Unstable Landing Platform Pose Estimation Based on Camera and Range Sensor Homogeneous Fusion (CRHF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research has been accomplished in the area of drone landing and specifically pose estimation. While some of these works focus on sensor fusion using GPS, or GNSS, we propose a method that uses sensors, including four Time of Flight (ToF) range sensors and a monocular camera. However, when the descending platform is unstable, for example, on ships in the ocean, the uncertainty will grow, and the tracking will fail easily. We designed an algorithm that includes four ToF sensors for calibration and one for pose estimation. The landing process was divided into two main parts, the rendezvous and the final landing. Two important assumptions were made for these two phases. During the rendezvous, the landing platform movement can be ignored, while during the landing phase, the drone is assumed to be stable and waiting for the best time to land. The current research modifies the landing part as a stable drone and an unstable landing platform, which is a Stewart platform, with a mounted AprilTag. A novel algorithm for calibration was used based on color thresholding, a convex hull, and centroid extraction. Next, using the homogeneous coordinate equations of the sensors’ touching points, the focal length in the X and Y directions can be calculated. In addition, knowing the plane equation allows the Z coordinates of the landmark points to be projected. The homogeneous coordinate equation was then used to obtain the landmark’s X and Y Cartesian coordinates. Finally, 3D rigid body transformation is engaged to project the landing platform transformation in the camera frame. The test bench used Software-in-the-Loop (SIL) to confirm the practicality of the method. The results of this work are promising for unstable landing platform pose estimation and offer a significant improvement over the single-camera pose estimation AprilTag detection algorithms (ATDA).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".