NLOS-Aware TDOA-Based UAV Localization: Cramér-Rao Bounds, Measurement Modeling, and Experimental Validation
Abstract
Passive time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) localization is well suited for tracking non-cooperative unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that do not report their positions. However, its accuracy degrades under the mixed line-of-sight (LOS) and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) propagation that is typical of low-altitude flight. In this paper, we develop NLOS-aware Cramér--Rao lower bounds (CRLBs) and an empirically calibrated measurement model for TDOA-based UAV localization, and we evaluate both with measurem...
Description / Details
Passive time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) localization is well suited for tracking non-cooperative unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that do not report their positions. However, its accuracy degrades under the mixed line-of-sight (LOS) and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) propagation that is typical of low-altitude flight. In this paper, we develop NLOS-aware Cramér--Rao lower bounds (CRLBs) and an empirically calibrated measurement model for TDOA-based UAV localization, and we evaluate both with measurements from five UAV flights on the Aerial Experimentation and Research Platform for Advanced Wireless (AERPAW). The analysis yields an identifiability condition that relates the number of sensors to the number of NLOS links, together with a bias-induced error floor that a wider bandwidth cannot remove. The model parameters are estimated by matching simulated and measured error distributions. Experimental results show that the error depends most strongly on the number of sensors in LOS, while a higher altitude and a wider bandwidth lower the median error. Relocating a sensor that is always in NLOS into the open flight area can lower the median horizontal bound by two orders of magnitude if the relocated sensor is in LOS. The fitted model reproduces the median errors of the 2.5 MHz and 5 MHz flights but underestimates the heaviest error tails. Finally, rejecting outlier fixes lowers the error far more than Kalman or particle filtering, because the remaining error is dominated by bias.
Source: arXiv:2610.30053v1 - http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30053v1 PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.30053v1 Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30053v1
Please sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Oct 22, 2026
Chemical Engineering
Engineering
0