Relative visual localization (RVL) for UAV navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of today's UAVs make use of multi-sensor GNSS/INS fusion for localization during navigation. In such a context GNSS systems are used as a compact and cost-effective way to constrain the unbounded error induced by the INS sensors on the localization. Unfortunately, GNSS systems have been proven to be unreliable in multiple contexts. The drawback of such an approach resides in the radio communications necessary to acquire the localization data. Radio communication systems are prone to availability problems in some environments, to signal alteration and to interference. The root cause of the problem resides in the use of global information to solve a local problem. In this work, we propose the use of local visual information to perform relative localization in an unknown outdoor environment. The algorithm uses feature point methods to extract salient points from a set of images pertaining to possible matches during the navigation. The extracted features are matched with available visual data stored during previous navigation or from an aerial view map. Different feature extraction techniques were analyzed, and ORB was the one that gave the best mean absolute error. The estimated distance between the best match and ground-truth localization was within 70 meters on average at an altitude of 150 meters. Experimental tests were conducted on outdoor videos captured using a quadcopter. The obtained results are promising and show the possibility of using relative visual data in GPS/GNSS-denied environments to improve the robustness of UAVs navigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".