Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Motion-Acceleration Calibration and Compensation in IMUs without External Equipment for Attitude Estimation Filters

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Off-center IMUs can recover a clean gravity reading by subtracting gyro-derived centripetal and tangential accelerations, and the required lever-arm calibration needs no external equipment.

desk verdict Solid fixed-center compensation and a practical self-calibration routine, but the 'any filter' claim is undercut by applying an incomplete model to the very rolling platform the paper targets. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25784 v1 pith:QTCCCZPD submitted 2026-07-28 cs.RO

Fabian Arzberger , Andreas Nüchter This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords motionaccelerationcompensationcentripetaltangentialIMUcalibrationlever-armestimationattitudegyroscopesphericalmobilemapping
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 targets a common failure mode: when an IMU is mounted away from a system's rotation center, its accelerometer measures centripetal and tangential accelerations on top of gravity, corrupting the gravity direction that attitude filters rely on. The paper's central claim is that these motion accelerations can be subtracted using only gyroscope measurements, via the identity a_g = ω×(ω×r) + (∂ω/∂t)×r − a, leaving a cleaner estimate of local gravity. It adds an extrinsic calibration that recovers the lever-arm r from the rotation center to each IMU together with intrinsic scale, misalignment, and bias, using the same multi-pose data collection as standard IMU calibration — no turntable or other equipment. In simulation and on a real spherical mobile mapper, four common attitude filters all improve when fed compensated data, and LiDAR point clouds become visibly less distorted. If right, any attitude filter that trusts the direction of gravity becomes more accurate on off-center IMU platforms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rigid-body identity a_g = ω×(ω×r) + (∂ω/∂t)×r − a, which expresses the accelerometer reading as gravity minus the centripetal and tangential accelerations of a sensor rotating about a fixed center at lever-arm r. The paper's calibration minimizes ∥g∥ − ∥ω×(ω×r) + (∂ω/∂t)×r − a∥ over r, using derivative-of-Gaussian kernels for the numerically stable angular acceleration ∂ω/∂t, and a second optimization aligns multiple IMUs' gyro frames in SO(3). This identity is what converts a gyroscope's measurements into a correction for the accelerometer, and it is what the calibration inverts to recover r.

What would settle it

Take a rigid arm with the IMU offset from the pivot and drive the base with a known linear acceleration while rotating. Under Eq. (5), the compensated magnitude should remain at ∥g∥; any residual correlated with the sled's acceleration would show the fixed-center assumption is violated. A second check: compare the calibrated lever-arm against a CAD model on a system that undergoes strong non-rotational motion — errors well above the reported 2.6 cm median would indicate translational terms are being folded into r.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the accelerometer reading a can be corrected to a_g ≈ g by subtracting the motion-induced terms ω×(ω×r) + (∂ω/∂t)×r computed from gyroscope measurements, where r is the displacement from the rotation center to the sensor. The authors prove the model in Eq. (5) and show that r, together with intrinsic accelerometer and gyroscope parameters, can be recovered from a multi-pose dataset without external equipment by minimizing the discrepancy between the corrected magnitude and ∥g∥. For spherical systems rolling without slip, the full model (Eq. 12) adds translational terms involving the surface normal and its derivative, but the paper treats that extension as future wor

Load-bearing premise

The correction assumes the IMU rotates about a fixed center with no translational acceleration of the base; if the base translates, or if the accelerometer has unmodelled nonlinearities, the compensated gravity signal carries a bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any attitude estimator that weights the accelerometer's gravity direction — complementary, gradient-descent, or Kalman-type filters — should see lower roll/pitch error when fed compensated data, without changing filter internals.
  • Off-center IMU placement stops being a design penalty: systems like spherical mappers, robot arms, and VTOL craft can calibrate the lever-arm and keep accurate attitude during dynamic motion.
  • Calibration requires no external equipment beyond the system's own rotation, so field robots can recalibrate in place on the same multi-pose dataset used for standard IMU calibration.
  • The fixed-center model should be used cautiously on rolling bases until the surface-normal terms of Eq. (12) are implemented, since those contribute additional translational accelerations.
  • The reported median calibration errors (2.6 cm lever-arm, 0.0091° rotation) bound the achievable compensation accuracy for MEMS-grade IMUs of this class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The compensation effectively turns the gyroscope into a virtual external reference for the accelerometer; a natural next step is to feed the compensated a_g directly as a measurement into the filter's error-state rather than preprocessing, which the authors note as planned.
  • Because the calibration estimates r from the discrepancy of magnitudes, it is sensitive to any accelerometer nonlinearity that scales the output; the real-world residual noted in Sec. IV-B suggests a joint estimation of scale nonlinearity and r could close the gap.
  • The DoG derivative kernel's cutoff frequency becomes a tunable parameter of the whole system; for very fast maneuvers the online 20 Hz cutoff may alias the tangential term, which could be tested by comparing compensated gravity against a high-rate optical ground truth.
  • Multi-IMU averaging already cancels symmetric motion accelerations; the paper's result that compensation still adds a small improvement suggests residual radial terms survive averaging, worth quantifying in future tests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a calibration and online compensation method for IMUs mounted away from the center of rotation. The accelerometer reading is corrected by subtracting centripetal and tangential accelerations predicted from gyroscope measurements using the lever-arm vector r (Eq. (5)). A calibration procedure estimates intrinsic IMU parameters, the extrinsic base-to-IMU displacement, and multi-IMU relative orientations without external equipment (Eqs. (15), (25)). The authors evaluate the method in Monte-Carlo semi-synthetic calibration, fully synthetic attitude-filter simulations on trochoidal trajectories, and real-world experiments with a spherical mobile mapping system. They claim the method improves any attitude filter that relies on the gravity direction.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a practically useful contribution: it provides an equipment-free way to recover the lever-arm and intrinsic IMU parameters, and it offers a simple online correction that can be plugged into existing attitude filters. The derivation of Eq. (5) is transparent, the Monte-Carlo medians (position error 2.6 cm, rotation error 0.0091 deg) are encouraging, and the use of Derivative-of-Gaussian kernels for angular acceleration is well motivated. The open-source release of code and datasets is also a strength. However, the central evaluation does not fully support the claimed generality: the full rolling-sphere model derived in Eq. (12) includes translational acceleration terms that are omitted from the actual compensation used in the real-world and synthetic evaluations, leaving a load-bearing gap between the stated contribution and the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-B, Eq. (12); IV-B] The full rolling model in Eq. (12) contains base-translation terms R(∂ω/∂t)×n and Rω×(∂n/∂t), which the paper explicitly defers to future work because n is unavailable. The real-world evaluation in Sec. IV-B nevertheless uses the fixed-center compensation Eq. (5) on a sphere that rolls without slippage. On a flat surface the second term vanishes, but R(∂ω/∂t)×n remains whenever angular velocity changes; for the angular rates shown in Fig. 11 this term can be several m/s^2. The residual deviations from |g| in Fig. 11 are attributed to accelerometer nonlinearities, but the omitted translational term is an equally plausible contributor. The abstract and conclusion claim that the method 'improves any attitude filter' in this regime is therefore not decisively supported. Please either estimate n, evaluate the full model, or provide a quantitative bound/experimental check showing the omitted t
  2. [IV-A2, Eq. (5)] The synthetic trochoidal evaluation uses trajectories of a point inside a rolling sphere and therefore contains the translational accelerations of Eq. (11), but the compensation applied is only the fixed-center part. The large RMSE reductions in Fig. 8 show that the rotational terms dominate, which is valuable, but they do not validate Eq. (5) as the correct compensation for rolling systems. Since the simulation has ground-truth values for n, it would be straightforward to compare Eq. (5) with Eq. (12) and report the residual bias. This would also help distinguish whether the remaining real-world error is due to the missing translational terms or to sensor nonlinearities.
  3. [III-D, Eq. (15); Fig. 11] The calibration objective minimizes the deviation of the compensated norm from ||g||; consequently, plots of the compensated norm on the same data used to fit r are partly improved by construction. Fig. 3 is explicitly simulated using the calibrated vector, and it is not clear whether the real-world examples in Fig. 11 are calibration or held-out recordings. The independent evidence from the attitude-filter point clouds (Figs. 12–13) is the strongest support, but the norm-improvement plots should be accompanied by a clear train/test split, e.g., calibration on one motion and evaluation on a different motion.
  4. [III-D] The optimization in Eq. (15) is non-convex, and convergence to the correct lever arm depends on the richness of the rotation sequence and on the initial guess. The manuscript does not state the initialization used in Ceres or report how often the Monte-Carlo runs converge to the global minimum. This is central because the compensation accuracy hinges on r. Please report the initialization, convergence statistics, and a sensitivity study over motion segments.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are many typos and spelling errors, e.g., 'effectivenes' in the abstract, 'anuglar' in the introduction, 'misalginment', 'ampliciation', 'reffer', 'Naivley', 'fintie', and 'trado ff'. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [III-D, Eq. (15)] The error E is written as the square of a sum of absolute values. As written, it is equivalent to minimizing the sum because the sum is non-negative, but the notation is nonstandard. Please replace it with the usual sum of squared residuals or otherwise clarify the objective.
  3. [Fig. 8] The RMSE panel includes UKF, but the accompanying text and parameter list mention only Autogain, QEKF, and Mahony. Please either add the UKF parameters or remove the UKF panel. In addition, the RMSE plot appears to show a single trial; error bars over multiple Monte-Carlo trials would strengthen the claim.
  4. [Table I] The 'Difference' row is ambiguous: it lists three numbers for three IMUs, but the reader cannot tell whether these are per-axis differences, Euclidean norms, or vector components. Please clarify the format and report per-axis or per-IMU norm differences explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Minor circularity: calibration residual is reused as success metric; central claim has independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III-D (Eq. 15); Sec. IV-A (Fig. 3); Sec. IV-B (Fig. 11)]
    "E = E(˜r) = ( N∑ n=1 ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐∥g∥2 − ∥ωn×(ωn טr) + ∂ωn ∂t טr − an∥2 ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ) 2 r = argmin ˜r (E(˜r)) . (15) ... The compensated accelerations are closer to the magnitude of local gravity for both datasets. This is an expected result, similar to Figure 3."

    The extrinsic offset r is estimated by minimizing the deviation of the compensated acceleration norm from |g|. Figures 3 and 11 then report that, after calibration, the compensated acceleration magnitude is closer to |g|. Because the displayed quantity is exactly the objective being minimized, the improvement on the fitting data is guaranteed by construction and is not independent evidence of model correctness. The paper itself calls it an 'expected result.' This circularity is confined to the norm-magnitude plots; the calibration accuracy against known ground-truth offsets (Fig. 6), the attitude-filter RMSE comparison on synthetic trochoidal trajectories (Fig. 8), and the real-world LiDAR point-cloud comparison (Fig. 12) are separate and are not reduced to the fitted residual.

full rationale

The calibration of the lever-arm r is performed by minimizing the norm residual between the compensated accelerometer reading and local gravity (Eq. 15). Therefore, showing that the compensated norm is closer to |g| after calibration (Figs. 3 and 11) is a fit diagnostic rather than an independent prediction. The paper acknowledges this with 'This is an expected result,' so the circularity is limited to those magnitude plots. The central claim — that the method improves attitude filters that rely on the gravity direction — is supported by independent evidence: Monte-Carlo position/rotation errors against known ground truth (Fig. 6), attitude-estimation RMSE across four filters on synthetic trochoidal trajectories (Fig. 8), and real-world point-cloud comparisons (Fig. 12). These do not reduce to the fitted norm residual. The paper also transparently states that the full spherical model (Eq. 12) requires a surface-normal estimate and is deferred to future work, while the real-world evaluation uses the fixed-center model (Eq. 5); this is a model-validity gap, not a circularity. Self-citations to the authors' prior trochoidal model [31] and Autogain filter [32] are used as simulation/algorithm components, not to justify the compensation result, and therefore are not load-bearing circularity. Overall score is 3: one supporting illustration is partly by construction, but the main derivation and evaluation retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing elements are a small set of fitted parameters (lever-arm vector, intrinsic IMU errors, DoG cutoff) and a set of modeling assumptions about rigid mounting, fixed rotation center during calibration, known gravity magnitude, and neglect of translational terms for the rolling ball. The most fragile ledger entry is the last one: the real-world evaluation uses the simplified model even though the paper's own full model adds surface-normal-dependent terms.

free parameters (3)
  • Extrinsic lever-arm vector r_i (base-to-IMU displacement) = e.g., Table I: IMU0 [7.68, 0.19, 2.95] cm; IMU1 [0.33, 0.04, 2.88] cm; IMU2 [-7.21, -0.38, 3.22] cm for the real system
    Estimated by minimizing Eq. (15); it is the key parameter for online motion compensation.
  • Intrinsic IMU parameters (bias, scale, misalignment for accelerometer and gyroscope triads) = not reported in the paper
    Estimated using the multi-position method [5] and used in Eqs. (13)-(14) before compensation; central to the shared-frame assumption.
  • DoG derivative cutoff frequency f_cut = 5 Hz offline, 20 Hz online
    Hand-selected tradeoff between noise suppression and delay; determines sigma and kernel size (Eqs. 16-22), hence the angular acceleration term used in compensation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Rigid-body kinematics v = omega x r and a = alpha x r + omega x (omega x r)
    Eqs. (1)-(4); basis of the compensation model.
  • domain assumption IMU and base are rigidly connected, so the gyroscope measures the angular velocity of the sensor frame used in the lever-arm model
    Sec. III-A; needed for omega in Eq. (5) to be the same omega acting on r.
  • domain assumption Calibration data is collected with the rotation center approximately fixed and with static holds, so translational acceleration of the base is small
    Sec. III-D: 'operator should try to avoid translation of the base'; residual deviations are treated as robustness.
  • domain assumption The magnitude of local gravity ||g||_2 is known and constant
    Used as the reference in calibration objective Eq. (15); no external equipment, so this replaces an external reference.
  • ad hoc to paper For the rolling-ball real-world evaluation, Eq. (5) (fixed-center model) is sufficient; translational terms in Eq. (12) involving surface normal n are neglected
    Sec. III-B states the full model 'requires a good estimate of the normal vector n in the local sensor frame, which is subject to future work'; nevertheless the real-world experiments use the simplified model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Motion-Acceleration Calibration and Compensation in IMUs without External Equipment for Attitude Estimation Filters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTCCCZPD

@misc{pith2026260725784,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Motion-Acceleration Calibration and Compensation in IMUs without External Equipment for Attitude Estimation Filters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTCCCZPD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25784}
}
read the original abstract

Attitude estimation based on inertial sensing requires measurements of local angular velocities and local gravity via gyroscopes and accelerometers. However, during the motion of a mobile system the inertial measurement unit (IMU) will be subject to additional accelerations which skews the measurement of local gravity. This effect gets amplified the further away the IMU is from the base of the system. Many attitude estimation filters, such as "Madgwick" or "Mahony", account for this by relying more on gyroscope integration for periods of high angular velocity. However, this approach is prone to accumulate long term error especially around the gravity vector. In this work we utilize the gyroscope measurements to compensate the additional accelerations induced by the motion of the system, i.e., centripetal- and tangential-accelerations. Additionally, we introduce a calibration method that estimates intrinsic IMU parameters such as axes misalignment, bias, scale, as well as the extrinsic base-to-IMU vector without the necessity for additional external equipment. Our evaluation in simulation as well as in the real-world shows that this method improves any attitude filter that relies on the direction of gravity. Furthermore we demonstrate the effectivenes on highly dynamic systems, and systems that are unable to put the IMU at the center of rotation, using our real-world spherical mobile mapping system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25784 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spherical system rolling on a surface with normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Thus, to collect an appropriate dataset for calibr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Misalignment angles β between an orthogonal body frame [x B, yB, zB] and the non-orthogonal sensor frame [x S , yS, zS]. We include the original illustration from [5] for completeness. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time [s] 6 8 10 12 14 Acceleration [m/s²] Magnitude of Acceleration during Motion Uncalibrated Calibrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated comparison of total acceleration magnitu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of numerical derivatives on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of signal gain, noise gain, and phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms that show the distribution and median of c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of a simulated fully-synthetic dataset used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of rotation errors on attitude estimator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The spherical mobile mapping system from our lab. It [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Partial CAD model of the spherical mobile mapping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of compensated and uncompensated real- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of resulting point clouds from a spheric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Detailed comparison of the resulting point clouds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V/STOL Inertial Navigation with Radar Update Capabil- ity,

    “V/STOL Inertial Navigation with Radar Update Capabil- ity,” NASA Contractor Report, NAS12-610, Aug. 1969, IBM Contract No. 69-NC7-027

    1969

  2. [2]

    Size effect on navigation using a strapdown imu,

    J. C. Hung, J. S. Hunter, W. W. Stripling, and H. V . White, “ Size effect on navigation using a strapdown imu,” Army Missile Command, Tech- nology Laboratory, Redstone Arsenal, AL, Technical Report DRSMI-T- 79-73, 1979. DOI:10.21236/ADA075434

    work page doi:10.21236/ada075434 1979

  3. [3]

    A com ple- mentary filter for attitude estimation of a fixed-wing uav,

    M. Euston, P . Coote, R. Mahony, J. Kim, and T. Hamel, “A com ple- mentary filter for attitude estimation of a fixed-wing uav,” i n 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots a nd Systems ,

    2008

  4. [4]

    DAEDALUS - Descent And Exploration in Dee p Autonomy of Lava Underground Structures,

    A. P . Rossi, F. Maurelli, V . Unnithan, H. Dreger, K. Mathe wos, N. Pradhan, D.-A. Corbeanu, R. Pozzobon, M. Massironi, S. Fe rrari, C. Pernechele, L. Paoletti, E. Simioni, P . Maurizio, T. Sant agata, D. Borrmann, A. N¨ uchter, A. Bredenbeck, J. Zevering, F. Arzberger, and C. A. R. Mantilla, “DAEDALUS - Descent And Exploration in Dee p Autonomy of Lava ...

    work page doi:10.25972/opus-22791 2021

  5. [5]

    A robust and eas y to implement method for imu calibration without external equipments,

    D. Tedaldi, A. Pretto, and E. Menegatti, “A robust and eas y to implement method for imu calibration without external equipments,” i n 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA ), 2014. DOI:10.1109/ICRA.2014.6907297 pp. 3042–3049

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    At titude and heading reference system based on 3d complementary filter,

    M. Blachuta, R. Grygiel, R. Czyba, and G. Szafranski, “At titude and heading reference system based on 3d complementary filter,” in 2014 19th International Conference on Methods and Models in Auto mation and Robotics (MMAR) , 2014. DOI:10.1109/MMAR.2014.6957468 pp. 851–856

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Quaternion-based extended kalman filter f or determin- ing orientation by inertial and magnetic sensing,

    A. Sabatini, “Quaternion-based extended kalman filter f or determin- ing orientation by inertial and magnetic sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 1346–1356, 2006. DOI:10.1109/TBME.2006.875664

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Estimation o f at- titude and external acceleration using inertial sensor mea surement during various dynamic conditions,

    J. K. Lee, E. J. Park, and S. N. Robinovitch, “Estimation o f at- titude and external acceleration using inertial sensor mea surement during various dynamic conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Instru- mentation and Measurement , vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 2262–2273, 2012. DOI:10.1109/TIM.2012.2187245

    arXiv 2012

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    A new approach to linear filtering and predi ction problems,

    R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and predi ction problems,” Journal of Basic Engineering , vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 03 1960. DOI:10.1115/1.3662552

    1960 doi

  2. [10]

    Survey of n onlinear atti- tude estimation methods,

    J. L. Crassidis, F. L. Markley, and Y . Cheng, “Survey of n onlinear atti- tude estimation methods,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 12–28, 2007. DOI:10.2514/1.22452

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    At- titude estimation for uav using extended kalman filter,

    X. Jing, J. Cui, H. He, B. Zhang, D. Ding, and Y . Y ang, “At- titude estimation for uav using extended kalman filter,” in 2017 29th Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC) , 2017. DOI:10.1109/CCDC.2017.7979077 pp. 3307–3312

    2017

  4. [12]

    Attitude measure system based on e xtended kalman filter for multi-rotors,

    T. Zhang and Y . Liao, “Attitude measure system based on e xtended kalman filter for multi-rotors,” Computers and Electronics in Agricul- ture, vol. 134, pp. 19–26, 2017. DOI:10.1016/j.compag.2016.12 .021

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Quaternion a ttitude estimation for miniature air vehicles using a multiplicati ve extended kalman filter,

    J. K. Hall, N. B. Knoebel, and T. W. McLain, “Quaternion a ttitude estimation for miniature air vehicles using a multiplicati ve extended kalman filter,” in 2008 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008. DOI:10.1109/PLANS.2008.4570043 pp. 1230–1237

    2008

  6. [14]

    E. J. Lefferts, F. L. Markley, and M. D. Shuster, Kalman fil- tering for spacecraft attitude estimation , 1982, vol. 5, no. 5. DOI:10.2514/6.1982-70

    1982 doi

  7. [15]

    A robust adaptive error state kalman filter for mems imu attitu de estimation under dynamic acceleration,

    X. Wei, S. Fan, Y . Zhang, W. Gao, F. Shen, X. Ming, and J. Y a ng, “A robust adaptive error state kalman filter for mems imu attitu de estimation under dynamic acceleration,” Measurement, vol. 242, p. 116097, 2025. DOI:10.1016/j.measurement.2024.116097

    2025

  8. [16]

    Robust attitude estimation for low-dynamic vehicles based on mems-imu and e xternal acceleration compensation,

    J. Chen, B. Cui, X. Wei, Y . Zhu, Z. Sun, and Y . Liu, “Robust attitude estimation for low-dynamic vehicles based on mems-imu and e xternal acceleration compensation,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 14, p. 4623, 2024. DOI:10.3390/s24144623

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Attitude e stimation using iterative indirect kalman with neural network for ine rtial sensors,

    P . Li, W.-A. Zhang, Y . Jin, Z. Hu, and L. Wang, “Attitude e stimation using iterative indirect kalman with neural network for ine rtial sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–10, 2023. DOI:10.1109/TIM.2023.3301066

    2023

  10. [18]

    New extension of the Kalm an fil- ter to nonlinear systems,

    S. J. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “New extension of the Kalm an fil- ter to nonlinear systems,” in Signal Processing, Sensor Fusion, and Target Recognition VI , ser. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, I. Kadar, Ed., vol. 306 8, Jul. 1997....

    1997 doi

  11. [19]

    A quaternion-based unscented kalman filter f or orientation tracking,

    E. Kraft, “A quaternion-based unscented kalman filter f or orientation tracking,” in Sixth International Conference of Information Fusion, 200 3. Proceedings of the , vol. 1, 2003. DOI:10.1109/ICIF.2003.177425 pp. 47–54

    2003

  12. [20]

    Keeping a goo d attitude: A quaternion-based orientation filter for imus and margs,

    R. G. V alenti, I. Dryanovski, and J. Xiao, “Keeping a goo d attitude: A quaternion-based orientation filter for imus and margs,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 19 302–19 330, 2015. DOI:10.3390/s150819302

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Nonlinear comp le- mentary filters on the special orthogonal group,

    R. Mahony, T. Hamel, and J.-M. Pflimlin, “Nonlinear comp le- mentary filters on the special orthogonal group,” IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control , vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1203–1218, 2008. DOI:10.1109/TAC.2008.923738

    2008

  14. [22]

    Estimation of imu and marg orientation using a gradient descent algorit hm,

    S. O. H. Madgwick, A. J. L. Harrison, and R. V aidyanathan , “Estimation of imu and marg orientation using a gradient descent algorit hm,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robo tics, 2011. DOI:10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975346 pp. 1–7

    2011

  15. [23]

    Novel self-calibration meth od for imu using distributed inertial sensors,

    U. Guner and J. Dasdemir, “Novel self-calibration meth od for imu using distributed inertial sensors,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1527–1540, 2023. DOI:10.1109/JSEN.2022.3227341

    2023

  16. [24]

    Opti - mal inner lever-arm parameters calibration method of high- precision fog-imu based on sinusoidal swing scheme,

    C. Jiachong, Z. Y a, W. Zhuo, L. Chao, and W. Y anyan, “Opti - mal inner lever-arm parameters calibration method of high- precision fog-imu based on sinusoidal swing scheme,” in 2020 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium (PLANS) , 2020. DOI:10.1109/PLANS46316.20...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Low-cost inertial measurement unit calibration with nonl inear scale factors,

    X. Zhang, C. Zhou, F. Chao, C.-M. Lin, L. Y ang, C. Shang, a nd Q. Shen, “Low-cost inertial measurement unit calibration with nonl inear scale factors,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1028–1038, 2022. DOI:10.1109/TII.2021.3077296

    2022

  18. [26]

    Direct lidar-ine rtial odom- etry and mapping: Perceptive and connective slam,

    K. Chen, R. Nemiroff, and B. T. Lopez, “Direct lidar-ine rtial odom- etry and mapping: Perceptive and connective slam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01843, 2023. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2305.01843

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Di- rect lidar odometry: Fast localization with dense point clo uds,

    K. Chen, B. T. Lopez, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, and A. Mehta , “Di- rect lidar odometry: Fast localization with dense point clo uds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2000–2007, 2022. DOI:10.1109/LRA.2022.3142739

  20. [28]

    Direct lidar-ine rtial odometry: Lightweight lio with continuous-time motion correction,

    K. Chen, R. Nemiroff, and B. T. Lopez, “Direct lidar-ine rtial odometry: Lightweight lio with continuous-time motion correction,” in 2023 IEEE 13 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA ), 2023. DOI:10.1109/ICRA48891.2023.10160508 pp. 3983–3989

    2023

  21. [29]

    Systematic com parison of numerical differentiators and an application to model-f ree con- trol,

    A. Othmane, J. Rudolph, and H. Mounier, “Systematic com parison of numerical differentiators and an application to model-f ree con- trol,” European Journal of Control , vol. 62, pp. 113–119, 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.ejcon.2021.06.020 2021 European Control C onference Special Issue

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    A micro lie theory f or state estimation in robotics,

    J. Sola, J. Deray, and D. Atchuthan, “A micro lie theory f or state estimation in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537 , 2018. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.1812.01537

    2018 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    On the 3d trochoidal moti on model of lidar sensors placed off-centered inside spherical mobile mapping sys- tems,

    F. Arzberger and A. N¨ uchter, “On the 3d trochoidal moti on model of lidar sensors placed off-centered inside spherical mobile mapping sys- tems,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Rob ots and Systems (IROS), 2024. DOI:10.1109/IROS58592.2024.10801675 pp...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Imu-based pose-estimation for spherical robots with limi ted re- sources,

    J. Zevering, A. Bredenbeck, F. Arzberger, D. Borrmann, and A. N¨ uchter, “Imu-based pose-estimation for spherical robots with limi ted re- sources,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multisen- sor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI) , 2021. DOI:10.1109/...

    2021

  25. [2008]

    DOI:10.1109/IROS.2008.4650766 pp. 340–345

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.