Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Hardware-in-the-loop Simulation Testbed for Geomagnetic Navigation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lab testbed of off-the-shelf parts generates geomagnetic fields accurate enough for navigation experiments, matching a virtual coil within 3 percent and tracking a 120 microTesla step in about half a second.

desk verdict A credible low-cost coil testbed with real measured uniformity, but the unshielded-environment claim rests on synthetic Gaussian noise, not actual ambient disturbances. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11882 v1 pith:V6A2SG7K submitted 2024-12-16 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Songnan Yang , Shiliang Zhang , Qianyun Zhang , Xiaohui Zhang , Xuehui Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords geomagneticnavigationhardware-in-the-loopsimulationsquareHelmholtzcoilmagneticfielduniformityconvexcombinationcontroladaptivefilteringunshieldedtestenvironmentdigitaltwin
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

Geomagnetic navigation promises GPS-free positioning by reading the Earth's field, but its algorithms have mostly been tested in simulation because real trials, such as ocean dives, are expensive and hard to repeat. This paper argues that a laboratory testbed built from ordinary off-the-shelf hardware can synthesize the magnetic environments those algorithms need, with enough accuracy, uniformity, and speed to stand in for real missions. The authors construct a square Helmholtz coil, optimize its geometry for field uniformity, and control it with a convex combination of two adaptive loops that balances fast response against precision. Their measurements show a field uniform to 5% over roughly 467 mm by 467 mm, agreement with the simulated virtual coil within 3%, and tracking of a 120,000-nT step in about 0.55 seconds with an RMSE near 270 nT. If these claims hold, the testbed offers a low-cost, repeatable way to validate geomagnetic navigation before committing to field tests.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the convex combination coil control, which merges two adaptive filters — one slow with a dynamic learning rate for accuracy, one fast with a fixed learning rate for quick convergence — via a logistic coupling coefficient $\gamma(n)$, and periodically transfers weights from the faster loop to the slower one whenever the coupling exceeds a threshold. The coil geometry is optimized separately by choosing the Helmholtz spacing-to-side ratio $n = L/d = 1.8365$, which nulls the second derivative of the axial field at the center and maximizes the uniform region. Together these pieces let the testbed claim simultaneous accuracy, stability, and speed without a shielded room.

What would settle it

Record a trace of real magnetic disturbance in an ordinary laboratory — for example from nearby power equipment, moving ferrous objects, or passing people — and replay it as the disturbance while the coil tracks a 120,000-nT step; if the generated field does not remain close to the reported 0.55 s convergence time and roughly 270 nT RMSE, the claim that the testbed works in an unshielded environment fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a hardware-in-the-loop testbed can generate, in a normal unshielded laboratory, magnetic fields that meet the requirements of geomagnetic navigation experiments: a uniform field region large enough to hold a small underwater vehicle, stable and accurate tracking of dynamic target fields, and rapid convergence when the target changes. The field is produced by a square Helmholtz coil whose winding geometry is optimized so that the Taylor expansion of the axial field cancels the second-order term, giving a spacing-to-side ratio of $n = 1.8365$. The physical coil is aligned with a finite-element model of a virtual coil, and a convex-combination controller splits the job between a slow, precise adaptive loop and a fast, coarse loop, with a logistic coupling factor and periodic weight transfer to keep the two loops coordinated. Empirical results show 5% uniformity over a 467 mm square, a maximum 3% deviation from the FEM virtual field, and step-tracking of 120,000 nT in 0.43--0.55 s with steady-state RMSE around 270 nT, alongside convergence and stability proofs for the control law.

Load-bearing premise

The unshielded validation assumes that additive zero-mean Gaussian white noise on the sensor and target signals faithfully represents the real magnetic disturbances of a normal laboratory, so if actual disturbances are non-Gaussian, non-stationary, or spatially correlated inside the coil volume, the experiment does not demonstrate that the control compensates genuine environmental interference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Geomagnetic navigation algorithms that currently exist only in simulation — contour matching, closest-contour iteration, evolutionary and learning-based methods — can be run repeatedly against a controllable, repeatable geomagnetic environment before costly field trials.
  • The 467 mm by 467 mm region with 5% uniformity is large enough for small autonomous underwater vehicles, enabling end-to-end hardware-in-the-loop navigation tests with real sensors.
  • The coil parameter optimization provides a scaling recipe, so labs can re-derive the coil geometry for carriers of different sizes.
  • The convergence and stability proofs apply to any square Helmholtz coil driven by a voltage-controlled current source, so the control design is portable to other testbeds.
  • The noise-compensation experiment supports the paper's central cost claim: usable field generation without a mu-metal shielded room.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim holds, the testbed could be turned into a robustness benchmark by injecting controlled spatially non-uniform or time-correlated disturbances, an extension the paper does not perform.
  • The convex-combination idea naturally extends to three-axis field generation by synchronizing three coil pairs, which the authors name as future work and would broaden the testbed to full three-dimensional navigation studies.
  • The 3% agreement between the physical and FEM virtual coil suggests that simulation-based validation of navigation algorithms gains credibility when the same digital model drives the experiment, a link the authors establish but do not yet exploit for algorithm testing.
  • A cost comparison against shielded rooms and real sea trials would likely show large savings, making geomagnetic navigation experimentation accessible to labs without specialized facilities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a hardware-in-the-loop simulation testbed for geomagnetic navigation, consisting of a square Helmholtz coil driven by a voltage-controlled current source, a microcontroller, magnetometers, and a finite-element-method digital twin of the coil. The authors derive an optimal coil spacing ratio (n=1.8365) from a uniformity optimization, propose a convex-combination of two LMS-type controllers with weight transfer, prove convergence and stability under Gaussian noise assumptions, and report experimental characterization: roughly 5% field uniformity over about 467 mm, FEM-to-physical agreement within about 3%, step tracking of a 120,000 nT target in 0.43-0.55 s with RMSE near 270 nT in a shielded room, and comparisons against LMS, SVS, and ATLMS under synthetic noise at 10/30 dB in an unshielded laboratory.

Significance. If the unshielded-operation claim were fully supported, the testbed would be a useful, low-cost, repeatable platform for geomagnetic navigation experiments. The measured uniformity, the FEM-physical alignment, the detailed component specifications, and the comparison against existing control methods are concrete strengths, and the coil parameter optimization is derived rather than fitted. The main conceptual contribution is the complete system integration in an unshielded lab, but that contribution currently rests on synthetic Gaussian noise rather than real ambient disturbance rejection, and the only physical-unit tracking results were obtained inside a shielded room. The convergence proof also contains a dimensional inconsistency that needs correction before it can support the stability claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Table 6] The unshielded-environment validation uses only synthetic zero-mean Gaussian white noise x(n)~N(0,1) and v(n)~N(0,1) at SNR 10/30 dB. This is exactly the noise model assumed in the convergence and stability analyses (Section 3.2-3.3, Eqs. (28) and (47)-(52)), so the experiment cannot demonstrate rejection of real unshielded-laboratory interference, which is non-stationary, colored, and spatially correlated across the coil volume. Since the paper's stated differentiator is operation without a shielded room (Sections 1 and 5), the load-bearing claim that the testbed can 'rapidly, accurately, and stably generate the magnetic field' in an unshielded environment is not supported by the reported data. I recommend measuring and reporting the actual ambient disturbance time series in the laboratory and repeating the field-generation experiment under those real disturbances, with results in physical units (nT).
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 5] The quantitative field-generation results in physical units (reach times of 0.43 s and 0.55 s, RMSE 269.36 nT and 272.66 nT) were obtained in an electromagnetic shielding room, not in the unshielded environment. The unshielded experiment in Section 4.4 reports only dimensionless MSE values on synthetic noise. The abstract and conclusions present unshielded operation as an achieved property, but as written the physical-accuracy evidence pertains only to the shielded configuration. Please either add equivalent physical-unit tracking results under real unshielded conditions or temper the unshielded claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (40)-(46)] The convergence proof contains a dimensional inconsistency. For a vector regressor x(n), xT(n)x(n) is a scalar, yet Eqs. (40)-(45) treat it as a matrix Rxx = E[xT(n)x(n)] with eigen-decomposition QT Lambda Q, and the weight-error recursion should involve the outer product x(n)xT(n), not the scalar xT(n)x(n). The displayed derivation therefore does not establish the stated condition (46), and the proof needs to be rewritten with the correct matrix convention (e.g., Rxx = E[x(n)xT(n)]) or with an explicitly scalar signal model throughout. Because the convergence guarantee is one of the paper's stated contributions, this is a load-bearing issue.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The sentence following Eq. (21) states both BQ(z)=BQ(-z) and that BQ(z) is an odd function; these statements are mutually contradictory, and the intended argument is that the field is even in z so that odd-order Taylor terms vanish. Please correct this.
  2. [Section 3.1.1, Eqs. (24)-(28)] The symbol B is used both for the target magnetic field strength and for the affine calibration output B = kx(n) + b; since the fitted calibration in Fig. 9 is B = kU + b with U the control voltage, the relationship between these uses should be clarified to avoid confusing the control variable with the target field.
  3. [Table 3] The table header 'D/H' and the entries +/-x/d and +/-y/d are not explained in the caption; please define D, H, and how the 467 mm x 467 mm uniform area is obtained from the ratio values.
  4. [Fig. 13] The MSE curves in Fig. 13 lack axis labels and units; please specify the normalization of MSE and whether the iteration index corresponds to wall-clock time or to controller samples.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical slips (e.g., 'calcualted' in Section 3.1.1, 'discrepancies is confined' in Section 4.2, 'feild' in Section 5, and 'geographic navigation' where 'geomagnetic navigation' seems intended in Section 5), which should be corrected in a final pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: testbed performance claims rest on measured data, not on self-referential definitions; the unshielded validation covers only the assumed Gaussian noise model.

full rationale

The central performance claims are empirical: the uniformity area, FEM alignment (3% max error), and step-tracking metrics (0.55 s, RMSE ≈ 270 nT) are measured in Secs. 4.2 and 4.3. The coil parameter optimization in Sec. 2.2 is a genuine derivation: solving B''(0)=0 yields n=1.8365 from the Biot-Savart field expression, with no target result inserted as an input. The k,b calibration in Sec. 4.2 is an input mapping used for feedforward, not a fitted prediction of the testbed's accuracy. The convergence and stability proofs in Secs. 3.2 and 3.3 are standard LMS arguments with explicit assumptions (zero-mean Gaussian noise, independence), and they do not define the 0.55 s or RMSE numbers by construction. The paper contains several self-citations (e.g., refs. 4, 5, 27, 39-43, 52), but they support background context or standard adaptive-filter methodology and are not load-bearing for the testbed claim; no uniqueness theorem from the authors is imported to forbid alternatives. The main weakness is non-circular: the unshielded-environment validation (Sec. 4.4, Table 6) injects x(n)~N(0,1) and v(n)~N(0,1), which is exactly the noise model assumed in Eq. (28), so it does not independently demonstrate rejection of real non-Gaussian, non-stationary ambient disturbances; moreover, the quantitative physical tracking results were measured in a shielded room (Sec. 4.3). This is an experimental validity gap, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard electromagnetic theory, standard adaptive filtering assumptions, and calibration parameters fitted to the hardware. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unfounded jump is treating synthetic Gaussian noise as representative of real unshielded lab disturbances.

free parameters (3)
  • k and b in voltage-magnetic field calibration B = kU + b = k=46.333, b=1.7623 (ascending); k=46.253, b=1.8935 (descending)
    Used in Eq. (26) to map control voltage to target magnetic field; obtained by linear fitting of measured data in Fig. 9.
  • Control hyperparameters alpha, beta, sigma, phi, mu_b, gamma_o, T_o = alpha=500/1000, beta=0.01/0.08, gamma(0)=0.5, gamma_o=0.55, T_o=2; sigma, phi, mu_b not reported
    Chosen per SNR level in Tables 4 and 6 to optimize control performance; no tuning protocol is provided, so they act as fitted parameters.
  • Initial controller weights = omega = [0.8, 0.5]^T
    Set by hand for the convex combination method in Section 4.4; the paper does not justify this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Biot-Savart law and superposition for coil fields
    Section 2.1, Eq. (1)-(5); foundational for magnetic field calculation.
  • standard math Square Helmholtz coil field uniformity is optimized by making the second derivative of the axial field vanish at the center
    Section 2.2, Eq. (21)-(23); standard Taylor expansion criterion; assumes higher-order terms are negligible in the 5% uniformity region.
  • domain assumption The field near the center is constant in x and y, so only z-axis uniformity is analyzed
    Section 2.2, paragraph after Eq. (18); asserted to extend to 3D without experimental validation.
  • domain assumption Input signal x(n) and desired signal d(n) are stationary random processes; x(n) and x(n+1) are independent; noise epsilon(n) is zero-mean Gaussian white noise
    Section 3.2 convergence proof and Eq. (28); standard LMS assumptions, not verified for real geomagnetic disturbances.
  • domain assumption The magnetometer outside the coil measures the environmental disturbance x(n) that enters the control loop
    Section 3.1.1, Eq. (24)-(28); assumes the outside sensor reading is an adequate disturbance proxy for the coil volume.
  • domain assumption IGRF-13 provides the correct target geomagnetic field for the experiment location
    Section 3.1, Fig. 3; external standard model used as reference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hardware-in-the-loop Simulation Testbed for Geomagnetic Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6A2SG7K

@misc{pith2026241211882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hardware-in-the-loop Simulation Testbed for Geomagnetic Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6A2SG7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11882}
}
read the original abstract

Geomagnetic navigation leverages the ubiquitous Earth's magnetic signals to navigate missions, without dependence on GPS services or pre-stored geographic maps. It has drawn increasing attention and is promising particularly for long-range navigation into unexplored areas. Current geomagnetic navigation studies are still in the early stages with simulations and computational validations, without concrete efforts to develop cost-friendly test platforms that can empower deployment and experimental analysis of the developed approaches. This paper presents a hardware-in-the-loop simulation testbed to support geomagnetic navigation experimentation. Our testbed is dedicated to synthesizing geomagnetic field environment for the navigation. We develop the software in the testbed to simulate the dynamics of the navigation environment, and we build the hardware to generate the physical magnetic field, which follows and aligns with the simulated environment. The testbed aims to provide controllable magnetic field that can be used to experiment with geomagnetic navigation in labs, thus avoiding real and expensive navigation experiments, e.g., in the ocean, for validating navigation prototypes. We build the testbed with off-the-shelf hardware in an unshielded environment to reduce cost. We also develop the field generation control and hardware parameter optimization for quality magnetic field generation. We conduct a detailed performance analysis to show the quality of the field generation by the testbed, and we report the experimental results on performance indicators, including accuracy, uniformity, stability, and convergence of the generated field towards the target geomagnetic environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A system architecture of the proposed Hils testbed. 2 Hardware design, implementation, and parameter optimization We present the architecture of the designed Hardware-in-the-loop simulation (Hils) testbed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The schematic diagram for magnetic field strength calculation in the Hils testbed. (a) Field strength calculation at point Q for the magnetic field generated by the current element parallel to the y-axis (b) field strength calculation at point Q for a square Helmholtz coil. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The schematic diagram of the convex combination coil control method. The Inter￾national Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF 13th) block in the figure provides the reference geomagnetic field for a specific location on the Earth. The proposed control includes six main processes shown below. 3.1.1 Control signal output We use x(n) to represent the magnetic field strength measured by the magnetometer outside the coil. x(… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The schematic diagram for the weight transfer in the proposed coil control. 3.1.6 Update factor iteration We renew the update factor to reflect the interaction between the two controllers over time. We trigger the renew of the update factor b(n) when the weight transfe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The Helmholtz coil built in this study (b) Measurement diagram that records the field strength by the Helmholtz coil. Following the testbed system architecture in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Field strength of the virtual coil simulated by FEM. (a) The simulated coil with its magnetic field near the coil, (b) Field strength on the XOY plane, (c) Field strength on the XOZ plane, (d) Field strength on the YOZ plane. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The magnetic flux density distribution across x-, y-, and z-axis directions. We place the physical Helmholtz coil at the geographic local at (108.946466 E◦ , 34.347269 N◦ ). We define the magnetic field in the northward direction as positive along the x -axis, and we d…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The field strength measurement schematic diagram for the physical coil. This study used the digital-to-analog converter module to output driving voltages within the range from zero to 3 V. The driving voltage determines the current fed to the coil. The magnetic field g…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fitted curves for the mapping between voltage and magnetic field strength. (a) Fitted curve with ascending trend, (b) fitted curve with descending trend. 126600 126750 126750 126750 126750 126750 126750 126750 126750 126750 126900 126900 126900 126900 126900 126900 126…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Field strength contour on XOY plane, (b) Field strength distribution in a three￾dimensional space. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Experiments of field generation in different environments: (a) An unshielded labo￾ratory, (b) a shielded environment. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Time (s) -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Magnetic Field Strength (nT) 104 LMS SVS ATLMS Convex Combination 2.4 2.5 2.6 -5000 0 5000 (a) 0 0.…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The magnetic field control results. (a) Controlled field strength with the target from 120, 000 nT to zero, (b) controlled field strength with the target from zero to 120, 000 nT. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: MSE of the controlled field generation under different SNR: (a) SNR = 10 dB, (b) SNR = 30 dB. the experiment results regarding the MSE between the target field strength and the measured strength in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Exploring the Generalizability of Geomagnetic Navigation: A Deep Reinforcement Learning approach with Policy Distillation

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Proposes TD3-STEPD, a deep reinforcement learning method that distills several region-specific geomagnetic navigation policies into one student policy that generalizes to unseen simulated areas.

  2. Fine-tuning for Data-enabled Predictive Control of Noisy Systems by Reinforcement Learning

    math.OC 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A SARSA reinforcement learning agent is trained offline and deployed online to adaptively set the DeePC regularization hyperparameter, with simulations showing competitive or better tracking under Gaussian and uniform noise.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Artificial intelligence-assisted geomagnetic navigation framework,

    A. Cuenca, H. Moncayo, and G. Gavilanez, “Artificial intelligence-assisted geomagnetic navigation framework,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, pp. 1–14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2024.3477416

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [3]

    Geomagnetic gradient-assisted evolutionary algorithm for long-range underwater navigation,

    J. Zhang, T. Zhang, H. Shin, J. Wang, and C. Zhang, “Geomagnetic gradient-assisted evolutionary algorithm for long-range underwater navigation,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 70, pp. 1–12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2020. 3034966

    doi:10.1109/tim.2020 2021

  3. [4]

    A bionic data-driven approach for long-distance underwater navigation with anomaly resistance,

    S. Yang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, X. Ma, W. Bai, Y. Li, and T. Huang, “A bionic data-driven approach for long-distance underwater navigation with anomaly resistance,” CoRR, vol. abs/2403.08808, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.08808

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.08808 2024

  4. [5]

    Long-distance geomagnetic navigation in GNSS-denied environments with deep reinforcement learning,

    W. Bai, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, S. Yang, Y. Li, and T. Huang, “Long-distance geomagnetic navigation in GNSS-denied environments with deep reinforcement learning,” CoRR, vol. abs/2410.15837, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.15837

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.15837 2024

  5. [6]

    Geomagnetic vector pattern recognition navigation method based on probabilistic neural network,

    Z. Chen, K. Liu, Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, D. Chen, M. Pan, J. Hu, and Y. Xu, “Geomagnetic vector pattern recognition navigation method based on probabilistic neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 61, pp. 1–8, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2023.3273552

    arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    Geographic true navigation based on real-time measurements of geomagnetic fields,

    X. Qi, K. Xu, Z. Xu, H. Li, and L. Ran, “Geographic true navigation based on real-time measurements of geomagnetic fields,” IEEE Transactions on 27 Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–10, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2023.3312164

    arXiv 2023

  7. [8]

    Geomagnetic navigation beyond the magnetic compass,

    F. Goldenberg, “Geomagnetic navigation beyond the magnetic compass,” in 2006 IEEE/ION Position, Location, And Navigation Symposium. IEEE, 2006, pp. 684–694. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/plans.2006.1650662

    arXiv 2006

  8. [9]

    A new geomagnetic matching navigation method based on multidimensional vector elements of Earth’s magnetic field,

    Z. Chen, Q. Zhang, M. Pan, D. Chen, C. Wan, F. Wu, and Y. Liu, “A new geomagnetic matching navigation method based on multidimensional vector elements of Earth’s magnetic field,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1289–1293, Aug. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/lgrs.2018.2836465

    work page arXiv 2018

Show all 58 references
  1. [10]

    Magnetic navigation on an F-16 aircraft using online calibration,

    A. J. Canciani, “Magnetic navigation on an F-16 aircraft using online calibration,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 420–434, Feb. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2021.3101567

    2022

  2. [11]

    An improved ICCP matching algorithm for use in an interference environment during geomagnetic navigation,

    J. Xiao, X. Duan, X. Qi, and Y. Liu, “An improved ICCP matching algorithm for use in an interference environment during geomagnetic navigation,” The Journal of Navigation , vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 56–74, Jul. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0373463319000535

    2019 doi

  3. [12]

    Bio-inspired approach for long- range underwater navigation using model predictive control,

    Y. Zhang, X. Liu, M. Luo, and C. Yang, “Bio-inspired approach for long- range underwater navigation using model predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 4286–4297, Aug. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tcyb.2019.2933397

    2021

  4. [13]

    Geomagnetic gradient-assisted evolutionary algorithm for long-range underwater navigation,

    J. Zhang, T. Zhang, H.-S. Shin, J. Wang, and C. Zhang, “Geomagnetic gradient-assisted evolutionary algorithm for long-range underwater navigation,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 70, pp. 1–12, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tim....

    2021

  5. [14]

    An improved geomagnetic navigation method based on two-component gradient weighting,

    Z. Chen, Z. Liu, Q. Zhang, D. Chen, M. Pan, J. Hu, Y. Xu, Z. Wang, and Z. Wang, “An improved geomagnetic navigation method based on two-component gradient weighting,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 19, pp. 1–5, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.11...

    2022

  6. [15]

    Theories, applications, and expectations for magnetic anomaly detection technology: A review,

    H. Liu, X. Zhang, H. Dong, Z. Liu, and X. Hu, “Theories, applications, and expectations for magnetic anomaly detection technology: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 23, no. 16, pp. 17 868–17 882, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/jsen.2023.3294498

    2023

  7. [16]

    Effects of the 12 may 2021 geomagnetic storm on georeferencing precision,

    J. C. Valdds-Abreu, M. A. Diaz, J. C. Baez, and Y. Stable-S´ anchez, “Effects of the 12 may 2021 geomagnetic storm on georeferencing precision,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 38, Dec. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14010038

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    Effects of the winding cross-section shape on the magnetic field uniformity of the high field circular Helmholtz coil systems,

    R. Beiranvand, “Effects of the winding cross-section shape on the magnetic field uniformity of the high field circular Helmholtz coil systems,” IEEE Transactions on 28 Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 7120–7131, Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.110...

    2017

  9. [18]

    Magnetic methods in robotics,

    J. J. Abbott, E. Diller, and A. J. Petruska, “Magnetic methods in robotics,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57–90, May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-081219-082713

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    Analysis and design of a uniform magnetic field coil with a magnetic shield based on an improved analytical model,

    Y. Jin, L. Li, D. Pan, K. Song, S. Lou, Z. Zou, and Z. Sun, “Analysis and design of a uniform magnetic field coil with a magnetic shield based on an improved analytical model,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 3068–3077, Mar

  11. [21]

    Optimization of composite Helmholtz coils towards high magnetic uniformity,

    X. Zhu, M. Xing, C. Liu, J. Ye, H. Cheng, and Y. Miao, “Optimization of composite Helmholtz coils towards high magnetic uniformity,” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, vol. 47, p. 101539, Nov. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jest...

    2023

  12. [22]

    Comparison of the uniformity and efficiency of the square and circular Helmholtz coils for wireless power transmission system,

    Z. Zhang, C. Yuan, J. Gao, C. Gao, and J. Zhou, “Comparison of the uniformity and efficiency of the square and circular Helmholtz coils for wireless power transmission system,” Progress In Electromagnetics Research Letters, vol. 97, pp. 131–139, 2021. [Online]. Available: http...

    2021 doi

  13. [23]

    Simulation of the magnetic field generated by square shape Helmholtz coils,

    R. Hurtado-Velasco and J. Gonzalez-Llorente, “Simulation of the magnetic field generated by square shape Helmholtz coils,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 40, no. 23–24, pp. 9835–9847, Dec. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2016.06.027

    2016 doi

  14. [24]

    Analysis and optimal design of magnetic navigation system using Helmholtz and Maxwell coils,

    Q. Cao, X. Han, B. Zhang, and L. Li, “Analysis and optimal design of magnetic navigation system using Helmholtz and Maxwell coils,” IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 4 401 504–4 401 504, Jun. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/...

    2012

  15. [25]

    Optimal design method to improve the magnetic field distribution of multiple square coil systems,

    Y. Huang, L. Jiang, P. Fu, Z. Huang, and X. Xu, “Optimal design method to improve the magnetic field distribution of multiple square coil systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 171 184–171 194, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3024653

    2020

  16. [26]

    Closed-loop control of a Helmholtz coil system for accurate actuation of magnetic microrobot swarms,

    J. Jiang, L. Yang, and L. Zhang, “Closed-loop control of a Helmholtz coil system for accurate actuation of magnetic microrobot swarms,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 827–834, Apr. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2021.3052394

    2021

  17. [27]

    Data-driven optimization framework for nonlinear model predictive control,

    S. Zhang, H. Cao, Y. Zhang, L. Jia, Z. Ye, and X. Hei, “Data-driven optimization framework for nonlinear model predictive control,” Mathematical Problems 29 in Engineering , vol. 2017, no. 1, p. 9402684, 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.11...

    2017 doi

  18. [28]

    Improved component compensation of magnetic interferential field for geomagnetic vector measurement system using 3-D Helmholtz coil,

    Z. Liu et al. , “Improved component compensation of magnetic interferential field for geomagnetic vector measurement system using 3-D Helmholtz coil,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 23, pp. 23 137–23 144, Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/jsen.2022.3212545

    2022

  19. [29]

    Magnetic interference compensation using the adaptive LMS algorithm,

    D. Ponikvar, E. Zupaniˇ c, and P. Jegliˇ c, “Magnetic interference compensation using the adaptive LMS algorithm,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 2360, May 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12112360

    2023 doi

  20. [30]

    Development and experimentation of a cubesat magnetic attitude control system testbed,

    G. Cervettini, S. Pastorelli, H. Park, D. Y. Lee, and M. Romano, “Development and experimentation of a cubesat magnetic attitude control system testbed,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 1345–1350, Apr

  21. [31]

    High-precision magnetic testbed design and simulation for LEO small-satellite control test,

    J. Uscategui, X. Wang, G. Cuba, and M. Guarirapa, “High-precision magnetic testbed design and simulation for LEO small-satellite control test,” Aerospace, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 640, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10070640

    2023 doi

  22. [32]

    Development of a gimbal-based cubesat attitude control emulation platform,

    B. T. Walleshauser and M. C. Bazzocchi, “Development of a gimbal-based cubesat attitude control emulation platform,” in AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum . American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Jan. 2024, p. 1446. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-1446

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    Design of a cubesat payload to test a magnetic measurement system for space-borne gravitational wave detectors,

    I. Mateos, R. S´ anchez-M ´ ınguez, and J. Ramos-Castro, “Design of a cubesat payload to test a magnetic measurement system for space-borne gravitational wave detectors,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 273, pp. 311–316, Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/...

    2018 doi

  24. [34]

    Optimal design of thick- walled circular coils for uniform magnetic field generation,

    J. Li, X. Zhu, Y. Sun, Q. Cao, and L. Li, “Optimal design of thick- walled circular coils for uniform magnetic field generation,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , vol. 57, no. 45, p. 455001, Aug. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/10.1088/1361-6463/ad6672

    2024 doi

  25. [35]

    Improved square-coil configurations for homogeneous magnetic field generation,

    Y. Lu, Y. Yang, M. Zhang, R. Wang, L. Jiang, and B. Qin, “Improved square-coil configurations for homogeneous magnetic field generation,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 6350–6360, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tie.202...

    2022

  26. [36]

    Hybrid optimal design of square highly uniform magnetic field coils,

    J. Lu, S. Wang, F. Lu, C. Lu, X. Zhang, and D. Ma, “Hybrid optimal design of square highly uniform magnetic field coils,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 4236–4244, Apr. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tie.2022.3179547

    2023

  27. [37]

    Howland current source applied to magnetic field generation in a tri-axial 30 Helmholtz coil,

    D. S. Batista, G. B. Silva, F. Granziera, M. C. Tosin, D. L. Gazzoni Filho, and L. F. Melo, “Howland current source applied to magnetic field generation in a tri-axial 30 Helmholtz coil,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 125 649–125 661, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1...

    2019

  28. [38]

    An improved 3-D magnetic field generator with larger uniform region,

    J. Chen, D. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Xiong, S. Cheng, K. Wei, Z. Liu, F. Birnkammer, and D. Gerling, “An improved 3-D magnetic field generator with larger uniform region,” IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1–5, Oct. 2016. [Online]. Available: https:/...

    2016

  29. [39]

    Adaptive robust tracking control with active learning for linear systems with ellipsoidal bounded uncertainties,

    X. Ma, S. Zhang, Y. Li, F. Qian, Z. Sun, and T. Huang, “Adaptive robust tracking control with active learning for linear systems with ellipsoidal bounded uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 8096–8103, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10....

    2024

  30. [40]

    Q-learning based linear quadratic regulator with balanced exploration and exploitation for unknown systems,

    X. Ma, S. Zhang, F. Qian, J. Wang, and L. Yan, “Q-learning based linear quadratic regulator with balanced exploration and exploitation for unknown systems,” in 2022 China Automation Congress (CAC) , 2022, pp. 446–451. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/CAC57257.2022.10055961

    2022

  31. [41]

    Robust quadratic optimal control of linear systems with ellipsoid-set learning,

    X. Ma, Y. Chen, S. Zhang, Y. Li, F. Qian, and Z. Sun, “Robust quadratic optimal control of linear systems with ellipsoid-set learning,” in European Control Conference, ECC 2024, Stockholm, Sweden, June 25-28, 2024. IEEE, 2024, pp. 2125–2131. [Online]. Available: https://doi.or...

    2024

  32. [42]

    Adaptive ensemble control for stochastic systems with mixed asymmetric laplace noises,

    Y. Yu, X. Ma, S. Zhang, Z. Wang, X. Shi, Y. Li, and T. Huang, “Adaptive ensemble control for stochastic systems with mixed asymmetric laplace noises,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09973, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.09973

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [43]

    Adaptive quantile control for stochastic system,

    X. Ma, F. Qian, S. Zhang, and L. Wu, “Adaptive quantile control for stochastic system,” ISA transactions , vol. 123, pp. 110–121, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.05.032

    2022 doi

  34. [44]

    Improvement for magnetic field uniformity of Helmholtz coils and its influence on magnetic hyperthermia,

    Y. Tang, Y. Ding, T. Jin, and R. C. C. Flesch, “Improvement for magnetic field uniformity of Helmholtz coils and its influence on magnetic hyperthermia,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 72, pp. 1–8, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2023.3325860

    2023

  35. [45]

    Digital twin for smart grid: A survey,

    J. Xu, Y. Li, X. Zhang, P. Guan, S. Zhang, and T. Li, “Digital twin for smart grid: A survey,” in 2024 Second International Conference on Cyber-Energy Systems and Intelligent Energy (ICCSIE), 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  36. [46]

    Design of highly uniform three-dimensional square magnetic field coils for external magnetic shielding of magnetometers,

    Y. Li, J. Xu, X. Kang, Z. Fan, X. Dong, X. Gao, and S. Zhuang, “Design of highly uniform three-dimensional square magnetic field coils for external magnetic shielding of magnetometers,” Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, vol. 331, p. 113037, Nov. 2021. [Online]. Available: htt...

    2021

  37. [47]

    Design of compact self-shielded uniform magnetic field coils based on multipole moment optimization,

    S. Wang, J. Lu, F. Lu, N. Xu, Y. Qi, and X. Zhang, “Design of compact self-shielded uniform magnetic field coils based on multipole moment optimization,” IEEE Transactions 31 on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–9, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1...

    2023

  38. [48]

    A calibration standard for low-frequency environmental magnetic field meters,

    I. Lenicek and L. Ferkovic, “A calibration standard for low-frequency environmental magnetic field meters,” Measurement, vol. 203, p. 111949, Nov. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111949

    2022

  39. [49]

    Mean-square performance of a convex combination of two adaptive filters,

    J. Arenas-Garcia, A. Figueiras-Vidal, and A. Sayed, “Mean-square performance of a convex combination of two adaptive filters,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1078–1090, Mar. 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tsp.2005.863126

    2006

  40. [50]

    International geomagnetic reference field: The thirteenth generation,

    P. Alken et al., “International geomagnetic reference field: The thirteenth generation,” Earth, Planets and Space , vol. 73, no. 1, Feb. 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    Learning convex optimization models,

    A. Agrawal, S. Barratt, and S. Boyd, “Learning convex optimization models,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1355–1364, Aug. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/jas.2021.1004075

    2021

  42. [52]

    Sequential outlier criterion for sparsification of online adaptive filtering,

    S. Zhang, H. Cao, S. Yang, Y. Zhang, and X. Hei, “Sequential outlier criterion for sparsification of online adaptive filtering,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. , vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 5277–5291, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2018.2795719

    2018

  43. [53]

    Least mean square method for lvdt signal processing,

    A. Flammini, D. Marioli, E. Sisinni, and A. Taroni, “Least mean square method for lvdt signal processing,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2294–2300, Dec. 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tim.2007.908248

    2007

  44. [54]

    J. M. Steele, The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class: An Introduction to the Art of Mathemat- ical Inequalities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  45. [55]

    New two-microphone simplified sub-band forward algorithm based on separated variable step-sizes for acoustic noise reduction,

    R. Bendoumia, “New two-microphone simplified sub-band forward algorithm based on separated variable step-sizes for acoustic noise reduction,” Applied Acoustics, vol. 222, p. 110069, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2024.110069

    2024

  46. [56]

    Steady-state performance analysis of the arctangent lms algorithm with gaussian input,

    W. Jia, S. Kong, T. Cai, M. Li, Y. Jin, P. Wang, and Z. Dai, “Steady-state performance analysis of the arctangent lms algorithm with gaussian input,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 3189–3193, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2023

  47. [57]

    A switched variable step size nlms adaptive filter,

    N. J. Bershad and J. C. Bermudez, “A switched variable step size nlms adaptive filter,” Digital Signal Processing, vol. 101, p. 102730, Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsp.2020.102730

    2020

  48. [58]

    Variants of partial update augmented CLMS algorithm and their performance analysis,

    V. Vahidpour, A. Rastegarnia, A. Khalili, W. M. Bazzi, and S. Sanei, “Variants of partial update augmented CLMS algorithm and their performance analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 68, pp. 3146–3157, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tsp.202...

    2020

  49. [2021]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/taes.2020.3040032

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/taes.2020.3040032

    2020

  50. [2022]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tie.2021.3066929

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tie.2021.3066929

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.