Target Localization by Fusing Ultra-Wideband Ranging and Laser Scanning

Fig. 5. Localization trajectories of different localization methods in experiment 1. (a) UWB ranging; (b) sequence matching; (c) UWB ranging + sequence matching

Download full size

Fig. 6. Localization performances under different sliding window sizes and nearest neighbor association thresholds in experiment 1. (a) Localization accuracies; (b) consumed time

Download full size

Fig. 7. Localization trajectories of different localization methods in experiment 2. (a) UWB ranging; (b) sequence matching; (c) UWB ranging+sequence matching

Download full size

Fig. 8. Error distributions of different algorithms

Download full size

Table 1. Localization results of different localization methods in experiment 1
View table
Table 1. Localization results of different localization methods in experiment 1
Localization method Localization error /m Consumed time /ms
UWB ranging 3.87 0.047
Sequence matching 0.19 0.092
UWB ranging+sequence matching 0.16 0.139

Table 2. Localization accuracies under different UWB ranging noises and Gaussian prediction noises in experiment 1

View table

Table 2. Localization accuracies under different UWB ranging noises and Gaussian prediction noises in experiment 1

UWB ranging noise $σ_{r}$	Gaussian prediction noise $σ_{d}$	Localization error	UWB ranging noise $σ_{r}$	Gaussian prediction noise $σ_{d}$	Localization error
0.1	0.05	0.26	0.4	0.05	0.34
	0.10	0.18		0.10	0.17
	0.20	0.19		0.20	0.18
	0.40	0.17		0.40	0.21
0.2	0.05	0.30	0.8	0.05	0.36
	0.10	0.16		0.10	0.19
	0.20	0.20		0.20	0.21
	0.40	0.18		0.40	0.23

Table 3. Localization performances under different particle numbers in experiment 1
View table
Table 3. Localization performances under different particle numbers in experiment 1
Particle number $N$ Localization error /m Consumed time /ms
10 0.22 0.014
50 0.20 0.036
100 0.17 0.059
500 0.16 0.239

Table 4. Localization performances of different localization methods in experiment 2
View table
Table 4. Localization performances of different localization methods in experiment 2
Localization method Localization error /m Consumed time /ms
UWB ranging 2.85 0.036
Sequence matching 0.26 0.081
UWB ranging+sequence matching 0.21 0.117

Table 5. Localization performances of different algorithms
View table
Table 5. Localization performances of different algorithms
Algorithm Localization error /m Consumed time /ms Localization in NFOV
Ref. ［8］ 0.38 2.8 √
Ref. ［15］ 2.35 9.1 ×
Ref. ［21］ 0.30 167.0 √
Proposed 0.21 9.5 √

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Jian Zuo, Ran Liu, Lin Guo, Heng Ning, Feng Xu, Yufeng Xiao. Target Localization by Fusing Ultra-Wideband Ranging and Laser Scanning[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2025, 62(12): 1215003

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Machine Vision

Received: Oct. 28, 2024

Accepted: Dec. 12, 2024

Published Online: Jun. 9, 2025

The Author Email: Ran Liu (ran.liu.86@hotmail.com)

DOI:10.3788/LOP242175

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology

Table 1. Localization results of different localization methods in experiment 1

Table 1. Localization results of different localization methods in experiment 1

Table 2. Localization accuracies under different UWB ranging noises and Gaussian prediction noises in experiment 1

Table 2. Localization accuracies under different UWB ranging noises and Gaussian prediction noises in experiment 1

Table 3. Localization performances under different particle numbers in experiment 1

Table 3. Localization performances under different particle numbers in experiment 1

Table 4. Localization performances of different localization methods in experiment 2

Table 4. Localization performances of different localization methods in experiment 2

Table 5. Localization performances of different algorithms

Table 5. Localization performances of different algorithms