Visual Measurement Integrity Monitoring for UAV Localization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have increasingly been adopted for safety, security, and rescue missions, for which they need precise and reliable pose estimates relative to their environment. To ensure mission safety when relying on visual perception, it is essential to have an approach to assess the integrity of the visual localization solution. However, to the best of our knowledge, such an approach does not exist for optimization-based visual localization. Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) has been widely used in global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) applications such as automated aircraft landing. In this paper, we propose a novel approach inspired by RAIM to monitor the integrity of optimization-based visual localization and calculate the protection level of a state estimate, i.e. the largest possible translational error in each direction. We also propose a metric that quantitatively evaluates the performance of the error bounds. Finally, we validate the protection level using the EuRoC dataset and demonstrate that the proposed protection level provides a significantly more reliable bound than the commonly used $3σ$ method.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".