pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.09344 · v1 · pith:A2IB53YFnew · submitted 2025-07-12 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.SY· eess.SY

C-ZUPT: Stationarity-Aided Aerial Hovering

Daniel Engelsman , Itzik Klein This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 23:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY
keywords aerial navigationzero-velocity updateinertial estimationdrone hoveringquasi-static detectionstate estimationdrift reductioncontrolled ZUPT
0
0 comments X

The pith

C-ZUPT detects quasi-static hover states via filter uncertainty to apply zero-velocity updates that curb inertial drift in aerial vehicles.

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

Aerial platforms lose positioning accuracy quickly when relying only on inertial sensors because biases and noise cause rapid drift. Traditional zero-velocity updates work well on the ground but require surface contact, leaving aerial systems without this anchor. The paper defines an uncertainty threshold drawn from the filter to spot intervals when the vehicle is nearly stationary in flight. These detections supply precise velocity corrections that anchor the estimate without landing. If the approach holds, it lowers both navigation error and the control inputs needed to stay aloft, supporting longer flights in environments where satellites or cameras are unavailable.

Core claim

The paper claims that an uncertainty threshold computed inside the estimation filter can identify quasi-static equilibria during aerial hovering and supply accurate velocity updates to the filter. These opportunistic corrections reduce inertial drift and control effort, prevent filter divergence, and improve navigation stability, enabling more energy-efficient and sustained flight for aerial vehicles without any surface contact.

What carries the argument

The uncertainty threshold derived from the estimation filter that flags quasi-static intervals for zero-velocity updates.

If this is right

  • Inertial drift in the navigation filter is significantly reduced during extended hover.
  • Control effort for maintaining position decreases because corrections arrive from high-quality updates.
  • Filter divergence is mitigated, keeping the state estimate stable over longer durations.
  • Hovering becomes more energy-efficient, directly extending total sustained flight time.
  • The method works independently of surface contact, opening use in free-flight aerial navigation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same uncertainty-driven detection could be adapted to underwater or surface vehicles that experience intermittent low-motion periods.
  • Integration with existing inertial navigation stacks would require only software changes, making the technique immediately testable on current drone hardware.
  • Threshold tuning under varying wind or payload conditions would reveal how robust the quasi-static detection remains outside calm lab tests.
  • Combining C-ZUPT with occasional external position fixes could create hybrid filters that maintain accuracy longer than either method alone.

Load-bearing premise

An uncertainty value computed from the filter itself can accurately mark real near-stationary periods in flight without false corrections or surface contact.

What would settle it

Compare position-error growth in a controlled hover flight with C-ZUPT enabled versus disabled; error should grow slower when the updates are applied only during detected quasi-static intervals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09344 by Daniel Engelsman, Itzik Klein.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: State transition diagram showing hovering centrality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Block diagram of a standard LQG closed-loop system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Free-body diagram of the quadrotor system model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Signal flow schematic: near-stationarity detection (Alg. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full-state trajectories with continuous updates ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Zoomed-in view of LQG-generated motor commands. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Error norm evolution for sparse updates Γ = 0.001. As visible in the zoomed-in insets, the reduced update rate in￾duces a random-walk effect in the estimation error, producing a sawtooth-like pattern whose local minima correspond to the periodic corrections. Despite this, the controller successfully keeps the system stable, albeit with increased noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Normalized total uncertainty for Γ = {1, 0.05, 0.001} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Head-to-head comparison: unaided vs C-ZUPT-aided. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Detection performance under permissive thresholding. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Normalized total uncertainty with C-ZUPT ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Battery states: 1500-second (full-discharge) cycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Battery states: 10-second interval comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Autonomous systems across diverse domains have underscored the need for drift-resilient state estimation. Although satellite-based positioning and cameras are widely used, they often suffer from limited availability in many environments. As a result, positioning must rely solely on inertial sensors, leading to rapid accuracy degradation over time due to sensor biases and noise. To counteract this, alternative update sources-referred to as information aiding-serve as anchors of certainty. Among these, the zero-velocity update (ZUPT) is particularly effective in providing accurate corrections during stationary intervals, though it is restricted to surface-bound platforms. This work introduces a controlled ZUPT (C-ZUPT) approach for aerial navigation and control, independent of surface contact. By defining an uncertainty threshold, C-ZUPT identifies quasi-static equilibria to deliver precise velocity updates to the estimation filter. Extensive validation confirms that these opportunistic, high-quality updates significantly reduce inertial drift and control effort. As a result, C-ZUPT mitigates filter divergence and enhances navigation stability, enabling more energy-efficient hovering and substantially extending sustained flight-key advantages for resource-constrained aerial systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces C-ZUPT, a stationarity-aided method for aerial hovering that defines an uncertainty threshold to detect quasi-static equilibria and apply precise velocity updates to the inertial estimation filter. This is intended to reduce drift and control effort without surface contact, with the abstract claiming extensive validation that mitigates filter divergence and enables longer sustained flights for resource-constrained UAVs.

Significance. If the central claims hold and the threshold reliably identifies true stationarity, the approach could meaningfully extend inertial-only navigation performance in GPS-denied settings, offering energy savings and stability gains for aerial platforms where conventional ZUPT is inapplicable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'extensive validation confirms that these opportunistic, high-quality updates significantly reduce inertial drift and control effort' is unsupported by any reported quantitative results, error bars, baseline comparisons, or threshold derivation procedure. This absence leaves the primary performance claims unsubstantiated and load-bearing for the paper's contribution.
  2. [Core method (as described)] Core method (as described): The uncertainty threshold is derived from the filter's own covariance estimates to flag quasi-static intervals for velocity corrections. Because the threshold and the velocity estimates share the same inertial measurements, low reported uncertainty can arise either from genuine near-zero velocity or from the filter converging on an incorrect state; applying updates in the latter case risks reinforcing bias. This circularity concern is especially relevant for free-flying platforms subject to wind and vibration not guaranteed to be captured in the uncertainty model, and requires explicit analysis or safeguards to support the claim of safe corrections.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The acronym 'C-ZUPT' is introduced without an explicit expansion on first use, although the surrounding text clarifies the meaning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below and indicate the revisions we will make to address them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'extensive validation confirms that these opportunistic, high-quality updates significantly reduce inertial drift and control effort' is unsupported by any reported quantitative results, error bars, baseline comparisons, or threshold derivation procedure. This absence leaves the primary performance claims unsubstantiated and load-bearing for the paper's contribution.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including more specific quantitative details. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract to briefly mention key results from our validation, including quantitative reductions in drift and control effort with associated statistics. We will also ensure the threshold derivation is clearly outlined in the main text and referenced in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Core method (as described)] Core method (as described): The uncertainty threshold is derived from the filter's own covariance estimates to flag quasi-static intervals for velocity corrections. Because the threshold and the velocity estimates share the same inertial measurements, low reported uncertainty can arise either from genuine near-zero velocity or from the filter converging on an incorrect state; applying updates in the latter case risks reinforcing bias. This circularity concern is especially relevant for free-flying platforms subject to wind and vibration not guaranteed to be captured in the uncertainty model, and requires explicit analysis or safeguards to support the claim of safe corrections.

    Authors: This concern about potential circularity is well-taken. Our method relies on the filter's covariance to detect low uncertainty, which could theoretically be misleading if the state estimate is biased. To mitigate this, we have designed the threshold to be conservative, and in the revised paper we will include a dedicated analysis of this issue. Specifically, we will present results from simulations incorporating wind and vibration disturbances to show that the detection remains reliable and does not reinforce errors. We will also describe the empirical validation of the threshold using ground-truth data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in C-ZUPT derivation chain

full rationale

The paper presents C-ZUPT as a method that defines an uncertainty threshold (a design choice) to opportunistically detect quasi-static intervals and apply velocity updates to a standard inertial filter. No equations or steps are shown that reduce the claimed drift reduction or hovering improvements to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or self-citation chains by construction. The central claim rests on the heuristic threshold plus experimental validation rather than deriving the outcome from its own inputs. This is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard inertial sensor error models and the assumption that filter uncertainty correlates with actual stationarity; the uncertainty threshold itself functions as a free parameter whose value is not derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • uncertainty threshold
    Chosen to flag quasi-static equilibria; its specific value is not derived and must be tuned for the platform and sensor characteristics.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Inertial sensor biases and noise cause unbounded drift in the absence of external measurements.
    Invoked in the opening paragraphs to motivate the need for aiding sources.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static flight intervals produce sufficiently low velocity that a zero-velocity update remains accurate.
    Central premise enabling the C-ZUPT correction without surface contact.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5724 in / 1255 out tokens · 34258 ms · 2026-05-21T23:48:51.023980+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Principles of GNSS, inertial, and multisen- sor integrated navigation systems, [book review],

    P. D. Groves, “Principles of GNSS, inertial, and multisen- sor integrated navigation systems, [book review],” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 26–27, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    In- ertial measurement unit error modeling tutorial: Inertial navigation system state estimation with real-time sensor calibration,

    J. A. Farrell, F. O. Silva, F. Rahman, and J. Wendel, “In- ertial measurement unit error modeling tutorial: Inertial navigation system state estimation with real-time sensor calibration,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 40–66, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Modern inertial navigation technology and its application,

    J. Weston and D. Titterton, “Modern inertial navigation technology and its application,” Electronics & commu- nication engineering journal , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 49–64, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Pseudo-measurements as aiding to INS during GPS outages,

    I. Klein, S. Filin, and T. Toledo, “Pseudo-measurements as aiding to INS during GPS outages,” Navigation, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 25–34, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Tightly-coupled integra- tion of WiFi and MEMS sensors on handheld devices for indoor pedestrian navigation,

    Y . Zhuang and N. El-Sheimy, “Tightly-coupled integra- tion of WiFi and MEMS sensors on handheld devices for indoor pedestrian navigation,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 224–234, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Stance-phase detection for ZUPT-aided foot-mounted pedestrian nav- igation system,

    Z. Wang, H. Zhao, S. Qiu, and Q. Gao, “Stance-phase detection for ZUPT-aided foot-mounted pedestrian nav- igation system,” IEEE/ASME Transactions On Mecha- tronics, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 3170–3181, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Fail-safe flight of a fully-actuated quadrotor in a single motor failure,

    S. J. Lee, I. Jang, and H. J. Kim, “Fail-safe flight of a fully-actuated quadrotor in a single motor failure,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6403– 6410, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Tracking of sinking underwater node using inertial navigation,

    K. Lindve, “Tracking of sinking underwater node using inertial navigation,” 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    An IMM-aided ZUPT methodology for an INS/DVL integrated navigation sys- tem,

    Y . Yao, X. Xu, and X. Xu, “An IMM-aided ZUPT methodology for an INS/DVL integrated navigation sys- tem,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 9, p. 2030, 2017

    work page 2030

  10. [10]

    Inertial sensors tech- nologies for navigation applications: State of the art and future trends,

    N. El-Sheimy and A. Youssef, “Inertial sensors tech- nologies for navigation applications: State of the art and future trends,” Satellite Navigation , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 2, 2020

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Inertial navigation meets deep learning: A survey of current trends and future direc- tions,

    N. Cohen and I. Klein, “Inertial navigation meets deep learning: A survey of current trends and future direc- tions,” Results in Engineering , p. 103565, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Foot-mounted pedes- trian navigation based on particle filter with an adaptive weight updating strategy,

    Y . Gu, Q. Song, Y . Li, and M. Ma, “Foot-mounted pedes- trian navigation based on particle filter with an adaptive weight updating strategy,” The Journal of Navigation , vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 23–38, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Analytical closed-form estimation of position er- ror on ZUPT-augmented pedestrian inertial navigation,

    Y . Wang, D. Vatanparvar, A. Chernyshoff, and A. M. Shkel, “Analytical closed-form estimation of position er- ror on ZUPT-augmented pedestrian inertial navigation,” IEEE Sensors Letters , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1–4, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Zero-velocity detection—a bayesian ap- proach to adaptive thresholding,

    J. Wahlstr ¨om, I. Skog, F. Gustafsson, A. Markham, and N. Trigoni, “Zero-velocity detection—a bayesian ap- proach to adaptive thresholding,” IEEE Sensors Letters , vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1–4, 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Fifteen years of progress at zero velocity: A review,

    J. Wahlstr ¨om and I. Skog, “Fifteen years of progress at zero velocity: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1139–1151, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Information-aided inertial navigation: A review,

    D. Engelsman and I. Klein, “Information-aided inertial navigation: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- tation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–18, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Airborne docking for multi-rotor aerial manipu- lations,

    R. Miyazaki, R. Jiang, H. Paul, K. Ono, and K. Shimono- mura, “Airborne docking for multi-rotor aerial manipu- lations,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 4708–4714, 14 IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Stabilized controller design for attitude and altitude controlling of quad-rotor under disturbance and noisy conditions,

    M. H. Tanveer, S. F. Ahmed, D. Hazry, F. A. Warsi, and M. K. Joyo, “Stabilized controller design for attitude and altitude controlling of quad-rotor under disturbance and noisy conditions,” American Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 819, 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Altitude and attitude stabilization of UA V quadrotor system using improved active disturbance rejection control,

    A. A. Najm and I. K. Ibraheem, “Altitude and attitude stabilization of UA V quadrotor system using improved active disturbance rejection control,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering , vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 1985–1999, 2020

    work page 1985

  20. [20]

    D. K. Arrowsmith and C. M. Place, An introduction to dynamical systems. Cambridge university press, 1990

    work page 1990

  21. [21]

    A review on ZUPT-aided pedestrian inertial navigation,

    Y . Wang and A. M. Shkel, “A review on ZUPT-aided pedestrian inertial navigation,” in 2020 27th Saint Peters- burg International Conference on Integrated Navigation Systems (ICINS), pp. 1–4, IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    In-car positioning and navigation technologies—a survey,

    I. Skog and P. Handel, “In-car positioning and navigation technologies—a survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelli- gent Transportation Systems , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4–21, 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Learning quadrotor dynam- ics for precise, safe, and agile flight control,

    A. Saviolo and G. Loianno, “Learning quadrotor dynam- ics for precise, safe, and agile flight control,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 55, pp. 45–60, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Autonomous drone racing: A survey,

    D. Hanover, A. Loquercio, L. Bauersfeld, A. Romero, R. Penicka, Y . Song, G. Cioffi, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza, “Autonomous drone racing: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 3044–3067, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Range, endurance, and optimal speed estimates for multicopters,

    L. Bauersfeld and D. Scaramuzza, “Range, endurance, and optimal speed estimates for multicopters,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2953– 2960, 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Learning on the fly: Drones in the russian- ukrainian war,

    K. Ch ´avez, “Learning on the fly: Drones in the russian- ukrainian war,”Arms Control Today, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 6– 11, 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    A review on the state of the art in copter drones and flight control systems,

    J. Peksa and D. Mamchur, “A review on the state of the art in copter drones and flight control systems,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 11, p. 3349, 2024

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    M. V . Cook, Flight dynamics principles: a linear systems approach to aircraft stability and control . Butterworth- Heinemann, 2012

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    K. J. ˚Astr¨om, Introduction to stochastic control theory . Courier Corporation, 2012

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Aircraft control system using LQG and LQR controller with optimal estimation- kalman filter design,

    L. Chrif and Z. M. Kadda, “Aircraft control system using LQG and LQR controller with optimal estimation- kalman filter design,” Procedia Engineering , vol. 80, pp. 245–257, 2014

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Khalil, J

    I. Khalil, J. Doyle, and K. Glover, Robust and optimal control, vol. 2. Prentice hall, 1996

    work page 1996

  32. [32]

    On controllability of lin- ear stochastic systems,

    N. Mahmudov and A. Denker, “On controllability of lin- ear stochastic systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 144–151, 2000

    work page 2000

  33. [33]

    Quadrotor helicopter flight dynamics and control: The- ory and experiment,

    G. Hoffmann, H. Huang, S. Waslander, and C. Tomlin, “Quadrotor helicopter flight dynamics and control: The- ory and experiment,” in AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit , p. 6461, 2007

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    Dynam- ics modeling and control of a quadrotor with swing load,

    S. Sadr, S. A. A. Moosavian, and P. Zarafshan, “Dynam- ics modeling and control of a quadrotor with swing load,” Journal of Robotics , vol. 2014, no. 1, p. 265897, 2014

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Castillo, R

    P. Castillo, R. Lozano, and A. E. Dzul, Modelling and control of mini-flying machines . Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Etkin and L

    B. Etkin and L. D. Reid, Dynamics of flight: stability and control. John Wiley & Sons, 1995

    work page 1995

  37. [37]

    Observ- ability analysis of an inertial navigation system with stationary updates,

    A. Ramanandan, A. Chen, and J. A. Farrell, “Observ- ability analysis of an inertial navigation system with stationary updates,” in Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference, pp. 5292–5299, IEEE, 2011

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    An accurate time constant parameter determi- nation method for the varying condition equivalent circuit model of lithium batteries,

    L. Zhang, S. Wang, D.-I. Stroe, C. Zou, C. Fernandez, and C. Yu, “An accurate time constant parameter determi- nation method for the varying condition equivalent circuit model of lithium batteries,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 2057, 2020

    work page 2057

  39. [39]

    Evaluation of lithium-ion battery equivalent circuit models for state of charge es- timation by an experimental approach,

    H. He, R. Xiong, and J. Fan, “Evaluation of lithium-ion battery equivalent circuit models for state of charge es- timation by an experimental approach,” Energies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 582–598, 2011

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    Hespanha, Linear Systems Theory: Second Edition

    J. Hespanha, Linear Systems Theory: Second Edition . Princeton University Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    A two-step method for system identification of low-cost quadrotor,

    Y . Yu, P. Tang, T. Song, and D. Lin, “A two-step method for system identification of low-cost quadrotor,” Aerospace Science and Technology , vol. 96, p. 105551, 2020

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Data-driven denoising of stationary accelerometer signals,

    D. Engelsman and I. Klein, “Data-driven denoising of stationary accelerometer signals,”Measurement, vol. 218, p. 113218, 2023

    work page 2023