anchors/biases from AMR pose priors, while Sec. V-A-1 uses the LiDAR-based onboard localization as ground truth. On the calibration trajectory, the fitted anchor/bias parameters encode those same poses, so the indoor ATE/NEES are self-consistency metrics rather than out-of-sample predictions. The NEES drop is also aided by construction: Eq. (18) adds J P_c J^T to R, and P_c is estimated on the same indoor data, mechanically lowering NEES from 625.3 to 3.1. The outdoor and forklift trials are the genuinely independent part.

full rationale

Construction-level derivation is largely self-contained: Eq. (12) defines the bias-aware range model, Eq. (18) is a standard Schmidt-Kalman inflation, and the calibration solver is a cited prior component whose outputs are tested against anchor ground truth (Tab. I). The outdoor experiment in previously unvisited areas, reusing the indoor calibration, and the separate forklift cross-validation are out-of-sample and provide independent support for the central deployment claim. The main circularity concern is limited to the headline indoor evaluation: the same LiDAR localization provides both the pose priors used to fit anchors/biases and the ground truth against which the indoor trajectory is scored, so the reported ATE/NESS are partially in-sample. Additionally, the dramatic NEES improvement is mechanically supported by inflating the measurement covariance with the calibration covariance estimated on the same data. This is a partial statistical circularity in the evidence, not an equation-level identity in the derivation. The acknowledged surface-model limitation (Sec. VI) is a correctness and robustness risk, not a circularity.

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

No invented entities: no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'Schmidt states' are the standard consider-Kalman technique (cf. [29],[30]); the probabilistic anchor/tag/bias states are precisely the calibration quantities estimated in the initialization stage. The free parameters listed are the fitted quantities the pipeline's accuracy claim actually rests on; the paper reports all of them, but the γ=1 outcome means one of the two claimed bias components carries no measured signal.

free parameters (4)
  • Pairwise constant UWB biases β_ij = up to 1.19 m (tag 3–anchor 15), per anchor–tag pair
    Estimated in the calibration stage from ranges and pose priors; held fixed as Schmidt states during localization; the accuracy and consistency gains over [5] are largely carried by these values.
  • Pairwise range-dependent biases γ_ij = 1.0 for all pairs, covariances < 0.053
    Fitted in calibration and found to carry no signal (all converge to 1); included in the claimed bias-aware model but contributes nothing beyond the nominal multiplicative factor — the data show no range-dependent bias.
  • Anchor positions (12 anchors) = mean abs. error 0.18 m, range 0.053–0.525 m; 3 of 12 outside 3σ (IDs 4, 11, 15)
    Output of the calibration stage (Sec. IV-A); localization inherits these fixed positions as Schmidt states, so all downstream ATE depends on their joint fit with the pose priors.
  • Forklift constant biases (offline) = derived from trajectory-range discrepancies
    In the cross-platform experiment the biases are not estimated by this pipeline but taken from the pre-calibrated dataset of [10] (same group), so the transfer test does not exercise the full auto-calibration pipeline.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Known, sufficiently smooth ground-surface model S(x,y) defines the manifold M and the robot state space
    Sec. IV-B: 'The formulation assumes a known, sufficiently smooth surface model'; the 3-DoF pose is lifted to R³ via Eq. (2). The outdoor trial shows the flat-ground version failing under 'minor floor unevenness' (Sec. V-A-4).
  • domain assumption Pose priors of sufficient accuracy are available during the calibration trajectory
    Sec. IV-A: 'calibration quality depends on the accuracy of the pose priors and the excitation through the trajectory'; the conclusion lists 'pose priors during initialization' as an operating requirement.
  • domain assumption Range measurements follow z = γ·d + β with Gaussian residual noise
    Sec. IV-C, Eq. (12); the paper attributes residual outdoor inconsistency to 'unmodeled NLOS and multipath effects' (Sec. V-A-4), i.e., systematic violations of this model.
  • domain assumption Cross-correlations between sensor-specific state blocks can be neglected
    Sec. IV-B: 'Sensor–sensor cross-covariance blocks between different sensor instances are neglected'; Sec. V-A-4 lists 'neglected correlations between sensor-specific state blocks' as a cause of overconfidence.
  • domain assumption The onboard LiDAR localization provides zero-mean-error ground truth for the main experiments
    Sec. V-A-1: 'Its LiDAR-based onboard localization provides ground truth poses'; the same pose source feeds calibration priors (Sec. IV-A), so independent verification of absolute accuracy is not provided for the main AMR platform.
  • standard math Standard EKF linearization and Gaussianity of the error state for NEES-based consistency claims
    Sec. V-A-2 uses (1/3)eᵀP⁻¹e NEES with ideal value 1; this presumes a Gaussian error state, which the paper concedes is violated by multipath-biased residuals and NLOS effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deployment-Ready UWB Localization for Industrial Ground Robots with Automatic Anchor Calibration and Terrain-Aware Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6TJXCEJ7

@misc{pith2026260715807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deployment-Ready UWB Localization for Industrial Ground Robots with Automatic Anchor Calibration and Terrain-Aware Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6TJXCEJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15807}
}
read the original abstract

Ultra-Wideband (UWB) ranging has become a viable option for industrial Autonomous Mobile Robot (AMR) localization due to improved accuracy and low cost. However, real-world deployments remain limited by two recurring challenges: calibrating static anchors can be time-consuming and error-prone, and integrating UWB with existing onboard sensors requires careful design to ensure robust and consistent pose estimation. Addressing these challenges, this paper presents an end-to-end pipeline that combines automatic anchor calibration with a generic multi-sensor estimator tailored to surface-bound vehicle motion. It targets existing AMR stacks in scenarios where robot pose priors are available for initialization. The calibration stage estimates anchor positions and range biases, while the localization stage fuses UWB with proprioceptive sensing in a bias-aware Extended Kalman Filter to improve consistency without extensive parameter tuning. Experiments on a commercial logistics AMR in a warehouse setting demonstrate accurate positioning indoors and across outdoor transitions, with improved consistency compared to an earlier estimator formulation. Evaluation on an independent forklift dataset further indicates transferability to other platforms. The method remains effective in test cases with limited line-of-sight and sparse anchor coverage. These results show that UWB localization can be deployed with substantially reduced manual effort while preserving the accuracy required for industrial AMRs. The collected warehouse dataset is made publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Depiction of the mobile robots utilized for real-world evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The first performs automatic calibration of static [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed pipeline combining single-step UWB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The state space model on the manifold M and a range measurement zij between anchor Ai and onboard tag Sj as utilized by the M-ESEKF. The robot state xc,k at time step k is propagated via a projection of the linear, and locally planar odometry velocity vm,k onto the xy-…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The warehouse environment with two evaluation trajectories, anchor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AMR pose estimation results with anchor positions modeled as full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Position error curves of the UWB anchors when treated as auxiliary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Estimation results for odometry-only propagation, the original and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Increasing flexibility and productivity in industry 4.0 production networks with autonomous mobile robots and smart intralogistics,

    G. Fragapane, D. Ivanov, M. Peron, F. Sgarbossa, and J. Strandhagen, “Increasing flexibility and productivity in industry 4.0 production networks with autonomous mobile robots and smart intralogistics,” Ann. Oper . Res., vol. 308, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Precision positioning for smart logistics using ultra-wideband technology-based indoor navigation: A review,

    M. Elsanhoury, P. Mäkelä, J. Koljonen, P. Välisuo, A. Shamsuzzoha, T. Mantere, M. Elmusrati, and H. Kuusniemi, “Precision positioning for smart logistics using ultra-wideband technology-based indoor navigation: A review,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 44 413–44 445, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    UVIO: An UWB-Aided Visual-Inertial Odometry Framework with Bias-Compensated Anchors Initialization,

    G. Delama, F. Shamsfakhr, S. Weiss, D. Fontanelli, and A. Fomasier, “UVIO: An UWB-Aided Visual-Inertial Odometry Framework with Bias-Compensated Anchors Initialization,”IEEE International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 7111–7118, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Mod- ular Meshed Ultra-Wideband Aided Inertial Navigation with Robust Anchor Calibration,

    R. Jung, L. Santoro, D. Brunelli, D. Fontanelli, and S. Weiss, “Mod- ular Meshed Ultra-Wideband Aided Inertial Navigation with Robust Anchor Calibration,” arXiv:2408.14081, August 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Consistent pose estimation of unmanned ground vehicles through terrain-aided multi-sensor fusion on geometric manifolds,

    A. Raab, S. Weiss, A. Fornasier, C. Brommer, and A. Ibrahim, “Consistent pose estimation of unmanned ground vehicles through terrain-aided multi-sensor fusion on geometric manifolds,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots and Syst. (IROS), 2025, pp. 4976– 4981

    2025

  6. [6]

    Self-calibration and collaborative localization for uwb po- sitioning systems: A survey and future research directions,

    M. Ridolfi, A. Kaya, R. Berkvens, M. Weyn, W. Joseph, and E. D. Poorter, “Self-calibration and collaborative localization for uwb po- sitioning systems: A survey and future research directions,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 4, May 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Range-focused fusion of camera-imu-uwb for accurate and drift-reduced localization,

    T. H. Nguyen, T.-M. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Range-focused fusion of camera-imu-uwb for accurate and drift-reduced localization,”IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1678–1685, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Large-scale uwb anchor calibration and one-shot localization using gaussian process,

    S. Yuan, B. Lou, T.-M. Nguyen, P. Yin, M. Cao, X. Xu, J. Li, J. Xu, S. Chen, and L. Xie, “Large-scale uwb anchor calibration and one-shot localization using gaussian process,”arXiv:2412.16880, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Tightly coupled visual-inertial-uwb indoor localization system with multiple position-unknown anchors,

    C. Hu, P. Huang, and W. Wang, “Tightly coupled visual-inertial-uwb indoor localization system with multiple position-unknown anchors,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 351–358, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Real-time initializa- tion of unknown anchors for uwb-aided navigation,

    G. Delama, I. Borowski, R. Jung, and S. Weiss, “Real-time initializa- tion of unknown anchors for uwb-aided navigation,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots and Syst. (IROS), 2025, pp. 9146–9153

    2025

  3. [11]

    Comparing ubisense, bespoon, and decawave uwb location systems: Indoor performance analysis,

    A. R. J. Ruiz and F. S. Granja, “Comparing ubisense, bespoon, and decawave uwb location systems: Indoor performance analysis,”IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 2106–2117, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Uwb indoor localization using deep learning lstm networks,

    A. Poulose and D. S. Han, “Uwb indoor localization using deep learning lstm networks,”Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 18, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Multi-sensor fusion framework for reli- able localization and trajectory tracking of mobile robot by integrating uwb, odometry, and ahrs,

    Q.-K. Tran and Y .-J. Ryoo, “Multi-sensor fusion framework for reli- able localization and trajectory tracking of mobile robot by integrating uwb, odometry, and ahrs,”Biomimetics, vol. 10, no. 7, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Tightly cou- pled uwb/imu pose estimation,

    J. D. Hol, F. Dijkstra, H. Luinge, and T. B. Schon, “Tightly cou- pled uwb/imu pose estimation,” in2009 IEEE Int. Conf. on Ultra- Wideband, 2009, pp. 688–692

    2009

  7. [15]

    Improving the accuracy and robustness of ultra- wideband localization through sensor fusion and outlier detection,

    N. Dwek, M. Birem, K. Geebelen, E. Hostens, A. Mishra, J. Steckel, and R. Yudanto, “Improving the accuracy and robustness of ultra- wideband localization through sensor fusion and outlier detection,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 32–39, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    An approach to robust ins/uwb integrated positioning for autonomous indoor mobile robots,

    J. Liu, J. Pu, L. Sun, and Z. He, “An approach to robust ins/uwb integrated positioning for autonomous indoor mobile robots,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 4, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    A resetting approach for ins and uwb sensor fusion using particle filter for pedestrian tracking,

    Q. Tian, K. I.-K. Wang, and Z. Salcic, “A resetting approach for ins and uwb sensor fusion using particle filter for pedestrian tracking,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 5914–5921, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    A novel cooperative localization method based on imu and uwb,

    Y . Han, C. Wei, R. Li, J. Wang, and H. Yu, “A novel cooperative localization method based on imu and uwb,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 2, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    A study on the uwb-based position estimation method using dead reckoning information for active driving in a mapless environment of intelligent wheelchairs,

    E. Jang, S.-H. Eom, and E.-H. Lee, “A study on the uwb-based position estimation method using dead reckoning information for active driving in a mapless environment of intelligent wheelchairs,”Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 2, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Multi-sensor accurate forklift location and tracking simulation in industrial indoor environments,

    V . Barral, P. Suárez-Casal, C. J. Escudero, and J. A. García-Naya, “Multi-sensor accurate forklift location and tracking simulation in industrial indoor environments,”Electronics, vol. 8, no. 10, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    A dynamic ukf-based uwb/wheel odometry tightly coupled approach for indoor positioning,

    A. Liu, J. Wang, S. Lin, and X. Kong, “A dynamic ukf-based uwb/wheel odometry tightly coupled approach for indoor positioning,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 8, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Uwb localization based on improved robust adaptive cubature kalman filter,

    J. Dong, Z. Lian, J. Xu, and Z. Yue, “Uwb localization based on improved robust adaptive cubature kalman filter,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 5, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Uwb ranging and imu data fusion: Overview and nonlinear stochastic filter for inertial navigation,

    H. A. Hashim, A. E. E. Eltoukhy, and K. G. Vamvoudakis, “Uwb ranging and imu data fusion: Overview and nonlinear stochastic filter for inertial navigation,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 359–369, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    A magnetic crawler system for autonomous long-range inspection and maintenance on large structures,

    G. Chahine, P. Schroepfer, O.-L. Ouabi, and C. Pradalier, “A magnetic crawler system for autonomous long-range inspection and maintenance on large structures,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 9, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Consistent state estimation on manifolds for autonomous metal structure inspection,

    B. Starbuck, A. Fornasier, S. Weiss, and C. Pradalier, “Consistent state estimation on manifolds for autonomous metal structure inspection,” in 2021 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), 2021, pp. 10 250–10 256

    2021

  18. [26]

    Bias compensated uwb an- chor initialization using information-theoretic supported triangulation points,

    J. Blueml, A. Fornasier, and S. Weiss, “Bias compensated uwb an- chor initialization using information-theoretic supported triangulation points,” in2021 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), 2021, pp. 5490–5496

    2021

  19. [27]

    Circumventing dynamic modeling: evaluation of the error-state kalman filter applied to mobile robot localization,

    S. Roumeliotis, G. Sukhatme, and G. Bekey, “Circumventing dynamic modeling: evaluation of the error-state kalman filter applied to mobile robot localization,” inProc. 1999 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), vol. 2, 1999, pp. 1656–1663 vol.2

    1999

  20. [28]

    Mars: A modular and robust sensor-fusion framework,

    C. Brommer, R. Jung, J. Steinbrener, and S. Weiss, “Mars: A modular and robust sensor-fusion framework,”IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 359–366, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Application of state-space methods to navigation problems,

    S. F. Schmidt, “Application of state-space methods to navigation problems,” inAdvances in Control Systems, C. Loendes, Ed. Elsevier, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 293–340

    1966

  22. [30]

    On the consider kalman filter,

    D. Woodbury and J. Junkins, “On the consider kalman filter,” inAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2011, p. 7752

    2011

  23. [31]

    Evaluation of estimation algorithms: Credibility tests,

    X. R. Li, Z. Zhao, and X. Li, “Evaluation of estimation algorithms: Credibility tests,”IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 147–163, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.