Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Optimization-Based Velocity-Integral Sliding-Window Coarse Alignment: Attitude Error Analysis and Validation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-15 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A first-order map turns IMU, GNSS-velocity, and lever-arm errors into deterministic attitude offsets and covariances for sliding-window velocity-integral coarse alignment.

desk verdict Solid first-order error map for sliding-window velocity-integral OBA; fills a real gap and holds inside its short-window regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.25639 v2 pith:UWCY3UTC submitted 2026-06-24 eess.SP

Xuyang Jiang , Xiyuan Chen , Weiming Jing This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords strapdowninertialnavigationsystemcoarsealignmentoptimization-basedslidingwindowerrorpropagationattitudecovarianceDavenportqmethodGNSS-aided
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

Strapdown inertial systems need a trustworthy initial attitude and a matching error covariance before fine alignment filters can run. Optimization-based alignment turns that problem into estimating one constant initial attitude from velocity-integral observation vectors, but prior work largely refined the attitude solver itself and left the error path from raw sensors unmapped for fixed-length sliding windows. This paper supplies that map: gyroscope, accelerometer, GNSS-velocity, and lever-arm errors are propagated into unnormalized observation-vector perturbations, then through Davenport's q method into three-axis attitude misalignment. Systematic biases produce a deterministic offset; white noise produces a covariance that accounts for overlapping windows. Monte Carlo trials keep predicted standard deviations within a few percent of the empirical ones and keep coverage above 99 percent; a vehicle test keeps actual initial-attitude residuals inside the predicted envelopes with sub-0.005-degree steady-state RMSE. The result is a practical attitude-accuracy assessment tool for GNSS-aided in-motion coarse alignment.

What carries the argument

The first-order attitude error propagation model: raw measurement errors are mapped to non-normalized observation-vector perturbations (via specific-force integrals, attitude-chain projection, and endpoint velocity differencing), then through the Davenport gain-matrix Jacobian and eigenvector sensitivity into a three-dimensional attitude misalignment that separates deterministic offset from stochastic covariance.

What would settle it

Inject known constant biases, a measured lever arm, and calibrated white-noise levels into a 600-second sliding-window OBA run under both straight and Figure-8 motion; if the analytical offset and plus-or-minus-3-sigma envelopes fail to bound the Monte Carlo or vehicle residual statistics within a few percent, the claimed map is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For GNSS-aided fixed-length sliding-window velocity-integral optimization-based alignment, raw gyroscope bias and noise, accelerometer bias and noise, GNSS velocity noise, and lever-arm geometry can be propagated by first-order linear maps through unnormalized observation vectors and Davenport's q method into a deterministic attitude offset plus an attitude-error covariance that correctly bounds Monte Carlo and vehicle-test initial-attitude errors.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation treats short-window GNSS-velocity couplings into navigation-frame attitude and Earth-rate integrals as higher-order small terms and assumes misalignments stay small enough for a linear additive-to-multiplicative quaternion map; if those premises fail, the predicted offsets and covariances can drift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coarse-alignment software can report not only an initial attitude but a defensible three-axis covariance for initializing the subsequent fine-alignment filter.
  • Deterministic bias and lever-arm contributions can be diagnosed separately from stochastic envelopes without re-running Monte Carlo trials for every sensor grade.
  • Motion planners can choose trajectories that shrink the predicted heading covariance before fine alignment begins.
  • The same Jacobian chain can be reused to size window length and sampling rate against a target attitude-error budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the neglected Earth-rate and transport-rate integral terms were restored, the same pipeline would become usable for longer windows or arcminute-level accuracy claims.
  • Colored or biased GNSS velocity would enter as an extra deterministic block rather than pure white-noise covariance, suggesting a natural extension for multipath-heavy urban runs.
  • Because the model already tracks overlapping-window correlations, it could be inverted to decide how much window overlap is worth the extra computation for a given noise budget.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a first-order analytical attitude-error propagation model for GNSS-aided fixed-length sliding-window velocity-integral optimization-based alignment (OBA). From a continuous sliding-window observation model and dual-sample discrete implementation, gyroscope bias/noise, accelerometer bias/noise, GNSS velocity noise, and lever-arm effects are mapped into non-normalized observation-vector perturbations (Eqs. 22–27), then through Davenport’s q-method Jacobians and the Φ mapping (Eqs. 29–38, Appendix A) to deterministic attitude offsets δθ_s and stochastic covariances P_θ,r (Eqs. 40–46). Monte Carlo trials (500 runs, straight and Figure-8 trajectories) report standard-deviation ratios near unity with coverage above 99.4%; a vehicle field test with NS260/FSINS3X hardware shows predicted ±3σ envelopes bounding actual initial-attitude errors with steady-state residual RMSE below 0.00495 deg.

Significance. If the result holds within the stated short-window, small-error regime, the paper fills a clear gap: prior OBA literature refined solvers or robust vectors but lacked an explicit raw-sensor-to-attitude-error map for fixed-length sliding-window velocity-integral OBA under in-motion conditions. Decoupled deterministic offsets and covariances are practically useful for initializing fine-alignment filters. Strengths include the coherent first-order chain from kinematics through unnormalized Wahba/Davenport, explicit observation-vector Jacobians (Appendix A), careful treatment of overlapping-window correlations in the stochastic assembly (Eqs. 41–45), and multi-pronged validation (Monte Carlo plus hardware field test). The contribution is scoped engineering analysis rather than a new alignment algorithm, but that scope is appropriate and useful for IEEE TIE’s audience.

major comments (2)
  1. Section III.A after Eq. (25): the Earth-rate × δv and navigation-frame attitude-error integral contributions to β are dropped as “higher-order small terms” for short-window coarse alignment. This truncation is load-bearing for the claimed offset/covariance map, yet no quantitative residual bound or numerical check is provided (e.g., magnitude of dropped terms versus the retained endpoint difference for T_w = 10 s and for longer windows). A short sensitivity study or order-of-magnitude bound would make the validity envelope falsifiable rather than asserted.
  2. Section V / Table VI: field-test validation feeds offline Kalman-filter estimates of ε^b, ∇^b, and l^b (Fig. 7) into the analytical model. This correctly verifies the propagation map when inputs match truth, but does not demonstrate predictive use when only manufacturer specs or rough priors are available. The text briefly notes that enlarged nominals can be used for conservative bounds; one additional plot or table with non-calibrated (nominal) inputs would clarify how much the envelopes inflate and whether they still bound the observed errors.
minor comments (5)
  1. Abstract vs. body inconsistency on standard-deviation ratios: the abstract states 0.942–1.036, while Section IV.B / Fig. 3 reports 0.929–1.060 and Table IV reports 0.942–1.036. Align the reported ranges.
  2. Fig. 4 caption and body text refer to both Table II ARW and NS260 ARW envelopes; ensure the red/blue dashed-line legend is unambiguous in the final figure.
  3. Eq. (13): the discrete β sum multiplies the bracketed rate/gravity term by T (the sample period) in the continuous-to-discrete sense, but the written form ends with “]T” which can be misread as transpose. Clarify notation.
  4. Reference numbering in the introduction jumps ([14], [31] then [15]–[19]); renumber for sequential order.
  5. Conclusion correctly notes that the model evaluates C_b^n(0) error, not real-time attitude at the end of alignment. Consider elevating this limitation one sentence earlier (e.g., end of Section III) so readers do not over-interpret P_θ,r as current-epoch attitude covariance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: first-order map is kinematic/eigenvector perturbation, validated by independent injection and offline-calibrated inputs, not by construction from the target attitude.

full rationale

The claimed result is a first-order propagation from raw IMU/GNSS/lever-arm errors through non-normalized sliding-window observation vectors (Eqs. 22–27) and linearized Davenport q-method eigenvector perturbation (Eqs. 29–38) to deterministic attitude offsets and covariances (Eqs. 40–46). That chain is derived from SINS kinematics, first-order attitude-projection variation, endpoint velocity differencing, and standard matrix calculus on the Davenport gain matrix; it does not define the attitude error in terms of itself, nor does it fit a free parameter to the OBA attitude residual and then re-label that residual as a prediction. Monte Carlo validation injects known biases and white-noise levels and compares analytical offsets/stds to numerical OBA outcomes (std-ratio 0.942–1.036, coverage ≥0.994). The vehicle test supplies ARW/VRW from Allan variance and biases/lever arm from an independent 18-state SINS/GNSS KF as model inputs, then checks whether the predicted offset and ±3σ envelopes bound the actual OBA-vs-reference initial-attitude errors—standard error-model checking, not a fitted-input-called-prediction loop. Citations to prior OBA and q-method covariance work (Wu, Chang, Ouyang–Wu, etc.) supply background methods; none is a same-author uniqueness theorem that forces the present map. Short-window first-order truncations (after Eq. 25; Eqs. 29–30) are modeling assumptions, not circular reductions. Score 0; steps empty.

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

The central claim is an analytical first-order error map plus empirical validation. It rests on standard attitude-determination and SINS kinematics, plus several domain approximations (small errors, white GNSS velocity, dropped Earth-rate couplings, short fixed windows). Free parameters are experimental design choices and calibrated sensor constants used as model inputs, not coefficients fitted to force the attitude-error prediction itself. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Sliding-window length T_w = 10 s
    Chosen as 10 s in both simulation and field test; controls integration length, vector magnitude, and which higher-order terms remain small. Not derived from a uniqueness principle.
  • Uniform Wahba weights w_i = 1
    Set to 1 for all windows; magnitudes of non-normalized vectors implicitly reweight. Common scalar weight does not change the optimum, but the uniform choice is a design decision.
  • NS260 deterministic error inputs (ε^b, ∇^b, l^b) = ε^b≈[0.19,0.35,−0.11] deg/h; ∇^b≈[62,−1496,−581] µg; l^b≈[0.80,−0.57,0.05] m
    Extracted as steady-state values from an offline 18-state SINS/GNSS KF on the dynamic field segment and then held fixed for analytical prediction. Validation quality depends on these fitted constants.
  • Noise intensity inputs (ARW, VRW, GNSS velocity σ) = e.g. ARW ~1.8e-3 deg/√h (NS260); GNSS σ_v=0.1 m/s
    Allan-variance and receiver specs supply Q_a,k, Q_g,k, R_v,k for covariance prediction; they are measured/assumed inputs, not predicted by the model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption First-order right-multiplicative small attitude misalignment and linearization of the Davenport eigenproblem (Eqs. 20–21, 29–30).
    Required to map δK to δθ; large-misalignment nonlinear terms are neglected by assumption in §III.B.
  • domain assumption GNSS velocity error is zero-mean white (or high-accuracy RTK/DGNSS-like) noise; low-frequency bias/multipath should be moved into the deterministic set S (§III.C).
    Underpins the stochastic covariance assembly and the claim that E[δθ]=δθ_s with Cov=P_θ,r only from white sources.
  • ad hoc to paper Earth-rate × δv and navigation-frame attitude-error integral contributions to β are higher-order small for short-window coarse alignment and may be dropped (after Eq. 25).
    Explicit modeling choice for degree-to-subdegree assessment; paper notes they must be retained for long integration or arcminute accuracy.
  • domain assumption Dual-sample coning/sculling discrete implementation faithfully represents the continuous sliding-window integrals for the error analysis (Eqs. 8–13).
    Standard SINS practice following Wu’s velocity-integral OBA; errors of the compensators themselves are not propagated.
  • standard math White-noise samples at distinct discrete epochs are mutually independent, so cross-epoch terms vanish in P_θ,r (Eq. 45).
    Standard discrete white-noise assumption used to assemble the sum of single-epoch contributions.
  • standard math Largest Davenport eigenvalue is simple so (λ1 I − K + q1 q1^T) is invertible without pseudoinverse (after Eq. 29).
    Standard non-degenerate attitude-profile assumption for unique q-method solution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimization-Based Velocity-Integral Sliding-Window Coarse Alignment: Attitude Error Analysis and Validation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWCY3UTC

@misc{pith2026260625639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimization-Based Velocity-Integral Sliding-Window Coarse Alignment: Attitude Error Analysis and Validation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWCY3UTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.25639}
}
read the original abstract

The optimization-based alignment (OBA) approach transforms strapdown inertial navigation system (SINS) coarse alignment into a constant initial attitude estimation problem for global navigation satellite system (GNSS)-aided in-motion alignment. While existing studies mainly improve accuracy by refining attitude determination algorithms or constructing robust observation vectors, a rigorous analytical mapping from raw sensor and aiding-velocity uncertainties to attitude errors remains unavailable for fixed-length sliding-window velocity-integral OBA. To address this issue, this paper proposes a first-order attitude error propagation model. Based on the sliding-window observation model, gyroscope errors, accelerometer errors, GNSS velocity noise, and lever-arm effects are propagated to unnormalized observation-vector perturbations, which are further mapped to attitude misalignment through Davenport's q method. The model decouples systematic errors from stochastic noise and derives the corresponding deterministic attitude offsets and error covariances. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that the analytical model captures deterministic offsets and statistical spread, yielding standard-deviation ratios between 0.942 and 1.036 with empirical coverage above 99.4%. Vehicle field tests show that the predicted covariance envelopes bound the actual initial-attitude errors, with the maximum residual root-mean-square error (RMSE) below 0.00495 deg. These results validate the proposed model for coarse-alignment attitude error assessment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25639 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Straight and Figure-8 trajectories and their corresponding attitude profiles, designed to compare weakly and strongly excited motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. OBA initial-attitude error and first-order analytical prediction under the joint injection of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Standard-deviation ratio heatmaps for the straight and Figure-8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Monte Carlo OBA initial-attitude errors and analytical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Vehicle platform and onboard installation of the NS260 experimental unit and the FSINS3X/RTK reference system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reference trajectory and motion profiles used in the vehicle field test. The trajectory map marks the route start/end points and features a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convergence histories of the SINS/GNSS Kalman filter during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the actual OBA initial-attitude errors with the analytically predicted offset and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references

  1. [1]

    P. D. Groves,Principles of GNSS, Inertial, and Multisensor Integrated Navigation Systems, 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Artech House, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    M. B. Ignagni,Strapdown Navigation Systems: Theory and Application. Champlain, NY , USA: Champlain Press, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Application of adaptive robust CKF in SINS/GPS initial alignment with large azimuth misalignment angle,

    B. Zhang, X. Wang, H. Lu, H. Zhaojun, and G. Changchao, “Application of adaptive robust CKF in SINS/GPS initial alignment with large azimuth misalignment angle,”Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2021, pp. 1–13, 2021, doi: 10.1155/2021/7398706

    doi:10.1155/2021/7398706 2021

  4. [4]

    F. L. Markley and J. L. Crassidis,Fundamentals of Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control. New York, NY , USA: Springer, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0802-8

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0802-8 2014

  5. [5]

    Research on algorithms for multi- vector attitude determination,

    Y . Liu, R. Yu, Z. Xiong, and Y . Guo, “Research on algorithms for multi- vector attitude determination,”Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2022, pp. 1–12, 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/6137308

    doi:10.1155/2022/6137308 2022

  6. [6]

    Fast linear quaternion attitude estimator using vector observations,

    J. Wu, Z. Zhou, B. Gao, R. Li, Y . Cheng, and H. Fourati, “Fast linear quaternion attitude estimator using vector observations,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 307–319, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TASE.2017.2699221

    doi:10.1109/tase.2017.2699221 2018

  7. [7]

    Highly compact fiber optic gyrocompass for applications at depths up to 3000 meters,

    T. Gaiffe, Y . Cottreau, N. Faussot, G. Hardy, P. Simonpietri, and H. Arditty, “Highly compact fiber optic gyrocompass for applications at depths up to 3000 meters,” inProc. 2000 Int. Symp. Underwater Technology, 2000, pp. 155–160, doi: 10.1109/UT.2000.852533

    doi:10.1109/ut.2000.852533

  8. [8]

    Adaptive identification on the group of rigid-body rotations and its application to underwater vehicle navigation,

    J. C. Kinsey and L. L. Whitcomb, “Adaptive identification on the group of rigid-body rotations and its application to underwater vehicle navigation,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 124–136, 2007, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2006.886829

    doi:10.1109/tro.2006.886829 2007

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Coarse alignment for marine SINS using gravity in the inertial frame as a reference,

    D. Gu, N. El-Sheimy, T. Hassan, and Z. Syed, “Coarse alignment for marine SINS using gravity in the inertial frame as a reference,” in Proc. IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008, pp. 961–965, doi: 10.1109/PLANS.2008.4570038

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Optimization-based alignment for inertial navigation systems: Theory and algorithm,

    M. Wu, Y . Wu, X. Hu, and D. Hu, “Optimization-based alignment for inertial navigation systems: Theory and algorithm,”Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2010.05.004

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Coarse alignment of a ship’s strapdown inertial attitude reference system using velocity loci,

    P. M. G. Silson, “Coarse alignment of a ship’s strapdown inertial attitude reference system using velocity loci,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 1930–1941, 2011, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2011.2113131

    1930 doi

  4. [12]

    Observability of strapdown INS alignment: A global perspective,

    Y . Wu, H. Zhang, M. Wu, X. Hu, and D. Hu, “Observability of strapdown INS alignment: A global perspective,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 78–102, 2012, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2012.6129622

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    Velocity/position integration formula Part I: Appli- cation to in-flight coarse alignment,

    Y . Wu and X. Pan, “Velocity/position integration formula Part I: Appli- cation to in-flight coarse alignment,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 1006–1023, 2013, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2013.6494395

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    A new technique for INS/GNSS attitude and parameter estimation using online optimization,

    Y . Wu, J. Wang, and D. Hu, “A new technique for INS/GNSS attitude and parameter estimation using online optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 2642–2655, 2014, doi: 10.1109/TSP.2014.2312317

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Optimization-based alignment for strapdown inertial navigation system: Comparison and extension,

    L. Chang, J. Li, and K. Li, “Optimization-based alignment for strapdown inertial navigation system: Comparison and extension,”IEEE Transac- tions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1697– 1713, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2016.130824

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Kalman-filtering-based in-motion coarse alignment for odometer-aided SINS,

    Y . Huang, Y . Zhang, and X. Wang, “Kalman-filtering-based in-motion coarse alignment for odometer-aided SINS,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 3364–3377, 2017, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2017.2737840

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    A new fast in-motion coarse alignment method for GPS-aided low-cost SINS,

    Y . Huang, Y . Zhang, and L. Chang, “A new fast in-motion coarse alignment method for GPS-aided low-cost SINS,”IEEE/ASME Trans- actions on Mechatronics, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1303–1313, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2018.2835486

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    A high-accuracy GPS-aided coarse alignment method for MEMS-based SINS,

    Y . Huang, Z. Zhang, S. Du, Y . Li, and Y . Zhang, “A high-accuracy GPS-aided coarse alignment method for MEMS-based SINS,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 7914–7932, 2020, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2020.2983578

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    A V ondrak low pass filter for IMU sensor initial alignment on a disturbed base,

    Z. Li, J. Wang, J. Gao, B. Li, and F. Zhou, “A V ondrak low pass filter for IMU sensor initial alignment on a disturbed base,”Sensors, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 23803–23821, 2014, doi: 10.3390/s141223803

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    In-motion coarse alignment method for SINS/DVL with the attitude dynamics,

    Y . Yao, X. Xu, Y . Zhu, and X. Xu, “In-motion coarse alignment method for SINS/DVL with the attitude dynamics,”ISA Transactions, vol. 105, pp. 377–386, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2020.05.033

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    An improved initial align- ment method for SINS/GPS integration with vectors subtraction,

    Y . Yao, X. Xu, T. Zhang, and G. Hu, “An improved initial align- ment method for SINS/GPS integration with vectors subtraction,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 16, pp. 18256–18262, 2021, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3085742

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    A robust in-motion alignment method with inertial sensors and Doppler velocity log,

    X. Xu, J. Gui, Y . Sun, Y . Yao, and T. Zhang, “A robust in-motion alignment method with inertial sensors and Doppler velocity log,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 70, pp. 1–13, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2020.3011873

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    A robust in-motion optimization- based alignment for SINS/GPS integration,

    X. Xu, Y . Sun, Y . Yao, and T. Zhang, “A robust in-motion optimization- based alignment for SINS/GPS integration,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4362–4372, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2020.3044084

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Robust attitude and positioning alignment methods for SINS/DVL integration based on sliding window improvements,

    X. Xu, Y . Li, L. Zhu, and Y . Yao, “Robust attitude and positioning alignment methods for SINS/DVL integration based on sliding window improvements,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 8038–8046, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2023.3294582

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    A robust in-motion coarse alignment method for low-accuracy SINS and GPS integrated system,

    X. Zhou, M. Zhang, J. Hu, L. Li, and X. Guan, “A robust in-motion coarse alignment method for low-accuracy SINS and GPS integrated system,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 611–622, 2025, doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2024.3397244

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    A coarse alignment method based on vector observation and truncated vectorizedκ-matrix for underwater vehicle,

    H. Huang, J. Wei, L. Zhang, B. Wang, and S. Wang, “A coarse alignment method based on vector observation and truncated vectorizedκ-matrix for underwater vehicle,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3227–3238, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2022.3220293

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    A unified initial alignment method of SINS based on FGO,

    H. Zhou and X. Ye, “A unified initial alignment method of SINS based on FGO,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 11795–11803, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2022.3229335

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    A fast in-motion alignment method for INS/DVL in rough sea conditions,

    H. Qin, X. Wang, G. Wang, M. Hu, Y . Bian, X. Qin, and R. Ding, “A fast in-motion alignment method for INS/DVL in rough sea conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1–11, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2024.3481561

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    A novel coarse alignment method for SINS using special orthogonal group optimal estimation,

    F. Pei, Y . Su, D. Zhu, and S. Yin, “A novel coarse alignment method for SINS using special orthogonal group optimal estimation,”Sensors, vol. 20, no. 20, Art. no. 5740, 2020, doi: 10.3390/s20205740

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Log-linear error state model derivation without approximation for INS,

    L. Chang and Y . Luo, “Log-linear error state model derivation without approximation for INS,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 2029–2035, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3197726

    doi

  23. [31]

    An equivalent backtracking coarse alignment method with dynamic optimal sliding window in- tegration,

    F. Yue, L. Miao, and Z. Zhou, “An equivalent backtracking coarse alignment method with dynamic optimal sliding window in- tegration,”Measurement, vol. 256, Art. no. 118290, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2025.118290

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    The TASTE test,

    M. D. Shuster, “The TASTE test,”The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 61–71, 2009, doi: 10.1007/BF03321494

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    Error analysis of analytical coarse alignment formulations for stationary SINS,

    F. O. Silva, E. M. Hemerly, and W. C. L. Filho, “Error analysis of analytical coarse alignment formulations for stationary SINS,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1777–1796, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2016.7738355

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Generalized error analysis of analytical coarse alignment formulations for stationary SINS,

    F. O. Silva, “Generalized error analysis of analytical coarse alignment formulations for stationary SINS,”Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 79, pp. 500–505, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2018.06.015

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    A fast in-field coarse alignment and bias estimation method for sta- tionary intermediate-grade IMUs,

    F. O. Silva, E. M. Hemerly, W. C. L. Filho, and H. K. Kuga, “A fast in-field coarse alignment and bias estimation method for sta- tionary intermediate-grade IMUs,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- tation and Measurement, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 831–838, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2017.2789138

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Error analysis of Daven- port’s q method,

    G. Chang, T. Xu, and Q. Wang, “Error analysis of Daven- port’s q method,”Automatica, vol. 75, pp. 217–220, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.09.018

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Optimal pose estimation with error- covariance analysis,

    Y . Cheng and J. L. Crassidis, “Optimal pose estimation with error- covariance analysis,” inProc. AIAA Scitech 2021 F orum, 2021, doi: 10.2514/6.2021-1758

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Optimization-based strapdown attitude align- ment for high-accuracy systems: Covariance analysis with applications,

    W. Ouyang and Y . Wu, “Optimization-based strapdown attitude align- ment for high-accuracy systems: Covariance analysis with applications,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 4053–4069, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3157570

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.