Selective Monocular Precession Estimation under Geometric and Evaluation Ambiguity: An Auditable Synthetic Study with ORBIT-SCOUT
Organizations: Quanta Labs, LLC · Universidad Monteávila
Abstract
Monocular observations of a tumbling object can support a precise fitted trajectory without establishing that the recovered physical axis is correct. We study this distinction for elongated, approximately cylindrical targets observed by a calibrated stationary camera. ORBIT-SCOUT couples image-derived line and rim geometry to constant-cone and torque-free triaxial trajectory families, then returns a linked momentum-axis and mean-precession-rate estimate only when numerical, geometric, temporal and competing-hypothesis checks pass. We describe the measurement objective, selection policy and limitations, and situate them within spacecraft pose estimation, unknown-target reconstruction, rigid-body identification and selective prediction. An internally preregistered population of 96 new synthetic scenes was processed in two cold passes, retaining all 192 attempts. In the primary pass, 38 scenes produced jointly correct estimates, none produced an incorrect estimate, 57 were withheld and one execution was incomplete. Correct coverage on the 64 supported scenes was 25/64. Ninety-five repeated pairs were scientifically equivalent under a frozen comparison policy; the remaining pair was incomplete. The registered coverage, failure-free execution and all-case repeatability targets were not met. Historical audits also exposed an overly permissive axis metric and motion-dependent acquisition cadence. The contribution is a documented measurement-to-decision implementation and a failure-preserving evaluation case study, not a new rigid-body theory or evidence of state-of-the-art accuracy. Zero observed errors does not establish calibrated risk, and conditional temporal checks do not remove shared image-feature bias. Real-image transfer and external reproduction remain open.
Figures & tables
| Work | Principal target quantity | Information or target prior | Evidence relevant here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharma et al. [ 1 ] | Full relative pose | Known wireframe; monocular edges | Includes flight imagery |
| Capuano et al. [ 3 ] | Shape and relative motion | Optical flow; star-tracker information | Numerical image simulations |
| Chi et al. [ 4 ] | Rotational and dynamic parameters | Monocular odometry; equal transverse inertia | Simulation |
| Zhang et al. [ 6 ] | Pose and motion | Circular docking ring; nozzle; constrained dynamics | Simulation |
| Legrand et al. [ 15 ] | Relative pose | Selected, pose-annotated target images; NeRF | SPEED+ HIL imagery |
| Kobayashi and Putkaradze [ 5 ] | Normalized inertia | Attitude observations; torque-free arcs | Noise and image-derived attitude simulations |
| Population | Correct | Wrong | Withheld | Incomplete | Cov. (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core axisymmetric | 32 | 13 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 40.6 |
| Triaxial CN | 16 | 7 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 43.8 |
| Triaxial DN | 16 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 31.2 |
| Supported subtotal | 64 | 25 | 0 | 38 | 1 | 39.1 |
| Stress subtotal | 32 | 13 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 40.6 |
| All scenes | 96 | 38 | 0 | 57 | 1 | 39.6 |
| Population | Emitted | median ( ∘ ) | max ( ∘ ) | median (%) | max (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core axisymmetric | 13 | 0.302 | 1.997 | 0.00112 | 0.00865 |
| Triaxial CN | 7 | 0.254 | 1.287 | 0.00207 | 0.03347 |
| Triaxial DN | 5 | 0.547 | 1.246 | 0.00255 | 0.00620 |
| Stress | 13 | 0.171 | 0.599 | 0.00279 | 0.02018 |
| All | 38 | 0.240 | 1.997 | 0.00169 | 0.03347 |
| Intervention | Correct | Wrong | Withheld | Incomplete | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Near-boundary CN | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Near-boundary DN | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Low light | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Sparse rims | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Biased intrinsics | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Coherent distractor | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Population | Recorded result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 13 development cases | 13/13 becomes 11/13 under sign-only axis scoring | Old reflection equivalence inflated success; reused development data |
| 48 earlier videos | 38/48 becomes 25/48 under strict scoring | Motion-dependent cadence remains a confound |
| 24 Oct, 96 scenes, v4 | 38 correct, 36 wrong, 22 withheld | Predecessor on a different population |
| 24 Oct, physical endpoint | 15 correct, 0 wrong, 63 withheld, 18 timeouts | Same historical study; registered targets failed |
| Opened 24 Oct bank replay | 51 correct, 0 wrong, 45 withheld | Policy development after outcomes opened |
| 25 Oct, 96 new scenes | 38 correct, 0 wrong, 57 withheld, 1 incomplete | Present frozen-candidate descriptive result |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| No. | Gate | Role |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Resolved rate | Rate resolution under the frozen engineering rule |
| 2 | Source sampling | Acquisition sampling support |
| 3 | Resolved cycle | Sufficient resolved temporal cycle |
| 4 | Camera alignment | Supported camera geometry |
| 5 | Cone aperture | Nondegenerate axis excursion |
| 6 | Phase coverage | Admitted phase support |
| Supported within this study | Not established |
|---|---|
| 38 correct linked estimates on the primary synthetic pass | Error probability of zero, or a calibrated per-scene confidence |
| 25/64 correct supported coverage | Registered minimum coverage or general target recovery |
| 95 scientifically equivalent scene pairs | 96/96 repetition, cross-platform equality or independent-laboratory reproduction |
| No reference data mounted in inference | Independence of all generator and estimator assumptions |
| Physical cone and torque-free triaxial trajectories | Correct physical identity of every extracted edge |
| Complete prescribed search banks retained | Exhaustive search or global identifiability |