2020
DOI: 10.1109/lwc.2020.2986756
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Joint TDOA-PDOA Localization Approach Using Particle Swarm Optimization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Over 90% of the final positioning errors of the proposed approach are smaller than 0.065 m in the absence of cycle slips, and smaller than 0.102 m in the presence of cycle slips. The proposed positioning method markedly outperforms a recently published TDoA-CPDoA algorithm [65], and the proposed fusion-based position estimation, i.e., Algorithm 1. Despite outperforming the algorithm based on TDoA measurements, the TDoA-CPDoA algorithm [65] and the proposed fusion-based position estimation do not resolve the integer ambiguity.…”
Section: E Positioning Accuracy Performancementioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Over 90% of the final positioning errors of the proposed approach are smaller than 0.065 m in the absence of cycle slips, and smaller than 0.102 m in the presence of cycle slips. The proposed positioning method markedly outperforms a recently published TDoA-CPDoA algorithm [65], and the proposed fusion-based position estimation, i.e., Algorithm 1. Despite outperforming the algorithm based on TDoA measurements, the TDoA-CPDoA algorithm [65] and the proposed fusion-based position estimation do not resolve the integer ambiguity.…”
Section: E Positioning Accuracy Performancementioning
confidence: 91%
“…The proposed positioning method markedly outperforms a recently published TDoA-CPDoA algorithm [65], and the proposed fusion-based position estimation, i.e., Algorithm 1. Despite outperforming the algorithm based on TDoA measurements, the TDoA-CPDoA algorithm [65] and the proposed fusion-based position estimation do not resolve the integer ambiguity. As a consequence, their positioning accuracies are substantially worse than the full proposed approach depicted in Fig.…”
Section: E Positioning Accuracy Performancementioning
confidence: 91%
“…Therefore, different delay times can be estimated from phase differences of sinusoids by which the optical signal is moduled [34]. For PDOA, one obvious advantage is that it can be combined with other positioning techniques such as RSSI and ToF/TDOA where it can significantly improve the accuracy [35], [36], [37]. In [38] a differential PDOA method with sub-decimeter accuracy is demonstrated.…”
Section: ) Angle-of-arrival (Aoa)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the PDOA technique is limited to cases in which the transmitter separation remains small. For large areas, the actual phase difference of the signals cannot be computed uniquely, as phase is restricted to the range [0, 2π), and longer delays would create ambiguities (phase wrapping) [35].…”
Section: ) Angle-of-arrival (Aoa)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LPS and GNSS are categorized through the physical property measured for providing target location: time [10], power [11], phase [12], angle [13], frequency [14], or combinations of these methodologies [15] [16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%