In-Lane Localization and Ego-Lane Identification Method Based on Highway Lane Endpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low-cost global navigation satellite systems combined with an inertial navigation system (GNSS/INS) used most frequently for vehicle localization show errors up to 10 m, approximately, even in open-sky environments such as highways. To reduce this error on highways, this paper proposes a localization method based on lane endpoints. Since a lane endpoint frequently appears on a road and can be detected in close proximity even by a low-cost monocular camera, it is a very useful landmark for precise localization. However, the lane width is generally less than 3.5 m, and the localization error from the GNSS is about 10 m. Therefore, if an ego-lane is not identified, the lane endpoints detected in an ego-lane can be falsely corresponded to the lane endpoints in the other lane of a map. This paper proposes an in-lane localization method that uses lane endpoints, the relation between a camera and a road, and the estimated vehicle’s orientation from a map. In addition, this paper proposes an ego-lane identification method that generates a hypothesis about an ego vehicle position per lane by using the proposed in-lane localization method and verifies each hypothesis by the projection of lane endpoints and an additional landmark such as a road sign. The average error of the proposed in-lane localization method is 0.248 m on highways. The success rate of the proposed ego-lane identification method is 99.28% by one trial and reaches 100% by fusing the results.
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".