Cited by 94Space Satellite Systems and ControlSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlAdvanced Vision and Imaging

Comparative assessment of techniques for initial pose estimation using monocular vision

Sharma, Sumant, D׳Amico, Simone·2016·Acta Astronautica

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actaastro.2015.12.032

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, S., & D׳Amico, S.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Sharma, Sumant
Venue
Acta Astronautica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
123
Pages
435-445
ISSN
0094-5765 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2291821649
Cited by
94
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4
FWCI
10.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Acta Astronautica (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Space Satellite Systems and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Spacecraft Dynamics and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
Keywords
initial pose estimation, monocular vision, spacecraft navigation, formation flying, on-orbit servicing, spacecraft rendezvous, low carrier-to-noise ratio, image contrast

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review