TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 03 October 2022

DOI 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

Cold atom inertial sensors for

OPEN ACCESS navigation applications
EDITED BY
Ambra Fioravanti,
National Research Council (CNR), Italy Michael J. Wright 1, Luke Anastassiou 1, Chinmaya Mishra 1,2,
REVIEWED BY
James M. Davies 1, Alexander M. Phillips 1, Simon Maskell 1 and
Olivier Carraz, Jason F. Ralph 1*
European Space Agency (ESA), France
Israa Medlej, 1
Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool,
Southern University of Science and United Kingdom, 2Institute of Flight System Dynamics, Technische Universität München,
Technology, China Boltzmannstrasse, Germany
*CORRESPONDENCE
Jason F. Ralph,
jfralph@[Link]

SPECIALTY SECTION Quantum sensors based on atom interferometers can provide measurements
This article was submitted to Quantum
Engineering and Technology,
of inertial quantities with unprecedented accuracy and precision. It has been
a section of the journal suggested that this sea change in sensing could provide an inertial navigation
Frontiers in Physics capability that is comparable with current satellite based navigation systems.
RECEIVED 14 July 2022 However, the accuracy of sensor measurements is not the only factor that limits
ACCEPTED 07 September 2022
PUBLISHED 03 October 2022
the accuracy of inertial navigation systems. In this paper, we explore the
fundamental limits to inertial navigation, and explain how quantum inertial
CITATION
Wright MJ, Anastassiou L, Mishra C, sensors could be used to alleviate some of the problems encountered in
Davies JM, Phillips AM, Maskell S and current classical inertial navigation systems, but not to solve the
Ralph JF (2022), Cold atom inertial
fundamental instability inherent in inertial navigation methods.
sensors for navigation applications.
Front. Phys. 10:994459.
doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459 KEYWORDS

COPYRIGHT cold atom, atom interferometer, inertial naviagation system, navigation calibration,
© 2022 Wright, Anastassiou, Mishra, quantum sensing
Davies, Phillips, Maskell and Ralph. This
is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in
1 Introduction
other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright There has been a great deal of interest recently in cold atom sensors using quantum
owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is
interferometry to provide inertial measurements of unprecedented accuracy [1–9]. The
cited, in accordance with accepted technologies rely on the fact that all atoms of the same isotope are identical and on the
academic practice. No use, distribution ability to place these atoms in superpositions of motional states using a sequence of laser
or reproduction is permitted which does
not comply with these terms. pulses. Differences in the motion of these superposed states can then be measured by
recombining the superpositions and detecting the interference between them. Such
sensors are proving to be excellent candidates to probe fundamental physics
associated with corrections to theories of gravity [10, 11] and verification of the
equivalence principle [12–15]. However, the nature of these motional superposition
states means that atom interferometers are ideal for measuring inertial quantities [1–9],
and significant advances have been made to move these devices outside of the laboratory
and into the real world [4, 7, 9, 16–19]. They are therefore potential candidates for use in
inertial navigation systems (INSs), which use inertial measurements to estimate the
motion of a moving vehicle relative to a fixed Earth reference frame [20–22]. This paper
examines how the current and near future generations of atom interferometer sensors
could be used to enhance conventional classical inertial navigation systems. In particular,

Frontiers in Physics 01 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

we demonstrate how quantum sensors could be used to improve fundamental issues with such systems. Section 3 discusses the
the calibration of a classical inertial systems. current and near future cold atom technologies that are being
Making measurements on superpositions of single atoms is proposed for use for navigation systems. In Section 4, we review
very difficult, and multiple atoms are required to measure the some of the more subtle aspects of the navigation problem, before
phase of the interference between superpositions. Atom presenting some test cases in Section 5, where we calculate
interferometry therefore uses a large number of atoms and examples of how cold atom sensors could be used to enhance
forms superpositions of atoms within a cloud of atoms [1–9]. current inertial navigation systems. We then summarise our
That is, each individual atom within a cloud is placed in a conclusions in Section 6.
superposition of two motional states, and the number of
atoms merely increases the signal that is being measured (the
contrast of the interference fringes). To maximise the signal-to- 2 Navigation systems and inertial
noise ratio, an atom cloud needs to be generated, trapped in a sensors
vacuum, held, and cooled to low temperature before a
measurement is made to reduce the thermal motion of the Navigation systems are based on two basic approaches [21]:
atoms obscuring the interferences arising from the position fixing or dead reckoning. Position fixing systems derive
superpositions. an estimate of the actual position of a navigation system from
The difficulties in making such measurements, and the sensor measurements by referencing the measurements against a
trapping-cooling-measurement cycle, mean that the current database of features with known positions. Dead reckoning
generation of quantum sensors are limited to low operating systems measure aspects of motion, such as velocity or
frequencies compared to classical inertial sensors. Often acceleration, and then infer the position of the system,
quantum sensors are limited to a few Hz [23, 24] whereas or–more accurately–the changes in the position of a system,
classical sensors operate at several hundred Hz [20–22]. In by integrating these quantities over time. Inertial navigation
addition, during the trapping-cooling part of the cycle, sensors systems are examples of dead reckoning, where measured
are not able to respond to changes in the motion of a vehicle. accelerations are integrated twice to obtain changes in
During this ‘dead-time’, no useful information is provided. position. Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSs), such as
Quantum sensors often have limitations on their dynamic the US Global Positioning System (GPS), are the most obvious
range, their ability to respond to signals that may cover form of position fixing system [21]. GNSS uses a constellation of
several orders of magnitude. This property is not unique to satellites, which broadcast their positions at regular intervals, and
cold atom systems, classical sensors also trade off sensitivity receivers that measure the time between the satellite transmitting
against dynamic range. However, the current generation of cold a signal and the receiver receiving it. GNSS also provides
atom interferometers is more suited to the measurement of very estimates for the velocity of the GNSS receiver by measuring
small inertial quantities [12–15] than the variations experienced the Doppler shift of each of the broadcast satellite signals, but it is
in most transport systems. primarily a position fixing system [21].
Sensors are improving. The efficiency and the time taken in In addition to position information, most modern navigation
the preparation of the atom clouds are being increased and systems are also required to provide orientation information
reduced, respectively. Sensors that use multiple atom clouds [21]. The attitude of a vehicle (its orientation relative to an
are being developed [15, 25] to remove the dead time and external reference frame1) and its accuracy is critical in many
increase the duty cycle. Other developments are focussed on aerospace applications, where such information may be used as
reducing the size, weight and power (“SWaP”) requirements of part of a route planning or flight control system. As with position,
the sensors through better design [9], integration of optical and the attitude of a vehicle can be derived via dead reckoning or
laser technologies with the vacuum systems [26], and more direct measurement (fixing). Most modern inertial systems rely
complex laser pulse sequences [27]. However, the current on the measurement of angle rates by rate gyroscopes; integrating
technology does have potential uses in navigation. There have the angle rates with respect to time to derive the attitude.
been studies of the full errors present in this type of sensor and However, like position, the integration only provides changes
the effect of these errors on navigation [28], and others have in attitude rather than a direct measurement. Similarly, direct
studied the ability of classical INS sensors to assist in the
operation of cold atom sensors, as part of an integrated
system [29, 30]. Here we focus on the ability of cold atom
1 Attitude is conventionally expressed in terms of three Euler angles
sensors operating at low frequency to assist in the calibration
[21]—heading (ψ), pitch (θ), and roll (φ)—relative to the local Earth-
of classical inertial sensors to improve the overall performance of oriented axes (North-East-Down, NED). These angles represent a
a purely inertial navigation system. sequence of rotations of ψ around the local Down axis, θ around
the rotated axis Across-Right, and φ around the new rotated axis
In Section 2, we review the problems associated with the use Along-Forward. The order of these operations is critical because of
of inertial sensors for navigation and highlight some of the the non-commutativity of rotations in three-dimensions.

Frontiers in Physics 02 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

measurements of attitude also rely on external references, such as This correction is called the “transport rate” [20, 21], and must be
the positions of known features (e.g. the horizon, stars), magnetic included in the calculations for the inertial navigation solution.
fields (a compass) or, when stationary, the local gravity vector
and the Earth’s axis of rotation (called “gyro-compassing” [21],
see Section 2.2 below). 2.1 Inertial drift
Knowledge of the attitude is more important for modern
‘strapdown’ navigation systems [20, 21], which are physically Inertial navigation forms the basis for all high performance
mounted to the body of a vehicle and all measurements are made navigation systems. Conventional classical inertial systems
in Body-oriented axes. Older inertial navigation systems used normally operate at high frequencies (normally several hundred
platforms mounted on gimbals, which were free to move to Hz [20–22]) and provide near continuous estimates for position,
maintain the orientation of the sensors to the local horizontal and velocity and attitude. However, the navigation solution suffers
local North, and the platforms were stabilised using mechanical from instabilities and it will drift way from the true values [21].
gyroscopes [20]. Strapdown navigation systems do not require a This is an inevitable consequence of using dead reckoning.
stabilised platform, and are less complex mechanically and As has been noted above, the integration of an inertial
therefore tend to be smaller and cheaper. Strapdown quantity with respect to time provides a change in the
navigation systems use knowledge of the INS attitude to quantity rather than a direct measurement of that quantity. If
resolve the motion into a stabilised Earth-oriented reference there are initial errors in the navigation solution provided when
frame. This means that the accuracy of the gyroscopes in a the INS is turned on, these will never be corrected using inertial
strapdown navigation system is critical to the accuracy of the measurements. An initial velocity error will be added to the
positioning solution. Inaccurate resolution of the motion into the position for every second of movement. An attitude error will
stabilised frame causes significant errors in the other parts of the produce a trajectory that moves off in the wrong direction. In
navigation solution. addition, all sensor measurements contain some level of noise,
The standard set of sensors for an inertial navigation system and the integral of a noisy acceleration signal will provide
is three accelerometers and three gyroscopes; with the elements incremental changes to the velocity that contain the integral
of each triad being mounted at right angles to one another. The of the noise. These incremental changes to velocity are then
accelerometers measure specific force, which is the acceleration integrated to find the change in position. The estimated position
experienced plus the effect of the local gravitation field [21], in therefore accumulates all of the integrated noise from the velocity
Body axes. The gyroscopes measure angle rates about each of the increments, which themselves contain the integrated noise in the
axes in Body axes, which are not the time derivative of the Euler acceleration. If the acceleration noise is zero-mean, white,
angles. The Euler angles are the angles relative to the local Earth- Gaussian noise, the velocity errors will be a Brownian random
oriented axes. More specifically, inertial sensors measure specific walk, which increases as the square root of time on average [21].
force and angle rates in Sensor axes, which then need to be The position errors, being the integral of the velocity errors, will
resolved into Body axes via a three-dimensional transformation, scale as the cube of the square root of time. Similarly for the
typically involving a translation (the “lever arm”, the offset of the attitude, the angular errors will be an accumulation of the noise in
sensor from the body centre of motion) and a rotation. Unlike the the angle rate measurements. At no stage does a purely inertial
Body-to-Earth transformation, the Body-to-Sensor navigation system measure position or attitude directly, so this
transformation is normally assumed to be constant. However, accumulation of errors will not be constrained and the navigation
for flexible structures, this approximation is not always valid. solution will naturally drift away from the true values.
To find an inertial navigation solution incorporating a In addition to this natural tendency of an INS to drift with a
platform’s position, velocity and attitude, a number of different random walk, one needs to take into account possible systematic
reference frames and corrections are required. The sensors measure errors in each sensor, each transformation and each of the
inertial quantities in Sensor axes. These need to be transformed to corrections applied in forming the solution. In addition to
Body axes, and then to a reference frame which is fixed relative to the measurement noise, inertial sensors will normally have some
Earth (see Section 4.1 below). The accelerometer measurements systematic errors due to a small bias on each measurement. The
measure the effect of the acceleration of the platform and the biases in lower cost inertial sensors can be appreciable, and even
gravitational acceleration experienced. Before integrating the the small biases found in higher cost systems will accumulate
specific force to find the change in velocity, the measurements over time. Such errors, cause the navigation solution to drift
must corrected for gravity. In addition, the Earth is moving and faster than would be expected from a simple random walk. Other
forms a non-inertial frame, which results in a velocity-dependent systematic errors include the alignment of each sensor to one
Coriolis term [20, 21], which must also be removed. Finally, when another: non-orthogonality between the elements in a triad [20].
gyroscopes are moving relative to the local NED reference frame in Small errors in the alignment of the sensors causes the outputs to
which the Euler angles are defined, the Euler angles must be be coupled and noise in one sensor can couple to another, so the
corrected so that they are consistent in the new local NED axes. errors arising from the noisiest sensor will couple to all of the

Frontiers in Physics 03 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

other sensors over time. This is more important for strapdown will still drift due to numerical errors arising from the finite
systems, where the attitude values are used as an input into the measurement frequency of the sensors and any high frequency
velocity and position calculations. motion of the platform and residual vibrations in the structure on
Further errors are then caused by small errors in the which the strapdown system sits.
transformations from sensor axes to body axes, and body axes Calibration of the inertial sensors can reduce drift errors
to Earth-referenced axes, and–as with the measurement dramatically. At manufacture, high quality inertial navigation
noise–these errors accumulate over time if they are not systems undergo a multi-position test (also known as a “Savage
corrected by direct measurements of the velocity, position or test”) [35, 36]. In any mechanical system, there are tolerances for
attitude. The corrections applied in the calculation of the mounting sensors within the housing. Electrical and electronic
integrated quantities (gravity, Coriolis and transport rate) are systems have tolerances on the components that read out
also the source of errors. The local gravity is rarely known to a measured signals, giving rise to measurement biases and
high degree of precision [31–34], and the accuracy of this scaling inaccuracies. The multi-position test takes a series of
correction will deteriorate further as the position errors grow measurements for up to 24 different sensor orientations and
because the wrong values of the gravitational acceleration will be known rotation rates to estimate the non-orthogonality errors,
used to convert the specific force to the acceleration. These errors scaling errors, and fixed bias errors. Some bias errors will vary
in the gravitational corrections normally mean that the vertical with time and with environmental conditions (e.g. temperature),
position is the most unstable of all of the quantities. The Coriolis and there will be some errors that cannot be completely
and transport rate terms are both functions of the platform’s characterised because they are due to mechanical flexure in
velocity, and errors in the velocity will give rise to errors in these the sensor housing or in the sensors themselves.
terms, which then effects the accuracy of other quantities. This Initialisation of an inertial navigation system for position and
cross-coupling of errors due to inertial corrections and the velocity is relatively straightforward as long as it is done at a
transformation between reference frames means that once one known location and when the platform in stationary. Being
of the navigational states starts to drift, the others will follow. stationary allows the initial velocity to be set to zero, and the
Different types of INS have different inertial drift rates, with errors in the initial position may be minimised using a pre-
higher quality and higher SWaP systems being more accurate surveyed location. Attitude is slightly more difficult to initialise
and more costly. Marine-grade inertial systems tend to have the because a stationary platform may not be on level ground when
lowest drift rate, with aviation-grade, intermediate grade, and the INS is initialised, and the platform orientation relative to
then tactical grade systems having progressively higher drifts North (Euler heading) may not be the same each time the system
rates [21]. Typical accuracies for these systems range from several is initialised even if this is done in the same location. Typically,
km per day for marine-grade INSs, and several km per hour for the attitude is initialised using the local gravity vector, which
aviation-grade systems, to retaining a useful navigation solution allow the platform pitch and roll to be fixed relative to the local
for a few minutes in the lower grade systems [21]. Given the vertical vector–although it should still be noted that gravity does
current stage of development of quantum sensors, the sizes and vary in different locations and has very small time-dependent
costs involved means that a comparison with marine and contributions from tidal effects, meaning that this can never be
aviation-grade systems are the most useful. exact. Heading can be initialised using a compass or a landmark
or, in the case of high performance gyroscopes, a process called
gyrocompassing can be used [21]. Gyrocompassing uses the fact
2.2 Initialisation and calibration that a stationary gyroscope will experience a net rotation rate
because of the rotation of the Earth, ≃ 7 × 10−5 rad s−1, if the
For a given set of inertial sensors, the standard approach to gyroscope is sensitive enough. An accuracy of ~ 7 × 10−8 rad s−1 is
reducing the drift of an INS is to improve the initial alignment of a good benchmark figure [21], the North direction can be
the system and to calibrate the sensors accurately so that estimated well enough to initialise the navigation system. In
systematic errors and biases can be corrected at every time all cases, the initialisation process requires a series of
step. Initial alignment sets the navigation states (position, measurements to be taken over a reasonable period of time
velocity and orientation) of the platform and it is best (often several minutes rather than seconds) to obtain accurate
achieved when the platform is stationary and time is available estimates for the initial navigation states.
to obtain a good estimate of the attitude. Calibration can be done Initialising an inertial navigation system can be achieved when
at manufacture, and can be assisted by adding environmental moving using a process called “transfer alignment” [21], which
controls to stabilise the operating temperature and reduce the often involves performing a series of predefined manoeuvres and
level of vibrations. However, even with the most sophisticated referencing the navigation solution against another navigation
initialisation and calibration methods, there will still be residual system (parent-child). Transfer alignment can initialise the
errors that cannot be completely removed. And, even if sensors navigation system and, in some circumstances, can also
were perfect and transformations were calibrated exactly, an INS calibrate some of the errors present in the sensors. However,

Frontiers in Physics 04 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

calibration when moving requires a very accurate reference Possibly the simplest form of cold atom sensor is a one-
navigation system (the “parent” INS) to calibrate against. dimensional (vertical) gravity sensor, where atoms are placed
in a superposition of states, each corresponding to a slightly
different trajectory within the local gravitational field. The
2.3 Position fixing and augmentation phase of each of the states in the superposition depends on
the trajectory that it has followed and when they are combined
Given the natural tendency of dead reckoning navigation this gives rise to an interference pattern, and the phase of this
systems to drift, most navigation systems seek to augment a dead interference pattern can be related to the gravitational
reckoning system with a position fixing solution. This acceleration experienced by the atoms. The superpositions
augmentation is achieved by filtering the two solutions, dead are created by applying Raman π/2 pulses to place each
reckoning and position fixing, together. A good filtered solution atom in a superposition of its ground state and an excited
uses the position fixing system to correct and to limit the effect of state. The excitation changes the momentum of the atom in that
the drift errors over a period of time. Position fixing systems rely state, thereby changing the rate that it falls in the gravitational
on a database of features (e.g. terrain variations [37], ground field. After a period of time T, a π pulse then swaps the ground
features [38, 39]) or broadcast signals (from a constellation of and excited state components and after another T seconds,
satellites [40] or terrestrial broadcast antennas [41, 42]). These another π/2 pulse is applied to allow the components to
reference systems vary over time scales much longer than the interfere. In its simplest form, the phase difference can be
operating frequencies of inertial navigation systems (around written as [54, 55],
1 Hz rather than several hundreds of Hz). As a result, their
useful operating frequencies are limited because their position ϕ0  keff gT2 (1)
errors are highly correlated unless the features are changing
where keff is the effective wave number of the π/2 interferometer
significantly between updates.
pulses, T is the time between the π/2 and the π pulses, and g is the
Most inertial navigation systems will use a GNSS/GPS system
local gravitational acceleration. There are a number of errors
as the main form of augmentation. GNSS is ubiquitous and
sources even in such simple analysis. The number of atoms
position information is global and freely available. However,
involved in the cloud varies from measurement to measurement,
current satellite based systems do have significant vulnerabilities.
and each atom will be in a slightly different part of the laser field,
The satellite broadcast signals have an extremely low signal-to-
so the π/2 and π pulses will have slightly different actions on each
noise level [21], which means that they are relatively easy to
atom. The atoms will be at a small but finite temperature and
disrupt with small, low cost jammers producing noise in the
there will be some thermal motion which will tend to reduce the
relevant wavebands [43]. Standard open GNSS signals are also
signal S which is actually measured
sensitive to ‘spoofing’, the rebroadcasting of the signals with
altered time delays to manipulate the position information
+ δNsin
ϕ0 + δϕ + s0
S  η
N (2)
generated [43]. Of course, more secure forms of encrypted
GNSS signals are available [21], but these are typically only where η is the measurement efficiency (or the contrast of the
available for military applications.
is the average number of atoms in each
interference fringes), N
Alternative methods for position fixing operate as back up

cloud (normally N ~ 105 − 106 for most systems), δN is the
systems where GNSS is not available or unreliable. Terrain atom number shot noise on each measurement √ (where the
matching [37] and visual feature matching [38] are both standard deviation of δN is σ N  N
), δϕ is the
useable when travelling over land with sufficient suitable measurement phase noise which is assumed to be Gaussian
features. Terrestrial broadcast methods can use bespoke with a standard deviation σϕ, and s0 is a constant representing a
navigation signals [41] or standard radio broadcast signals signal bias. This is the simplest model for a one-dimensional
[42]. Quantum gravity sensors have also been studied and atom interferometer but more complex models that describe
appear to be viable candidates [44–49], including systems higher order corrections to this model [56–58]. However, only a
based on current cold atom technologies [49]. Typically, simple model is required here. When modelling the cold atom
these systems are not as accurate as GNSS position sensors to calibrate the classical inertial navigation sensor
updates, but they do still act to limit the drift of purely errors, we will only need to specify the final errors in the
inertial navigation systems [50]. inertial measurements.
The signal to noise is maximised and the accuracy of the
phase difference is improved by increasing the number of atoms
3 Cold atom sensing used in each measurement, increasing the time of flight of the
atoms (time~ 2T), and maximising the momentum transfer of
Cold atom interferometers can be sensitive to accelerations the π/2 pulses (increasing keff). There are practical limits to the
[51] or rotations [9, 52, 53] or, more generally, both [3]. number of atoms being used in the measurements, but these

Frontiers in Physics 05 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

values are increasing as the trapping and cooling methods the performance over long integration times is impressive, with
become more efficient. Increasing the time T is problematic gravity/acceleration accuracies approaching 10−8 m/s2 in some
because it increases the physical size of the vacuum chamber cases [24], which compares well with classical accelerometers
and reduces the measurement frequency. Increasing the used in inertial navigation systems [21].
momentum transfer is also being considered with system Current cold atom technologies operate using superpositions
using multiple phonon excitations, where the numbers of of states, but future systems may be able to benefit from the use of
photons and the momentum being exchanged is much larger entangled as well as superposed atom states. Theoretical
[59, 60]. investigations have demonstrated that the use of entanglement
Although the technologies are advancing rapidly, there are could provide several orders of magnitude better accuracy and
some physical limitations in terms of the size of the devices, their precision than superpositions [67–69].
operating frequencies, and the proportion of the measurement
cycle when they are sensitive to the signal being measured (the
duty cycle). To some extent, the last two of these are being 4 Inertial navigation
addressed by using more than one atom species [13–15]. In effect,
this approach is equivalent to running multiple interferometers In this section, we outline the models that we have used to
in parallel, each with a different atom species. This makes the assess the accuracies achievable from quantum calibrated
system more complex but it also offers significant benefits. inertial navigation systems. Firstly, we outline the different
Other cold atom inertial sensors operate in similar ways, frames of reference that we have used, all of which are
using laser pulses to create superposition states which are standard navigation frames [21], and then define the
sensitive to horizontal as well as vertical accelerations, as well simulated trajectories used in the paper, including the
as rotation rates. Rotations are often sensed by defining different measurement error models. The navigation equations are
paths that enclose an area so that the interference phase becomes given in the local NED frame, which are integrated
sensitive to rotations via the Sagnac effect [63, 64]. A key enabler numerically to form state estimates for the navigation
for this type of device is the ability to use guiding potentials to solution. Comparing the estimated navigation solution to the
move the atomic trajectories along well defined paths and true (simulated) trajectories provides the navigation drift,
allowing efficient recombination of the superposed paths [61, which can then be averaged over a set of examples
62]. Current sensors tend to use vacuum and ballistic flight to (realisations of the noise/errors) to assess the navigation
define the atom trajectories, which is one reason that the dynamic performance.
range of cold atom sensors is relatively low. The motion of the
atoms along the paths needs to be such that the paths are able to
meet to interfere. Any very large rotation or large acceleration 4.1 Frames of reference
change will result in the paths not meeting correctly, or meeting
outside the region of the sensor where the measurements can take The position of the platform is defined relative to the Earth
place. Other systems try to reduce the effect of the residual using a standard ellipsoid which is, by convention, taken to be
thermal motion in the cloud of atoms by cooling the particle the WGS′84 ellipsoid [33]. We represent the platform’s
down to a point where they form a Bose-Einstein condensate location in terms of the latitude (Φ), longitude (Λ), and
(BEC) state, where the motion of the atoms is correlated and the altitude above the ellipsoid mean sea level (h)2. A number
fraction of the atoms in this BEC state are all in the same of global frames of reference are often used in navigation [21].
quantum motional state [65, 66]. The Earth Centred Inertial (ECI) frame is a set of axes centred
The performance of current cold atom systems is improving on the ellipsoid centre, within which the Earth rotates. It
rapidly, with a number of the methods outlined being used. simplifies the physics by providing an inertial frame, but the
Recent reviews of cold atom technologies [9, 24] provide useful transformations to/from this reference frame require small
comparisons of cold atom devices against classical systems. For differences between large quantities, which can result in some
example, cold atom gyroscopes demonstrate extremely good numerical issues. Defining a reference frame where Earth is
long time stability, with some example systems being able to fixed, called Earth-Centred Earth-Fixed (ECEF), has similar
demonstrate errors of 10−9rad over 104 s, with a short term numerical requirements. The Earth is fixed in this reference
√
sensitivity of 100 nrad/s/ Hz [6]. This compares well with the system but it is not an inertial reference frame, so the
(high quality) iXBlue classical commercial fibre gyroscope with
√
a sensitivity of 300 nrad/s/ Hz or commercial navigation ring
√
laser gyroscopes with sensitivities of tens of nrad/sec/ Hz [9].
Other cold atom gyroscopes do offer comparable performance 2 Local mean sea level is related to the geiod, which reflects the local
variations in gravity due to topology and density of the Earth locally. It
to commercial ring laser gyroscopes, but they also have can vary by tens and up to about one hundred metres from the global
significantly longer integration times [9]. For accelerometers, ellipsoid mean sea level [32].

Frontiers in Physics 06 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

rotational non-inertial effects need to be included when TABLE 1 Measurement errors for an aviation-grade inertial navigation
system.
calculating the navigation solution. In this paper, we use
the local North-East-Down (NED) reference frame, which Sensor error Error value (1 σ)
are Euclidian co-ordinates with a zero defined to be the
current position, and oriented to the local North and local Accelerometer Static Bias 30 micro-g
vertical (down) vector that is perpendicular to the local Accelerometer Non-orthogonality 10 micro-radians
tangent plane to the ellipsoid3. Integrating the navigation Accelerometer Scaling Error 10 ppm
√
equations requires that the local NED frame increments at Accelerometer Measurement Noise 15 micro-g/ Hz
each time step, which is numerically inefficient, but it does Gyroscope Static Bias 0.05 micro-radians
provide an intuitive representation of the motion. Gyroscope Non-orthogonality 10 micro-radians
Measurements are taken in the sensor axes, and the Gyroscope Scaling Error 10 ppm
√
sensors are assumed to be fixed to the platform at the Gyroscope Measurement Noise 2.0 micro-rad/sec. Hz
platform centre of navigation. This assumption simplifies
the equations so that the transformation from sensor to body
axes is a three-dimensional rotation matrix. It is not
necessary, adding a translation to account for the effect of aircraft has been selected because it provides an environment
the level arm is straightforward but it does not add anything that can accommodate the relatively large SWaP
to the results presented in this paper. The sensor axes (x (s) , requirements of current quantum sensors and the
y (s) , and z (s) ) can be aligned to the body axes (x (b) , y (b) , and z (b) , operation of cold atom systems have already been
representing Along (forward)-Across (right)-Down) without demonstrated in an aircraft [4, 15]. The route has been
loss of generality as long as errors in this alignment can be defined to represent a benign trajectory that is long
included in the modelling, where the superscripts (s) and (b) enough to require that the rotation and the non-spherical
indicate that the measurements are in sensor and body axes, nature of the Earth must be taken into account when
respectively. calculating the navigation solution.
The alignment of the body axes to the local Earth NED We define a straight and level flight and generate
axes (the platform attitude) are given by the three estimated appropriate specific forces and angle rates from this
Euler axes, heading (ψ), ^ and roll (^
^ pitch (θ), φ), where the trajectory, using a standard uniform ellipsoid gravity
circumflexes indicate estimated quantities rather than model (the Somigliana gravity model [31]), and then add
quantum operators. Other representations for rotation are measurement noise and systematic biases according to the
available, such as quaternions [21]. Quaternions are often STANAG 4572 definition of errors [70]. The three-
used because they are more stable in numerical calculations dimensional errors include: sensor biases for
and do not generate any infinities when the platform accelerometers b (s,a) and for gyroscopes b (s,g) (where the
orientation is close to straight up or straight down. superscripts (., a) and (., g) indicate that the
However, the Euler representation is more familiar and measurements are from the accelerometer or the
intuitive for most people and the trajectories have been gyroscope); non-orthogonalities in the alignment of
defined to be benign and not to generate any numerical individual accelerometers and gyroscopes, and scaling
instabilities, so we use Euler angles in this paper. errors for each of these, represented by matrices M (s,a) and
M (s,g) respectively; and random measurement noise w (s,a) (t)
and b (w,g) (t). For simplicity, we do not consider vibrational or
4.2 Trajectories and measurements other acceleration dependent noise sources [21]. The
simulated “real” values for the specific forces f (s) (t) and
The trajectories are selected to represent an aircraft angle rates ω (s) (t) from the trajectory model are then
following a simple straight line trajectory that starts above modified using.
Brighton (Latitude 50.8374669 o , Longitude −0.1412091 o )
~f (s) (t) 
I3 + M(s,a) f (s) (t) + b(s,a) + w (s,a) (t) (3)
and travels to Edinburgh (Latitude 55.9412846o , Longitude
−3.2753782 o ) at a constant altitude of 3,000 m. This is a ~(s) (t)  I3 + M(s,g) ω(s) (t) + b(s,g) + w (s,g) (t)
ω (4)
distance of 605 km and, fixing the speed as 100.0 m/s, the
(s,a)
aircraft would cover this distance in around 100 min. An where ~f (t) and ω ~(s,a) (t) are the measured quantities, and
w(s,a)(t) and w(s,g)(t) are taken to be white Gaussian noise terms
√
with standard deviations that are proportional to δt. We
assume values for the standard deviation of errors present in
3 The local vertical defined by the local gravity will be different in general,
due to the shape of the ellipsoid, and also different from the vertical
an aviation-grade inertial navigation system [21], see Table 1, and
vector defined as passing through the centre of the ellipsoid. an INS integration frequency of 200 Hz.

Frontiers in Physics 07 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

4.3 Navigation equations

To integrate the measurements to form a navigation solution,

(s,a)
we take the accelerometer measurement data, ~f and convert
from sensor axes to body axes, and from body axes to local NED
axes using the current estimates for the Euler angles. The specific
force is then corrected for the gravitational acceleration, which is
a function of latitude, longitude and altitude,

(E^(t),a)
~a(E(t)) (t)  ~f ^ (t), h^(t)
^
^ (t), Λ
(t) + gΦ (5)

where the superscript (E,.) indicates that the measurements are in

^
the current local NED axes. The measured acceleration ~a(E(t)) (t)
is then corrected for the rotation of the Earth and the transport
rate,

~a(+ ) (t)  ~a(E(t)) (t) − 2ω

E^(t)
^E × ^v(E(t)) (t)
^ ^

^tr (t) × ^v(E(t)) (t)

^
− ω (6)

^
where ^v (E)(t) is the current platform velocity in the (estimated)
FIGURE 1
local Earth axes, the angular velocity vector for the rotation of the Map showing the true Brighton-Edinburgh trajectory (black),
Earth is ω ^
^E  7.2921159 × 10−5 (cos Φ(t), ^
0.0, −sin Φ(t)) T
rad/s, and an example of an uncalibrated aviation-grade INS solution
(blue) and an aviation-grade INS with online calibration using a
and T indicates a transpose, and the transport rate ω ^tr (t) is perfectly aligned set of perfect quantum sensors (red).
given by,

⎜
⎛ (E^(t)) ^ (t), h^(t) + h^(t)
^ (t), Λ ⎟
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎜ v^2 (t) RE Φ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
~(
b,g)
^tr (t)  ⎜
ω ⎜
⎜
⎜
⎜ −^
(E^(t))
(t) RN Φ ^ (t), h^(t) + h^(t)
^ (t), Λ
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟
⎟ ω + ~(b,g) (t) − ω
(t)  ω ^(Eb) − ω
^(trb) (t) (8)
⎜
⎜
⎜
v1 ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎝ ⎟
⎠ The integration of the angle rates to find the new Euler angles
(E^(t)) ^ (t), h^(t) + h^(t)
^ (t), Λ
^  RE  Φ
−^
v2 (t)tan Φ requires that the Euler angle rates be calculated from the body
(7) angle rates. The Euler rates are given by,

~(2,+ ) (t)sin φ^(t) cos θ^(t) + ω

~(3,+ ) (t)cos φ^(t) cos θ^(t) (9)
where RN and RE are the local radii of curvature of the ellipsoid in dψ b,g b,g
(t)  ω
dt
the North and East directions at the currentestimated
 position,

~(
b,g)
~(
dθ b,g)
^ 3/2 ), RE  a/ 1 − e2 sin2 Φ
RN  a(1 − e2 )/((1 − e2 sin2 Φ) ^ , and (t)  ω2,+ (t)cos φ ^(t) − ω 3,+ (t)sin φ ^(t) (10)
dt
e2 = (a − b)2/a2, where the equatorial radius and the polar
~(
b,g)
~(
dφ b,g)
radius of the Earth are a = 6378137.0 m and b = (t)  ω 1,+ (t) + ω 2,+ (t)cos φ ^(t)tan θ^(t)
dt
6356752.314,245 m, respectively.
~(
b,g)
The corrected acceleration in the local NED axes (6) can then +ω 23,+ (t)cos φ^(t)tan θ^(t) (11)
be integrated to provide an update to the estimated velocity
The Euler rates can then be integrated to provide an
(E^(t)) (E^(t)) (E^(t)) (E^(t)) incremental update for the Euler angles
^v (t) → ^v (t + δt)  ^v (t) + ~a+ (t)δt ^ ^ + δt), φ^(t + δt)),
^
(ψ(t), θ(t), ^
φ(t)) ^ + δt), θ(t
→ (ψ(t and
and the NED position keeping the periodic nature of each Euler angle in mind.
^r(E(t)) (t) → ^r(E(t)) (t + δt)  ^r(E(t)) (t) + ^v(E(t)) (t)δt
^ ^ ^ ^ After updating each of the elements in the navigation
solution, the NED position is converted back to latitude-
1 (E^(t))
+ ~a+ (t)δt2 longitude-altitude to maintain the correct local NED reference
2
frame. The gravity correction term is often the dominant error
after each time step, δt. present in high quality inertial navigation systems and it causes
The angle rate measurement is transformed to body axes the vertical channel to become very unstable. To remove this
~(b,g) (t) and is corrected in body axes by rotating the Earth’s
ω effect, which may mask some of the more subtle effects, we
rotation rate and the transport rate from Earth to body axes ω(b)
E assume that an altitude sensor is available to fix the altitude of the
(b)
and ωtr (t) and calculating trajectory, and that this feeds in to the navigation solution to

Frontiers in Physics 08 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

stabilise the vertical channel. This is not unreasonable since most

aircraft will have a barometric or radar altimeter to augment the
navigation system, and unlike a GNSS system, such altimeters
cannot be easily jammed.
We have left an explicit time dependence in the equations
above to emphasise where the estimated quantities, the frames of
reference, and the associated errors vary with time. What is
noticeable in these equations is that nearly all of the quantities in
the transformations and the corrections applied to the measured
quantities involve estimates taken from the navigation solution.
The values for the transport rate and the Earth’s rotation rate in
local NED coordinates are not sensitive to small errors in
position, but it is sensitive on long timescales. As the
navigational errors accumulate, these errors will grow and
could start to have an effect on the navigational accuracy.

5 Online calibration of classical

inertial navigation systems
FIGURE 2
In this section, we consider the performance of a conventional Mean horizontal error for route Brighton-Edinburgh for an
aviation-grade INS, where a cold atom sensor is used to perform uncalibrated aviation-grade INS solution (blue) and an aviation-
grade INS that is calibrated online by a perfectly aligned set of
online calibration of the sensor biases b(s,a) and b(s,g). Although perfect cold atom sensors (red)—mean is calculated over
conventional inertial systems have non-orthogonality and scaling 50 realisations of the errors for the full trajectory.
errors, it is the biases that normally dominate the inertial drift so we
focus on reducing the effect of these errors. All of the errors are
contained in our classical INS models, but the other systematic
errors would only become important and need calibration when the the model but the separations are set to zero for convenience. In
biases are sufficiently small that these other errors become the practice, errors due to lever arm effects can be reduced by accurate
dominant contribution. calibration of the system and, in the absence of flexure in the structure
The current generation of cold atom sensors operate at low and unlike the sensor biases, the errors generally do not change
frequencies (0.5 Hz to a few Hz) and have a limited duty cycle over time.
(0.3–0.5). They can be assumed to integrate the inertial signals Section 5.1 considers cases of full calibration (accelerometers
over a fraction of the operating period corresponding to the duty and gyroscopes are calibrated using quantum sensors), calibration of
period. The integrated signal is then used to construct an estimate the accelerometers only, and calibration of the gyroscopes only.
of the biases, b ^(s,a) (t) and b
^(s,g) (t), which can then be subtracted Section 5.2 then considers cases where the quantum sensors are still
q q
from the measurements to reduce the INS drift rate. perfect but there are small misalignments between the axes of the
^(s,a) (t)
f (s) (t)  ~f (s) (t) − b quantum and conventional inertial sensors. Section 5.3 describes
q (12)
cases where there are sensor misalignments and the accuracy of the
ω
(s)
^(s,g) (t)
(s) (t)  ~f (t) − b (13) quantum sensor is limited. The aim is to assess the level of accuracy
q
that would be required for a quantum sensor to provide a significant
Where the o symbol indicates a calibrated value, and the benefit in terms of the online calibration of a conventional inertial
subscript q indices that the quantity is derived from a navigation systems. Finally, we consider other factors, such as the
quantum (cold atom) sensor. duty cycle of the sensor and the measurement frequencies of the cold
Of course, there may be an error between the quantum sensor atom systems.
axes and the classical sensor axes, and this must be included in the
analysis of errors. In Section 5.1, we start by considering cases where a
perfect quantum sensor is used to calibrate the biases in a conventional 5.1 Aviation-grade INS with perfect
aviation-grade INS when the sensors are perfectly aligned, so that the quantum sensors and perfect sensor
rotation matrix between the two sets of axes is known without alignment
errors–again we will ignore level arm effects arising from physical
separation of the centres of each sensor from the platform’s centre of In an ideal world, sensors would have minimal or zero noise
navigation and from each other. The lever arm effects are included in and be perfectly aligned and calibrated. Unfortunately, this is

Frontiers in Physics 09 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

never the case, but to examine the limiting performance of a

coupled quantum-classical inertial navigation system, we start by
assuming that the quantum sensor measurements have zero
measurement noise and the sensor axes are perfectly aligned.
For the cases presented, the quantum sensor is assumed to have a
duty cycle of 0.5 and take measurements at 2 Hz. The quantum
sensor model also has limits on its dynamic range, but these do
not play a role for this analysis because the flight profile is benign
and generally do not reach these limits. Outside this dynamic
range, the sensors would produce a null measurement, and any
benefit from having an online calibration sensor would be
reduced or (in extreme cases) removed entirely.
Figure 1 shows the Brighton-Edinburgh trajectory and
example navigation solutions for an unaided/uncalibrated
classical INS and a classical INS that is calibrated during
flight using a perfect quantum sensor. Figure 2 shows the
mean horizontal position errors as a function of time.
Calibration using a perfect sensor, albeit one with limited
duty cycle and measurement frequency, is to reduce the drift
rate by a factor of about two. The residual errors come from FIGURE 3
imperfect calibration due to the limited duty cycle of the Mean horizontal error for an uncalibrated aviation-grade INS
solution (blue), an online calibrated aviation-grade INS that is
quantum sensor, the integration of the motion over the perfectly aligned to perfect cold atom sensors (red, solid), and an
measurement period at low frequency, and numerical online calibrated aviation-grade INS that is misaligned with
errors in the integration of the navigation equations. In respect to the cold atom sensors: standard deviation of the
misalignments in each axis σ =0.005o (red, dash), σ =0.02o (red,
Figure 2, the errors contain an oscillatory term with a dotted), and σ =0.02o (red, dot-dash). The means are calculated
long oscillation period. This is the Schuler oscillation over 50 realisations of the errors for the full trajectory.
[21], which arises as a result of motion around the
ellipsoid. This oscillation has a period of 87 min, which is
approximately the period that a simple pendulum would
have if it had a length equal to the radius of the Earth. The sensor axes. We do this by applying a three-dimensional
Schuler oscillation period is approximately fixed, and its rotation matrix, δR,
amplitude is related to the size of the errors in the INS.
1 δψ −δθ
The results shown are for a full suite of accelerometers and ⎜ ⎟
δR  ⎛
⎝ −δψ, 1 δφ ⎞ ⎠ (14)
gyroscopes, but we have also run these trajectories for calibration δθ −δφ 1
using accelerometers only and gyroscopes only. We find that the
main benefit comes from using quantum sensor for calibrating with small angular errors in the Euler angles, δψ, δθ, δφ, to the
the gyroscopes rather than the accelerometers. Calibrating the measured quantities. The misalignment errors are Gaussian
errors in the accelerometers of an aviation-grade INS has little distributed and fixed for a given realisation of a trajectory
effect on the overall navigation performance, which is driven with a given standard deviation. These errors represent any
mainly by the errors in the gyroscopes. This is true for most or residual alignment errors after any alignment process that is
even all strapdown inertial systems because they rely on the performed to calibrate the sensors at manufacture/installation.
accuracy of the gyroscopes and the attitude estimates to resolve These misalignments mean that the physical quantities being
the measured specific forces in the sensor/body frame into the measured differ slightly and this introduces cross couplings
navigation frame. between the different navigation errors.
The effect of these errors on navigation performance is
shown in Figure 3. We see that misalignments of the sensors
5.2 Aviation-grade INS with perfect below 0.005o lead to small deviations from the perfect case shown
quantum sensors and sensor in Figure 2 and shown in Figure 3 as the solid red line. For
misalignment alignment errors above 0.01o, the errors increase significantly,
and when the errors are significantly above this value, the
Moving away from a perfect sensor, one needs to take into navigation errors would be worse than the case of an
account any misalignment of the quantum and the classical uncalibrated classical INS.

Frontiers in Physics 10 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

accuracy as long as the bias drift rate is very slow relative to

the cold atom measurement errors averaged over an appropriate
time interval (treated as a random walk since the quantum sensor
should have little or no measurement bias).

5.4 Sensor duty cycle and measurement

frequency

The results presented above are for a cold atom sensor with a
duty cycle of 0.5 and a measurement frequency of 2 Hz. These values
are based on the approximate parameter values for current cold
atom sensors. However, as methods for preparing, trapping and
cooling clouds of atoms are improved, and as more sophisticated
methods of manipulating the atoms within the interferometer are
developed (such as use of multiple atom species in a single
interferometer), one would expect that the sensitivity of the
sensors will improve, the duty cycle will improve, and the
measurement frequency will increase. Improved measurement
FIGURE 4
sensitivities can be encompassed in reduced measurement noise,
Mean horizontal error for an uncalibrated aviation-grade INS as in the previous section. To reflect the other improvements, we
solution (blue), an online calibrated aviation-grade INS that is have modelled the navigation performance of a calibrated classical
misaligned (σ =0.005o) to perfect cold atom sensors (red, solid),
and with gyroscope measurement noise σ =0.05 μrad (red, INS for a range of duty cycles and for different measurement
dash), σ =0.2 μrad (red, dotted), and σ =0.2 μrad (red, dot-dash). frequencies. We find that duty cycles above 0.4 provide a stable
The means are calculated over 50 realisations of the errors for the
calibration solution for an aviation-grade INS, and duty cycles below
full trajectory.
0.3 struggle to provide stable corrections to the classical biases.
Measurement frequencies between 0.5 and 2 Hz do not affect the
improvements in navigation performance significantly for the
5.3 Aviation-grade INS with imperfect classical INS parameters in Table 1, but moving to frequencies
quantum sensors and sensor between 4 and 5 Hz do provide significant improvements in the
misalignment accuracy of the calibration methods described.

Although cold atom sensors do have the potential to provide

inertial measurements with unprecedented accuracy and 6 Summary and conclusion
precision, there are still errors due to phase noise in the laser
systems, shot noise and reduced contrast in the interferometer In this paper, we have examined the potential for using
phase measurements. As a result, one must also consider current or near future cold atom inertial sensors for the online
measurement noise in the cold atom signals. Adding calibration of classical inertial navigation sensors. Classical
measurement noise to the biases in (12) and 13 will degrade inertial sensors contain significant measurement biases.
the ability of the quantum sensor to correctly calibrate the Their use in dead reckoning navigation systems gives rise to
classical INS biases. Focussing on the performance of the significant drift rates in their navigation solutions. This is a
gyroscopes (see Section 5.1), Figure 4 shows the navigation fundamental property of dead reckoning navigation systems.
errors as a function of time for zero gyroscope noise, for Quantum inertial sensors will not remove this tendency to drift
0.05μrad, 0.10μrad, and 0.20 μrad errors (1 standard deviation, entirely, but they can reduce the rate at which drift occurs. Even
1σ) on each cold atom measurement. For errors at or below with the low measurement frequencies and low duty cycles
0.10μrad, there is little or no degradation in the navigation available in current cold atom sensors, we have demonstrated
performance. Only measurement errors at 0.20 μrad or above that using a quantum sensor to measure and to correct the
show a significant increase in the navigation errors. This is larger biases in classical inertial sensors can provide improved
than the biases in the classical gyroscopes, which are 0.05 μrad navigation performance–for the examples shown, the drift
(see Table 1). This can be can be attributed to the fact that the bias rate of a classical inertial navigation system can be reduced
level only changes slowly relative to the measurements (both by a factor of around two. Because of the relatively high size,
classical and quantum). The calibration of the classical weight and power requirements for current cold atom systems,
gyroscopes should provide an improvement in navigation we have concentrated attention on aviation-grade inertial

Frontiers in Physics 11 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

navigation systems which are relatively high cost and have drifts Author contributions
rates approximately five to ten times larger than higher
performance marine-grade inertial systems. However, some All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and
performance increases would also be expected for marine- intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for
grade inertial navigation systems. Although one might expect publication.
cold atoms sensors to improve in terms of size, weight, power
and cost, it is unlikely that they will be compatible with the
smaller and cheaper inertial navigation systems in the near Conflict of interest
future. In the case of aviation-grade systems, the biggest
performance improvement is due to calibration of the The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
classical gyroscope biases rather than the biases in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
accelerometers. We find that these improvements are robust be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
to the presence of sensor imperfections (such as sensor
misalignments and measurement noise) and for a range of
sensor parameters (including differing duty cycles and Publisher’s note
measurement frequencies).
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
Data availability statement organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
The raw data supporting the conclusion of this article will be claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
made available by the authors, without undue reservation. endorsed by the publisher.

References
1. Gustavson TL, Bouyer P, Kasevich MA. Precision rotation measurements with 13. Zhou L, Long S, Tang B, Chen X, Gao F, Peng W, et al. Test of equivalence
an atom interferometer gyroscope. Phys Rev Lett (1997) 78:2046–9. doi:10.1103/ principle at 10−8 level by a dual-species double-diffraction Raman atom
physrevlett.78.2046 interferometer. Phys Rev Lett (2015) 115:013004. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.
013004
2. Gustavson TL, Landragin A, Kasevich MA. Rotation sensing with a dual atom-
interferometer Sagnac gyroscope. Class Quan Gravity (2000) 17:2385–98. doi:10. 14. Bonnin A, Zahzam N, Bidel Y, Bresson A. Characterization of a simultaneous
1088/0264-9381/17/12/311 dual-species atom interferometer for a quantum test of the weak equivalence
principle. Phys Rev A (Coll Park) (2015) 92:023626. doi:10.1103/physreva.92.023626
3. Canuel B, Leduc F, Holleville D, Gauguet A, Fils J, Virdis A, et al. Six-Axis
inertial sensor using cold-atom interferometry. Phys Rev Lett (2006) 97:010402. 15. Barrett B, Antoni-Micollier L, Chichet L, Battelier B, Leveque T, Landragin A,
doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.010402 et al. Dual matter-wave inertial sensors in weightlessness. Nat Commun (2016) 7:
13786–9. doi:10.1038/ncomms13786
4. Geiger R, Menoret V, Stern G, Zahzam N, Cheinet P, Battelier B, et al. Detecting
inertial effects with airborne matter-wave interferometry. Nat Commun (2011) 2: 16. Bidel Y, Zahzam N, Blanchard C, Bonnin A, Cadoret M, Bresson A, et al.
474. doi:10.1038/ncomms1479 Absolute marine gravimetry with matter-wave interferometry. Nat Commun (2018)
9:627–9. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03040-2
5. Dickerson SM, Hogan JM, Sugarbaker A, Johnson DMS, Kasevich MA.
Multiaxis inertial sensing with long-time point source atom interferometry. Phys 17. Bongs K, Holynski M, Vovrosh J, Bouyer P, Condon G, Rasel E, et al. Taking
Rev Lett (2013) 111:083001. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.083001 atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world
applications. Nat Rev Phys (2019) 1:731–9. doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0117-4
6. Dutta I, Savoie D, Fang B, Venon B, Alzar CG, Geiger R, et al. Continuous cold-
atom inertial sensor with1 nrad/secRotation stability. Phys Rev Lett (2016) 116: 18. Bidel Y, Zahzam N, Bresson A, Blanchard C, Cadoret M, Olesen AV, et al.
183003. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.183003 Absolute airborne gravimetry with a cold atom sensor. J Geod (2020) 94:20–9.
doi:10.1007/s00190-020-01350-2
7. Wu X, Zi F, Dudley J, Bilotta RJ, Canoza P, Muller H. Multiaxis atom
interferometry with a single-diode laser and a pyramidal magneto-optical trap. 19. Stray B, Lamb A, Kaushik A, Vovrosh J, Rodgers A, Winch J, et al. Quantum
Optica (2017) 4:1545–51. doi:10.1364/optica.4.001545 sensing for gravity cartography. Nature (2022) 602:590–4. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-
04315-3
8. Yankelev D, Avinadav C, Davidson N, Firstenberg O. Multiport atom
interferometry for inertial sensing. Phys Rev A (Coll Park) (2019) 100:023617. 20. Titterton DH, Weston JL. Strapdown inertial navigation technology”. London:
doi:10.1103/physreva.100.023617 IEE (1997).
9. Garrido Alzar CL. Compact chip-scale guided cold atom gyrometers for inertial 21. Groves PD. Principles of GNSS, inertial, and multisensor integrated navigation
navigation: Enabling technologies and design study. AVS Quan Sci (2019) 1:014702. systems. 2nd ed. London: Artech House (2013).
doi:10.1116/1.5120348
22. Nebylov AV, Watson J. Aerospace navigation systems”. Hoboken: Wiley (2016).
10. Biedermann GW, Wu DXL, Roy S, Mahadeswaraswamy C, Kasevich MA.
23. Feng D. Review of quantum navigation IOP conference series: Earth and
Testing gravity with cold-atom interferometers. Phys Rev A (Coll Park) (2015) 91:
environmental science. IOP Conf Ser : Earth Environ Sci (2019) 237:032027. doi:10.
033629. doi:10.1103/physreva.91.033629
1088/1755-1315/237/3/032027
11. Tino GM. Testing gravity with cold atom interferometry: Results and
24. Geiger R, Landragin A, Merlet S, Pereira Dos Santos F. High-accuracy inertial
prospects. Quan Sci Technol (2021) 6:024014. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/abd83e
measurements with cold-atom sensors. AVS Quan Sci (2020) 2:024702. doi:10.
12. Overstreet C, Asenbaum P, Kovachy T, Notermans R, Hogan JM, 1116/5.0009093
Kasevich MA. Effective inertial frame in an atom interferometric test of the
25. Bonnin A, Diboune C, Zahzam N, Bidel Y, Cadoret M, Bresson A. New
equivalence principle. Phys Rev Lett (2018) 120:183604. doi:10.1103/
concepts of inertial measurements with multi-species atom interferometry. Appl
physrevlett.120.183604
Phys B (2018) 124:181–8. doi:10.1007/s00340-018-7051-5

Frontiers in Physics 12 [Link]

Wright et al. 10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

26. Lee J, Ding R, Christensen J, Rosenthal RR, Ison A, Gillund DP, et al. A cold- 49. Phillips AM, Wright MJ, Kiss-Toth M, Read I, Riou I, Maddox S, et al.
atom interferometer with microfabricated gratings and a single seed laser, arXiv Augmented inertial navigation using cold atom sensing. Cold Atoms Quan Tech
[preprint] (2021). Available at: arXiv:2107.04792. (Accessed September 15, 2022). (2020) 11578:115780C. International Society for Optics and Photonics.
27. Berg P, Abend S, Tackmann G, Schubert C, Giese E, Schleich WP, et al. 50. Phillips AM, Wright MJ, Riou I, Maddox S, Maskell S, Ralph JF. Position
Composite-light-pulse technique for high-precision atom interferometry. Phys Rev fixing with cold atom gravity gradiometers. AVS Quan Sci (2022) 4:024404. doi:10.
Lett (2015) 114:063002. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.063002 1116/5.0095677
28. Jekeli C. Navigation error analysis of atom interferometer inertial sensor. 51. Janvier C, Ménoret V, Merlet S, Landragin A, Dos Santos FP, Desruelle B, A
Navigation (2005) 52:1–14. doi:10.1002/j.2161-4296.2005.tb01726.x compact differential gravimeter at the quantum projection noise limit. arXiv
[preprint] (2022). Available at: arXiv:2201.03345. (Accessed September 15, 2022).
29. Cheiney P, Fouche L, Templier S, Napolitano F, Battelier B, Bouyer P,
et al. Navigation-compatible hybrid quantum accelerometer using a 52. Gauguet A, Canuel B, Lévèque T, Chaibi W, Landragin A. Characterization
Kalman filter. Phys Rev Appl (2018) 10:034030. doi:10.1103/physrevapplied. and limits of a cold-atom sagnac interferometer. Phys Rev A (Coll Park) (2009) 80:
10.034030 063604. doi:10.1103/physreva.80.063604
30. Wang X, Kealy A, Gilliam C, Haine S, Close J, Moran B, et al. Enhancing 53. Tackmann G, Berg P, Schubert C, Abend S, Gilowski M, ErtmerRasel EM,
inertial navigation performance via fusion of classical and Quantum accelerometers, et al. Self-alignment of a compact large-area atomic Sagnac interferometer. New
arXiv [preprint] (2018). Available at: arXiv:2103.09378 (Accessed September 15, J Phys (2012) 14:015002. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/1/015002
2022).
54. McGuirk JM, Foster GT, Fixler JB, Snadden MJ, Kasevich MA. Sensitive
31. Ardalan AA, Grafarend EW. Somigliana–pizzetti gravity: the international absolute-gravity gradiometry using atom interferometry. Phys Rev A (Coll Park)
gravity formula accurate to the sub-nanoGal level. J Geodesy (2001) 75:424–37. (2002) 65:033608. doi:10.1103/physreva.65.033608
doi:10.1007/pl00004005
55. Sorrentino F, Bertoldi A, Bodart Q, Cacciapuoti L, De Angelis M, Lien Y-H,
32. Pavlis NK, Holmes SA, Kenyon SC, Factor JK. The development and et al. Simultaneous measurement of gravity acceleration and gravity gradient with
evaluation of the Earth GravitationalModel 2008 (EGM2008). J Geophys Res an atom interferometer. Appl Phys Lett (2012) 101:114106. doi:10.1063/1.
(2012) 117:B04406. doi:10.1029/2011jb008916 4751112
33. Merrigan MJ, Swift ER, Wong RF, Saffel JT. A refinement to the World 56. Peters A, Chung KY, Chu S. High-precision gravity measurements using atom
Geodetic System 1984 reference frame. In: Proceedings of the 15th International interferometry. Metrologia (2001) 38:25–61. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/38/1/4
Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GPS
57. Sorrentino F, Bodart Q, Cacciapuoti L, Lien Y-H, Prevedelli M, Rosi G, et al.
2002) (2002). p. 1519–29.
Sensitivity limits of a Raman atom interferometer as a gravity gradiometer. Phys Rev
34. Hirt C, Yang M, Kuhn M, Bucha B, Kurzmann A, Pail R. SRTM2gravity: An A (Coll Park) (2014) 89:023607. doi:10.1103/physreva.89.023607
ultrahigh resolution global model of gravimetric terrain corrections. Geophys Res
58. Bertoldi A, Minardi F, Prevedelli M. Phase shift in atom interferometers:
Lett (2019) 46:4618–27. doi:10.1029/2019gl082521
Corrections for nonquadratic potentials and finite-duration laser pulses. Phys Rev A
35. Savage PG. Strapdown inertial navigation integration algorithm design part 1: (Coll Park) (2019) 99:033619. doi:10.1103/physreva.99.033619
Attitude algorithms. J Guidance, Control Dyn (1998) 21:19–28. doi:10.2514/2.4228
59. Muller H, Chiow SW, Long Q, Herrmann S, Chu S. Atom interferometry with
36. Savage PG. Strapdown inertial navigation integration algorithm design part 2: up to 24-photon-momentum-transfer beam splitters. Phys Rev Lett (2008) 100:
Velocity and position algorithms. J Guidance, Control Dyn (1998) 21:208–21. 180405. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.180405
doi:10.2514/2.4242
60. Cadoret M, Zahzam N, Bidel Y, Diboune C, Bonnin A, Théron F, et al.
37. Groves PD, Handley RJ, Runnalls AR. Optimising the integration of terrain Phase shift formulation for N-light-pulse atom interferometers: Application to
referenced navigation with INS and GPS. J Navig (2006) 59:71–89. doi:10.1017/ inertial sensing. J Opt Soc Am B (2016) 33:1777–88. doi:10.1364/josab.33.
s0373463305003462 001777
38. Moreira EM, Camargo OAM, Duarte JC, Rosa PFF. Scene matching in GPS 61. Wu S, Su E, Prentiss M. Demonstration of an area-enclosing guided-atom
denied environments: A comparison of methods for orthophoto registration. In: interferometer for rotation sensing. Phys Rev Lett (2007) 99:173201. doi:10.1103/
2019 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics (ICM), (2019). p. 205–10. physrevlett.99.173201
39. Bijjahalli S, Sabatini R, Gardi A. Advances in intelligent and autonomous 62. Moukouri S, Japha Y, Keil M, David T, Groswasser D, Givon M, et al. Multi-
navigation systems for small UAS. Prog Aerospace Sci (2020) 115:100617. doi:10. pass guided atomic Sagnac interferometer for high-performance rotation sensing,
1016/[Link].2020.100617 arXiv [preprint] (2021). Available at: arXiv:2107.03446 (Accessed September 15,
2022).
40. Tan Z, Qin H, Cong L, Zhao C. New method for positioning using IRIDIUM
satellite signals of opportunity. IEEE Access (2019) 7:83412–23. doi:10.1109/access. 63. Schubert C, Abend S, Gersemann M, Gebbe M, Schlippert D, Berg P, et al.
2019.2924470 Multi-loop atomic Sagnac interferometry. Sci Rep (2021) 11:16121–9. doi:10.1038/
s41598-021-95334-7
41. Son P-Y, Rhee JH, Seo J. Novel multichain-based Loran positioning algorithm
for resilient navigation. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst (2017) 54:666–79. doi:10. 64. Savoie D, Altorio M, Fang B, Sidorenkov LA, Geiger R, Landragin A.
1109/taes.2017.2762438 Interleaved atom interferometry for high-sensitivity inertial measurements. Sci
Adv (2018) 4:eaau7948. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau7948
42. Kapoor R, Ramasamy A, Gardi A, Sabatini R. UAV navigation using signals of
opportunity in urban environments: A review. Energ Proced (2017) 110:377–83. 65. Debs JE, Altin PA, Barter TH, Doering D, Dennis GR, McDonald G, et al.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.03.156 Cold-atom gravimetry with a Bose-Einstein condensate. Phys Rev A (Coll Park)
(2011) 84:033610. doi:10.1103/physreva.84.033610
43. Schmidt D, Radke K, Camtepe S, Foo E, Ren M. A survey and analysis of the
GNSS spoofing threat and countermeasures. ACM Comput Surv (2017) 48:1–31. 66. Hensel T, Loriani S, Schubert C, Fitzek F, Abend S, Ahlers H, et al. Inertial
doi:10.1145/2897166 sensing with quantum gases: A comparative performance study of condensed versus
thermal sources for atom interferometry. Eur Phys J D (2021) 75:108–13. doi:10.
44. Gleason DM. Passive airborne navigation and terrain avoidance using gravity
1140/epjd/s10053-021-00069-9
gradiometry. J Guidance Control Dyn (1995) 18:1450–8. doi:10.2514/3.21567
67. Scully MO, Dowling JP. Quantum-noise limits to matter-wave interferometry.
45. Jekeli C. Precision free-inertial navigation with gravity compensation by an
Phys Rev A (Coll Park) (1993) 48:3186–90. doi:10.1103/physreva.48.3186
onboard gradiometer. J Guidance Control Dyn (2006) 29:704–13. doi:10.2514/1.
15368 68. Dowling JP. Correlated input-port, matter-wave interferometer: Quantum-
noise limits to the atom-laser gyroscope. Phys Rev A (Coll Park) (1998) 57:4736–46.
46. Welker TC, Pachter M, Huffman RE, Jr. Gravity gradiometer integrated
doi:10.1103/physreva.57.4736
inertial navigation. In: Proceedings of 2013 European Control Conference (ECC);
July 17-19, 2013; Zurich, Switzerland (2013). 69. Szigeti SS, Hosten O, Haine SA. Improving cold-atom sensors with quantum
entanglement: Prospects and challenges. Appl Phys Lett (2021) 118:140501. doi:10.
47. Wang H, Wu L, Chai H, Hsu H, Wang Y. Technology of gravity aided inertial
1063/5.0050235
navigation system and its trial in South China Sea. IET Radar Sonar &
Navigation (2016) 10:862–9. doi:10.1049/iet-rsn.2014.0419 70. Handley RJ, Stokes RF, Stevenson J, Owen JIR. Hardware-in-the-loop testing
of the NATO standardisation agreement 4572 interface using high precision
48. Wang H, Wu L, Chai H, Xiao Y, Hsu H, Wang Y. Characteristics of marine
navigation equations. In: 2008 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation
gravity anomaly reference maps and accuracy analysis of gravity matching-aided
Symposium (2008). p. 441–8.
navigation. Sensors (2017) 17:1851. Paper 1851. doi:10.3390/s17081851

Frontiers in Physics 13 [Link]