2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.automatica.2009.12.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimality analysis of sensor-target localization geometries

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

7
304
0
3

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 392 publications
(314 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
7
304
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, we can even consider cases in which the standard deviation is multiplied by a percentage of the true range value between the target and individual sensors. In both these cases the Fisher information matrix for velocity estimation becomes very similar to the Fisher information matrix for bearing-only localization and we point to [26] for the details.…”
Section: On the Fisher Information For Velocity Estimationmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Moreover, we can even consider cases in which the standard deviation is multiplied by a percentage of the true range value between the target and individual sensors. In both these cases the Fisher information matrix for velocity estimation becomes very similar to the Fisher information matrix for bearing-only localization and we point to [26] for the details.…”
Section: On the Fisher Information For Velocity Estimationmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Firstly, we note that optimal sensor placement for velocity estimation is equivalent to the optimal sensor placement for range-based localization as outlined in [26]. However, importantly, the optimal sensor placement for estimating the target velocity does not depend on the velocity itself.…”
Section: On the Fisher Information For Velocity Estimationmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This problem has overcome incorporating a priori information about the approximate position of the target (Fang, 1990). Placement of receivers affects substantially the performance of the localization algorithm (Bishop et al, 2010), who found that the optimal placement of two receivers in range-based localization is when they form an angle with the target of π 2 . For three receivers, there are two optimal placement possibilities according to corollary 1 in Bishop et al (2010), π 3 , and 2π 3 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Placement of receivers affects substantially the performance of the localization algorithm (Bishop et al, 2010), who found that the optimal placement of two receivers in range-based localization is when they form an angle with the target of π 2 . For three receivers, there are two optimal placement possibilities according to corollary 1 in Bishop et al (2010), π 3 , and 2π 3 . Han et al (2007) proposed improving localization accuracy, placing the receivers on vertices of equilateral triangles.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%