Long‐range rover localization by matching LIDAR scans to orbital elevation maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current rover localization techniques such as visual odometry have proven to be very effective on short‐ to medium‐length traverses (e.g., up to a few kilometers). This paper deals with the problem of long‐range rover localization (e.g., 10 km and up) by developing an algorithm named MOGA (Multi‐frame Odometry‐compensated Global Alignment). This algorithm is designed to globally localize a rover by matching features detected from a three‐dimensional (3D) orbital elevation map to features from rover‐based, 3D LIDAR scans. The accuracy and efficiency of MOGA are enhanced with visual odometry and inclinometer/sun‐sensor orientation measurements. The methodology was tested with real data, including 37 LIDAR scans of terrain from a Mars–Moon analog site on Devon Island, Nunavut. When a scan contained a sufficient number of good topographic features, localization produced position errors of no more than 100 m, of which most were less than 50 m and some even as low as a few meters. Results were compared to and shown to outperform VIPER, a competing global localization algorithm that was given the same initial conditions as MOGA. On a 10‐km traverse, MOGA's localization estimates were shown to significantly outperform visual odometry estimates. This paper shows how the developed algorithm can be used to accurately and autonomously localize a rover over long‐range traverses. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".