Marker-Constrained Pose-Graph Correction for Cross-Platform Georeferencing in GNSS-Denied Environments
Organizations: Automation and Robotics Research Group, Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT), University of Luxembourg, 1855 Luxembourg, Luxembourg · Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg, 4365 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
Abstract
Autonomous operation in GNSS-denied environments requires heterogeneous mapping pipelines to maintain a consistent spatial reference. This paper presents a framework using camouflage-matched fiducial markers fabricated from Cholesteric Spherical Reflectors (CSRs) as pre-surveyed visual anchors. The anchors georeference both a lightweight LiDAR-odometry trajectory and a dense RTAB-Map reconstruction, allowing their outputs to be expressed in a common LUREF frame (geodetic coordinate reference system used in Luxembourg) without requiring GNSS measurements during operation. The method combines coarse similarity alignment with marker-constrained pose-graph optimization. We evaluate it using two handheld acquisition sessions with ground-level and elevated motion profiles emulating UGV and UAV operation. A single iMarker was relocated among six surveyed positions, with the first position revisited to quantify drift correction. Marker-anchor correction reduced revisit inconsistency by 97.9% and 99.1% for the UAV- and UGV-emulating sessions, respectively, and improved held-out anchor prediction compared with one-time alignment. Separately georeferenced dense reconstructions achieved a median cross-session nearest-neighbour distance of 58 cm without explicit cross-session registration. Marker processing operated in real time, while trajectory correction required less than 0.25 s per session. These results demonstrate a proof of concept for georeferencing lightweight odometry and dense reconstructions using visually unobtrusive, pre-surveyed anchors during GNSS-denied operation.
Figures & tables
| LUREF coordinates | UAV | UGV | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster | N | E | h | RMS | RMS | ||
| A | 76839.129 | 79345.498 | 340.570 | 152 | 14.71 | 226 | 13.76 |
| B | 76829.898 | 79357.502 | 339.409 | 289 | 22.54 | 84 | 37.55 |
| C | 76821.262 | 79363.262 | 338.276 | 167 | 10.94 | 260 | 20.43 |
| D | 76789.028 | 79320.063 | 338.382 | 209 | 6.03 | 92 | 8.11 |
| E | 76804.525 | 79309.431 | 340.234 | 197 | 18.21 | 200 | 15.44 |
| Self-consistency (revisit) | Generalization (LOO) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Session | Trajectory | Initial Alignment | Pose-Graph Refined | Initial Alignment | Pose-Graph Refined |
| UAV | ICP odometry | 942.0 | 20.0 | 215.9 / 231.9 | 169.6 / 181.9 |
| UAV | Dense mapping | 763.1 | 8.7 | 187.7 / 200.6 | 131.9 / 139.7 |
| UGV | ICP odometry | 10,102.0 | 91.6 | 1297.6 / 1485.4 | 1193.1 / 1362.4 |
| UGV | Dense mapping | 12.9 | 10.9 | 533.2 / 662.1 | 419.9 / 516.8 |
| Trajectory | In-sample | Held-out | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICP odometry | 6 | 475.1 / 526.8 | – |
| ICP odometry | 5 | 457.6 / 494.1 | 752.8 / 854.2 |
| ICP odometry | 4 | 412.0 / 443.0 | 822.0 / 909.9 |
| ICP odometry | 3 | 281.9 / 340.2 | 1287.7 / 1945.7 |
| Dense mapping | 6 | 226.6 / 269.3 | – |
| Dense mapping | 5 | 214.8 / 253.6 | 356.5 / 426.3 |
| Session | Trajectory | Stage | Mean {B, E} | Mean {A, C, D, F} | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UAV | ICP odometry | Coarse | 166.1 | 549.3 | 0.30 |
| UAV | ICP odometry | Refined | 98.6 | 205.0 | 0.48 |
| UGV | ICP odometry | Coarse | 1870.8 | 2485.5 | 0.75 |
| UGV | ICP odometry | Refined | 279.1 | 1650.1 | 0.17 |
| UAV | Dense mapping | Coarse | 170.5 | 218.7 | 0.78 |
| UAV | Dense mapping | Refined | 101.4 | 147.2 | 0.69 |
| Step | Cost |
|---|---|
| Marker detection (per frame) | 12.4–12.6 ms ( 80 fps) |
| Pose-graph correction (per session) | 18.6–233.7 ms |
GNSS-Denied Localization
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)-denied localization estimates position when satellite signals are unavailable or unreliable.
See all 58 papers