arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 1903.03305

Multi-Process Fusion: Visual Place Recognition Using Multiple Image Processing Methods

Abstract

Typical attempts to improve the capability of visual place recognition techniques include the use of multi-sensor fusion and integration of information over time from image sequences. These approaches can improve performance but have disadvantages including the need for multiple physical sensors and calibration processes, both for multiple sensors and for tuning the image matching sequence length. In this paper we address these shortcomings with a novel "multi-sensor" fusion approach applied to multiple image processing methods for a single visual image stream, combined with a dynamic sequence matching length technique and an automatic processing method weighting scheme. In contrast to conventional single method approaches, our approach reduces the performance requirements of a single image processing methodology, instead requiring that within the suite of image processing methods, at least one performs well in any particular environment. In comparison to static sequence length techniques, the dynamic sequence matching technique enables reduced localization latencies through analysis of recognition quality metrics when re-entering familiar locations. We evaluate our approach on multiple challenging benchmark datasets, achieving superior performance to two state-of-the-art visual place recognition systems across environmental changes including winter to summer, afternoon to morning and night to day. Across the four benchmark datasets our proposed approach achieves an average F1 score of 0.96, compared to 0.78 for NetVLAD and 0.49 for SeqSLAM. We provide source code for the multi-fusion method and present analysis explaining how superior performance is achieved despite the multiple, disparate, image processing methods all being applied to a single source of imagery, rather than to multiple separate sensors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Stephen Hausler, Adam Jacobson, Michael Milford. 2019-03-08. Multi-Process Fusion: Visual Place Recognition Using Multiple Image Processing Methods. https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2019.2898427

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO