GSVisLoc: Generalizable Visual Localization for Gaussian Splatting Scene Representations

Dror Moran; Fadi Khatib; Guy Trostianetsky; Meirav Galun; Ronen Basri; Yoni Kasten

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

GSVisLoc: Generalizable Visual Localization for Gaussian Splatting Scene Representations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GSVisLoc estimates camera pose by matching encoded 3D Gaussians to image patches, without retraining or extra reference images.

desk verdict Plausible 3DGS localization pipeline, but the only full text supplied is an unrelated paper—so unverified, not invalid. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18242 v2 pith:NK4YDVOI submitted 2025-08-25 cs.CV

Fadi Khatib , Dror Moran , Guy Trostianetsky , Yoni Kasten , Meirav Galun , Ronen Basri This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords 3DGaussianSplattingvisuallocalizationcameraposeestimationscenerepresentationfeaturematchinggeneralizationindoor/outdoor

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

GSVisLoc is a visual localization method that takes a 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) scene representation and a single query image, and returns the camera's position and orientation. The paper's central claim is that a 3DGS model, without modification, retraining, or additional reference images, can serve directly as the map for localization. That goal is achieved by downsampling and encoding the 3D Gaussians into scene features, encoding image patches separately, and matching them in three stages: coarse matching, fine matching, and pose refinement. The authors report competitive accuracy on standard indoor and outdoor benchmarks and state that the method generalizes to novel scenes with no additional training. If correct, this would make 3DGS models practical drop-in map representations for visual localization across many environments.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the shared feature space between scene features and image features. The scene side is produced by downsampling and encoding the 3D Gaussians of the given 3DGS model; the image side is produced by encoding image patches. The three-stage matching pipeline—coarse, fine, then refinement—uses these features to establish correspondences and solve for the camera pose. The load-bearing assumption is that the two encoders, learned once, produce mutually matchable features that transfer across scenes.

What would settle it

Take a 3DGS scene model whose appearance is unlike any training scene—for example, an underwater or synthetic environment—and a query image with known pose. If the coarse matching stage fails to retrieve a nearby candidate or the final pose error is far above the accuracy achieved on training-like scenes, the generalization claim is not supported. A more precise test is to measure coarse-match recall against a set of random scene locations across held-out scene types.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the explicit structure of a 3DGS scene can be turned directly into a searchable feature representation for camera pose estimation. The proposed method downsamples and encodes the 3D Gaussians to produce scene features, encodes image patches to produce image features, and then finds correspondences through a three-stage pipeline: coarse matching to narrow candidate regions, fine matching to estimate the pose, and a refinement step for accuracy. The authors assert that no per-scene retraining and no additional reference images are needed, and that the approach generalizes effectively to novel scenes without additional training.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the learned encoding of 3D Gaussians and the learned encoding of image patches still produce matching features on scenes never seen during training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, 3DGS models become drop-in map representations for visual localization, removing the need for scene-specific training.
A single query image would suffice to estimate camera pose, which is valuable for augmented reality, navigation, and robotics.
The same learned encoders could transfer to novel scenes, making localization practical when the environment changes without rebuilding the model.
The method covers both indoor and outdoor scenes, suggesting broad applicability across different visual environments.
The coarse-to-fine structure implies that localization speed can be tuned by adjusting the number of candidates considered at the coarse stage.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural stress test would measure how matching accuracy degrades when the query image differs sharply from the training distribution, such as different seasons, lighting, or sensor characteristics.
Because the pipeline begins with coarse matching, a failure at that stage would be unrecoverable; isolating the coarse stage's recall on unseen scenes would clarify where generalization actually breaks down.
Since scene features come from the 3D Gaussians themselves, this approach could likely be combined with rendering-based pose refinement that uses the same 3DGS model for additional accuracy.
The generalization claim could be made quantitative by reporting per-scene pose errors when the training and test scenes are disjoint, rather than a single average, which the abstract does not specify.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:2508.18242.

The abstract describes a real idea worth testing: use a trained 3DGS model of a scene as a map, encode the downsampled Gaussians and query-image patches into a shared feature space, then do coarse-to-fine matching followed by pose refinement. That is a sensible architecture and, if the generalization claim holds, it would give 3DGS maps a drop-in localization capability without per-scene retraining. The explicit use of the scene representation itself as the reference, rather than a separately built map, is the useful new twist.

Now the soft spots, and one is structural. The supplied full text is not this paper; it is an unrelated GNSS flight-software manuscript (arXiv 2508.18246). So I cannot check the architecture, experiments, or comparisons. The abstract has no numbers: 'competitive', 'outperforming', and 'generalizes effectively' are unquantified. The load-bearing assumption, as the stress-test note says, is that the downsampled-and-encoded 3D Gaussians and the image-patch encoder produce a shared, discriminative space that transfers to novel scenes. That is plausible but not demonstrated — 3DGS models are per-scene optimized and their Gaussian statistics vary widely, so the scene encoder could memorize scene-specific statistics. The abstract gives no cross-scene splits, ablations, or comparison to training-free baselines. I want to be clear: this is an unverified assumption, not a detected flaw.

If the actual paper exists and matches the abstract, it deserves a serious referee. The problem is relevant, the approach is a new combination, and the claims are falsifiable on standard benchmarks. As delivered, however, the entry is not reviewable. The editors should desk-reject the current artifact, ask the authors to submit the correct PDF, and then send the actual paper to peer review with explicit attention to the train/test scene separation in the generalization experiments.

The abstract itself reads as coherent, and the thinking is fine as far as it goes, but 'as far as it goes' is one paragraph.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript is submitted under the title 'GSVisLoc: Generalizable Visual Localization for Gaussian Splatting Scene Representations' and an abstract describing a three-stage visual localization method for 3D Gaussian Splatting scenes. The supplied full text, however, is an unrelated preprint on carrier-phase GNSS navigation software for distributed satellite systems (arXiv:2508.18246). It contains no description of the scene encoder, image-patch encoder, matching stages, pose refinement, training setup, or experiments for GSVisLoc. Consequently, all substantive claims in the abstract—the coarse/fine/refine pipeline, competitive performance, and generalization to novel scenes without retraining—are without supporting content in the submitted document.

Significance. Should the method perform as claimed, the contribution would be significant: 3DGS would become a drop-in map representation for visual localization, with a learned but retraining-free matching pipeline that transfers to unseen indoor and outdoor scenes. The three-stage matching design and the use of explicit Gaussian attributes are plausible components. However, because the submitted text contains no method description, technical derivations, benchmark names, numerical results, or ablations, the significance cannot be assessed. There are no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations in the manuscript to credit.

major comments (4)

[Full text] The entire full-text portion of the submission is a different paper (arXiv:2508.18246, AIAA SciTech 2026, on CDGNSS navigation). It shares no content with the abstract. The central claims of GSVisLoc are therefore not merely under-supported; they have no associated method or experimental section. This is a load-bearing defect that prevents any evaluation of soundness or reproducibility.
[Abstract (generalization claim)] The claim that the method 'generalizes effectively to novel scenes without additional training' requires a shared, discriminative feature space between downsampled 3D Gaussians and image patches. The manuscript provides no evidence for this: no train/test scene split, no ablation of the scene encoder, no comparison to training-free baselines, and no analysis of failure modes when scene statistics differ. Without a concrete cross-scene evaluation protocol, the generalization claim is unsupported.
[Abstract (comparative claims)] The abstract states 'competitive localization performance on standard benchmarks' and 'outperforming existing 3DGS-based baselines' but names no benchmarks, reports no metrics (e.g., median translation/rotation error), no error bars, and includes no tables. These comparative claims cannot be checked from the submitted text.
[Abstract (no-retraining wording)] The phrase 'without requiring modifications, retraining' is ambiguous: scene and image encoders have free parameters, so they must be trained somewhere. If they are trained on some scenes and applied to novel scenes, the paper must state the training data and the scene-disjoint evaluation. The submitted text does neither, leaving the 'no retraining' claim underspecified.

minor comments (4)

[Title/abstract vs full text] The body of the manuscript is unrelated to the title and abstract. If the correct manuscript is resubmitted, the body must match the claimed contribution.
[Abstract] The abstract should list the benchmark names and evaluation metrics instead of saying 'standard benchmarks'.
[References] No references to 3D Gaussian Splatting or visual localization are provided; the correct version should include related work.
[Method presentation] The three-stage pipeline would benefit from an algorithm box with notation and equations; the current abstract-level description is insufficient for a methods paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity detected: GSVisLoc abstract contains no derivation chain, equations, self-citations, or fitted-parameter predictions that can be shown to reduce to inputs.

full rationale

The manuscript as provided consists only of the abstract for arXiv:2508.18242 (GSVisLoc); the supplied full text is a different paper (AIAA SciTech 2026 GNSS navigation software, arXiv:2508.18246). The GSVisLoc abstract describes a three-stage pipeline—coarse matching, fine matching, pose refinement—and claims generalization to novel scenes without retraining, but it contains no equations, fitted parameters, or citations. Consequently there is no derivational chain whose steps could be compared to identify self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-called-prediction, self-citation load-bearing arguments, imported uniqueness, ansatz-smuggling via citation, or renaming of known results. The reader's stated concern about unverified cross-scene feature alignment is an empirical risk about whether the learned feature space transfers to novel scenes, not a circularity. Per the hard rules, a lack of auditability is not circularity, and no circular step can be quoted or exhibited. Score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers, derivations, or architecture details are visible in the abstract; the ledger records only the implicit dependencies that can be inferred from the abstract's claims.

free parameters (2)

Scene feature encoder weights = not disclosed
The abstract states scene features are produced by 'downsampling and encoding' Gaussians; if this encoder is learned, its weights are fitted parameters that localization quality depends on. No training details are provided in the abstract.
Image patch encoder weights = not disclosed
The image patch encoding step likely uses a learned network; the abstract gives no information on how these parameters were set. Matching quality depends on them.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption A prebuilt 3D Gaussian Splatting model of the scene is available as input.
The entire method operates on a 3DGS scene representation; this is stated in the abstract but its availability and quality are taken as granted.
domain assumption Downsampled Gaussian features and image patch features are comparable in a shared space that transfers across scenes.
The generalization claim (novel scenes without retraining) rests on this; the abstract asserts it but provides no mechanism or evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GSVisLoc: Generalizable Visual Localization for Gaussian Splatting Scene Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NK4YDVOI

@misc{pith2026250818242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GSVisLoc: Generalizable Visual Localization for Gaussian Splatting Scene Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NK4YDVOI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18242}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce GSVisLoc, a visual localization method designed for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) scene representations. Given a 3DGS model of a scene and a query image, our goal is to estimate the camera's position and orientation. We accomplish this by robustly matching scene features to image features. Scene features are produced by downsampling and encoding the 3D Gaussians while image features are obtained by encoding image patches. Our algorithm proceeds in three steps, starting with coarse matching, then fine matching, and finally by applying pose refinement for an accurate final estimate. Importantly, our method leverages the explicit 3DGS scene representation for visual localization without requiring modifications, retraining, or additional reference images. We evaluate GSVisLoc on both indoor and outdoor scenes, demonstrating competitive localization performance on standard benchmarks while outperforming existing 3DGS-based baselines. Moreover, our approach generalizes effectively to novel scenes without additional training.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

SG2Loc: Sequential Visual Localization on 3D Scene Graphs
cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

A particle-filter sequential localization method that matches per-patch semantic features from images to objects in a compact 3D scene graph via mesh projection and visibility.
LSGS-Loc: Towards Robust 3DGS-Based Visual Localization for Large-Scale UAV Scenarios
cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

LSGS-Loc delivers state-of-the-art accuracy and robustness for 3DGS-based visual localization in large UAV scenes via scale-aware initialization and reliability masking without scene-specific training.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit,

D’Amico, S., “Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit,” Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

Anewmethodforfastcarrierphaseambiguityestima- tion,

Teunissen,P.,“Anewmethodforfastcarrierphaseambiguityestima- tion,”Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Position, Location and Navigation Symposium-PLANS’94, IEEE, 1994, pp. 562–573

work page 1994
[3]

Precise GRACE baseline determination using GPS,

Kroes, R., Montenbruck, O., Bertiger, W., and Visser, P., “Precise GRACE baseline determination using GPS,”GPS Solutions, Vol. 9, 2005, pp. 21–31

work page 2005
[4]

Carrier phase differential GPS for LEO formation flying–the PRISMA and TanDEM-X flight experience,

Montenbruck, O., D’Amico, S., Ardaens, J.-S., and Wermuth, M., “Carrier phase differential GPS for LEO formation flying–the PRISMA and TanDEM-X flight experience,”Paper AAS, 2011, pp. 11–489

work page 2011
[5]

Differential GPS: An enabling technology for formation flying satellites,

D’Amico, S., and Montenbruck, O., “Differential GPS: An enabling technology for formation flying satellites,”Small Satellite Missions for Earth Observation: New Developments and Trends, Springer, 2010, pp. 457–465

work page 2010
[6]

Autonomous formation flying based on GPS - PRISMA flight results,

D’Amico, S., Ardaens, J.-S., and De Florio, S., “Autonomous formation flying based on GPS - PRISMA flight results,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 82, No. 1, 2013, pp. 69–79. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.033, 6th International Work- shop on Satellite Constellation and Formation Flying

work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.033 2013
[7]

Navigation and Control Design for the CanX-4/-5 Satellite Formation Flying Mission,

Roth, N. H., “Navigation and Control Design for the CanX-4/-5 Satellite Formation Flying Mission,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 2010

work page 2010
[8]

GPS Relative Navigation for the CanX-4 and CanX-5 Formation-Flying Nanosatellites,

Kahr, E., Roth, N., Montenbruck, O., Risi, B., and Zee, R. E., “GPS Relative Navigation for the CanX-4 and CanX-5 Formation-Flying Nanosatellites,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No. 6, 2018, pp. 1545–1558. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34117

work page doi:10.2514/1.a34117 2018

Show all 29 references

[9]

G.,Formation Flying Orbit and Control Concept for the VISORS Mission, AIAA, 2021, Chap

Koenig, A., D’Amico, S., and Lightsey, E. G.,Formation Flying Orbit and Control Concept for the VISORS Mission, AIAA, 2021, Chap. 0, p. 0. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-0423

2021 doi
[10]

Autonomous Guidance, Navigation and Control of the VISORS Formation Flying Mission,

Guffanti, T., Bell, T., Low, S. Y. W., Murray-Cooper, M., and D’Amico, S., “Autonomous Guidance, Navigation and Control of the VISORS Formation Flying Mission,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Big Sky, Montana, 2023, p. 0

2023
[11]

Precise real-time relative orbit deter- mination for large-baseline formations using GNSS,

Giralo, V., and D’Amico, S., “Precise real-time relative orbit deter- mination for large-baseline formations using GNSS,”Proceedings of the 2021 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, 2021, pp. 366–384

2021
[12]

Forma- tion design analysis for a miniaturized distributed occulter/telescope in earth orbit,

Koenig,A.W.,D’Amico,S.,Macintosh,B.,andTitus,C.J.,“Forma- tion design analysis for a miniaturized distributed occulter/telescope in earth orbit,”International Symposium on Space Flight Dynamics (ISSFD), DLR German Space Operations Center and the European Space Agency, 2015

2015
[13]

Miniature Distributed Occulter Telescope (mDOT) Publicly Released Project Report,

Macintosh, B., D’Amico, S., Koenig, A., Bendek, E., Grogran, K., Shaklan,S.,Madurowicz,A.,deRosa,R.,Greene,T.,Debes,J.,Dou- glas,E.,Jensen-Clem,R.,Duchene,G.,andEsposito,T.,“Miniature Distributed Occulter Telescope (mDOT) Publicly Released Project Report,” Tech. rep., Stanford...

2022
[14]

STARI: starlight acquisition and reflection toward interferometry,

Monnier, J. D., Jain, P., Kalluri, S., Cutler, J., D’Amico, S., Light- sey, G., Pogorelyuk, L., Vasisht, G., Cahoy, K., and Meyer, M., “STARI: starlight acquisition and reflection toward interferometry,” Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Optical, Infrared, and Millime...

2024
[15]

SILVIA: Ultra-precision formation flying demonstration for space-based interferometry,

Ito, T., Izumi, K., Kawano, I., Funaki, I., Sato, S., Akutsu, T., Komori, K., Musha, M., Michimura, Y., Satoh, S., et al., “SILVIA: Ultra-precision formation flying demonstration for space-based interferometry,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05001, 2025

2025 arXiv
[16]

GPS sensing for spacecraft formation flying,

Corazzini, T., Robertson, A., Adams, J. C., Hassibi, A., and How, J. P., “GPS sensing for spacecraft formation flying,”Proceedings of the 10th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GPS 1997), 1997, pp. 735–744

1997
[17]

Precise formation flying control of multiple spacecraft using carrier-phase differential GPS,

Inalhan, G., Busse, F. D., and How, J. P., “Precise formation flying control of multiple spacecraft using carrier-phase differential GPS,” AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Clearwater, FL, 2000, pp. 23–26

2000
[18]

GNSS- basednavigationforaremotesensingthree-satelliteformationflying,

Scala, F., Colombo, C., Gaias, G., Martin-Neira, M., et al., “GNSS- basednavigationforaremotesensingthree-satelliteformationflying,” SpaceOps 2021 Virtual Edition, 16th International Conference on Space Operations, 2021, pp. 1–18

2021
[19]

Precise in-orbit relative navigation technique for rendezvous mis- sion of CubeSats using only GPS receivers,

Shim, H., Kim, O.-J., Yu, S., Kee, C., Cho, D.-H., and Kim, H.-D., “Precise in-orbit relative navigation technique for rendezvous mis- sion of CubeSats using only GPS receivers,”CEAS Space Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2024, pp. 117–137

2024
[20]

Distributedmulti-GNSStimingand localization for nanosatellites,

Giralo, V.P., andD’Amico, S., “Distributedmulti-GNSStimingand localization for nanosatellites,”NAVIGATION, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2019, pp. 729–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/navi.337

2019 doi
[21]

Precision Navigation of Miniaturized Distributed Space Systems using GNSS,

Giralo, V. P., “Precision Navigation of Miniaturized Distributed Space Systems using GNSS,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 2021

2021
[22]

Adaptive End-to-End Architecture for Autonomous Spacecraft Navigation and Control During Rendezvous and Proximity Operations,

Kruger,J.J.,Guffanti,T.,Park,T.H.,Murray-Cooper,M.,Low,S.Y., Bell, T., D’Amico, S., Roscoe, C. W., and Westphal, J., “Adaptive End-to-End Architecture for Autonomous Spacecraft Navigation and Control During Rendezvous and Proximity Operations,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 0430

2024
[23]

Precise Distributed Satellite Naviga- tion: Differential GPS with Sensor-Coupling for Integer Ambiguity Resolution,

Low, S. Y., and D’Amico, S., “Precise Distributed Satellite Naviga- tion: Differential GPS with Sensor-Coupling for Integer Ambiguity Resolution,”2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–18

2024
[24]

Optimal Pointing Sequences in Spacecraft Formation Flying using Online Planning with Re- sourceConstraints,

Low, S., and Kochenderfer, M., “Optimal Pointing Sequences in Spacecraft Formation Flying using Online Planning with Re- sourceConstraints,”LearningforDynamicsandControlConference, PMLR, 2022, pp. 355–365

2022
[25]

Spaceborne Au- tonomous Formation-Flying Experiment on the PRISMA Mission,

D’Amico, S., Ardaens, J.-S., and Larsson, R., “Spaceborne Au- tonomous Formation-Flying Experiment on the PRISMA Mission,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2012, pp. 834–850. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.55638

2012 doi
[26]

GRACE-FO: The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On Mission,

Kornfeld,R.P.,Arnold,B.W.,Gross,M.A.,Dahya,N.T.,Klipstein, W. M., Gath, P. F., and Bettadpur, S., “GRACE-FO: The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On Mission,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2019, pp. 931–951. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34326

2019 doi
[27]

On GPS data quality of GRACE-FO and GRACE satellites: Effects of phase center variation and satellite attitude on precise orbit determination,

Xia, Y., Liu, X., Guo, J., Yang, Z., Qi, L., Ji, B., and Chang, X., “On GPS data quality of GRACE-FO and GRACE satellites: Effects of phase center variation and satellite attitude on precise orbit determination,”Acta geodaetica et geophysica, Vol. 56, 2021, pp. 93–111

2021
[28]

Cubesat proxim- ity operations demonstration (cpod) mission update,

Bowen, J., Tsuda, A., Abel, J., and Villa, M., “Cubesat proxim- ity operations demonstration (cpod) mission update,”2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–8

2015
[29]

OverviewandGNC designoftheCubeSatProximityOperationsDemonstration(CPOD) mission,

Roscoe,C.W.,Westphal,J.J.,andMosleh,E.,“OverviewandGNC designoftheCubeSatProximityOperationsDemonstration(CPOD) mission,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 153, 2018, pp. 410–421. 24

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit,

D’Amico, S., “Autonomous Formation Flying in Low Earth Orbit,” Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Anewmethodforfastcarrierphaseambiguityestima- tion,

Teunissen,P.,“Anewmethodforfastcarrierphaseambiguityestima- tion,”Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Position, Location and Navigation Symposium-PLANS’94, IEEE, 1994, pp. 562–573

work page 1994

[3] [3]

Precise GRACE baseline determination using GPS,

Kroes, R., Montenbruck, O., Bertiger, W., and Visser, P., “Precise GRACE baseline determination using GPS,”GPS Solutions, Vol. 9, 2005, pp. 21–31

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Carrier phase differential GPS for LEO formation flying–the PRISMA and TanDEM-X flight experience,

Montenbruck, O., D’Amico, S., Ardaens, J.-S., and Wermuth, M., “Carrier phase differential GPS for LEO formation flying–the PRISMA and TanDEM-X flight experience,”Paper AAS, 2011, pp. 11–489

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Differential GPS: An enabling technology for formation flying satellites,

D’Amico, S., and Montenbruck, O., “Differential GPS: An enabling technology for formation flying satellites,”Small Satellite Missions for Earth Observation: New Developments and Trends, Springer, 2010, pp. 457–465

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Autonomous formation flying based on GPS - PRISMA flight results,

D’Amico, S., Ardaens, J.-S., and De Florio, S., “Autonomous formation flying based on GPS - PRISMA flight results,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 82, No. 1, 2013, pp. 69–79. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.033, 6th International Work- shop on Satellite Constellation and Formation Flying

work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.033 2013

[7] [7]

Navigation and Control Design for the CanX-4/-5 Satellite Formation Flying Mission,

Roth, N. H., “Navigation and Control Design for the CanX-4/-5 Satellite Formation Flying Mission,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 2010

work page 2010

[8] [8]

GPS Relative Navigation for the CanX-4 and CanX-5 Formation-Flying Nanosatellites,

Kahr, E., Roth, N., Montenbruck, O., Risi, B., and Zee, R. E., “GPS Relative Navigation for the CanX-4 and CanX-5 Formation-Flying Nanosatellites,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No. 6, 2018, pp. 1545–1558. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A34117

work page doi:10.2514/1.a34117 2018