Cited by 17Robotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationInertial Sensor and NavigationTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks

Graph-based terrain relative navigation with optimal landmark database selection

Steiner, Ted J., Brady, Tye M., Hoffman, Jeffrey A.·2015·2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference

Abstract

Terrain relative navigation (TRN) offers a means to constrain absolute vehicle position and attitude without using a GPS receiver or star camera, such as for unmanned aerial vehicles or planetary landing spacecraft, using a pre-computed terrain database of distinctive landmarks in the operational environment. However, depending on the length of the planned trajectory, these terrain landmark databases may grow prohibitively large for the onboard data storage, processing, and communication capabilities of these types of vehicles. In this paper, we introduce a definition of landmark utility - which encapsulates the observation probability of a landmark and its spatial distribution relative to nearby landmarks in the database - as a measure of the value of potential line-of sight measurements to that landmark. We additionally present an efficient algorithm to sort all potential landmarks in an environment based on their relative utility without access to the actual sensor measurements or trajectory. This enables pre-determination of a limited-size terrain landmark database containing the N-best landmarks in the environment, which is applicable to any landmark-based TRN system. To evaluate our landmark selection algorithm, we additionally introduce an incremental smoothing-based approach to TRN using a Bayesian factor graph representation. This system is capable of overcoming several challenges associated with TRN systems, including relinearization of past measurements, simultaneously utilizing pre-mapped and opportunistic features in a common estimator, and efficient sensor fusion in a common, probabilistic framework. We provide results showing the benefits of our utility-based landmark selection compared to alternative selection approaches, using evaluation metrics independent of any particular TRN estimation framework and the navigation performance of our graph-based TRN system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/aero.2015.7119053

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steiner, T. J., Brady, T. M., & Hoffman, J. A.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Draper Laboratory (US)
Venue
2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-03
Pages
1-12
ISSN
1095-323X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1571337729
Cited by
16
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 4
FWCI
2.31
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Robotics and Sensor-Based Localization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Inertial Sensor and Navigation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Target Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Keywords
terrain relative navigation, landmark selection, graph-based navigation, relinearization, sensor fusion, unmanned aerial vehicles, GPS-denied navigation

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