cs.ROAug 21, 2026
SaveThe Coastline as a Structural Constraint: Harnessing Scene Geometry for Autonomous Surface Vessel Localization
Organizations: Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602 USA
Abstract
Coastal environments contain rich, largely unexploited geometric structure capable of providing globally referenced localization cues. In this work, we present two complementary localization frameworks that exploit shoreline and water-surface geometry for GPS-denied autonomous surface vessel localization. The first framework leverages LiDAR observations of the water surface to estimate roll, pitch, and heave (vertical motion), while recovering global position and heading through direct registration of shoreline observations against a satellite-derived coastline map. The second framework relies solely on passive imagery to detect the shoreline and horizon through semantic segmentation. Using the proposed coastal scene geometry, shoreline distance is inferred from monocular imagery. Shoreline observations are accumulated into short-duration local submaps, registered against the same satellite-derived coastline map, and fused within a hierarchical factor graph. Evaluated across three real-world coastal datasets, the LiDAR pipeline consistently improves trajectory accuracy over standard baselines, while the monocular architecture maintains bounded long-term drift. In addition, we establish that modern zero-shot foundation models can reliably extract shoreline observations across diverse coastal environments. Together, these results demonstrate that coastal geometry provides a powerful and dependable source of globally referenced information for GPS-denied maritime localization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of terrestrial and maritime sensing environments, demonstrating the lack of traditional information present on water compared to land. Terrestrial environments naturally contain abundant nearby structure distributed throughout the sensor field of view, producing dense observations well suited for conventional localization methods. In contrast, the maritime environment is dominated by open water, with sparse observations of land occurring at greater distances and often on only one side of the vehicle. This disparity highlights the fundamental sensing challenges of maritime localization and motivates the need for domain-specific localization strategies.
Figure 2: Geometric model of the coastal environment. Both the LiDAR and monocular vision pipelines assume a locally planar water surface with the coastline defined as the boundary between the water surface and land. The resulting right-triangle geometry between the vehicle, water surface, and shoreline provides simple geometric constraints for globally referenced localization, where denotes the sensor height above the water surface, the distance to shore, and the observed declination angle to the shoreline.
Figure 3: LiDAR localization overview. The pipeline consists of three main stages. For ground plane estimation, the native LiDAR range image is utilized to extract a local water-surface plane, providing absolute estimates of the vehicle’s roll ( ), pitch ( ), and heave ( ) with respect to the world frame. For cross-view map generation, the raw point cloud is rectified using these attitude estimates and orthographically projected to a 2D occupancy grid to extract a simulated satellite view of the coastline. Finally, for global registration, this simulated view is aligned via ICP to an a priori map of the coastline to resolve the vehicle’s planar ( ) position and heading ( ). Fusing these vertical and planar estimates yields a full unary observation factor for integration into a fixed-lag smoother factor graph.
Figure 4: LiDAR-based water-plane extraction pipeline. (a) Morphologically filtered range image projected onto the corresponding near-infrared image, with the extracted first-return boundary highlighted in green. (b) Surface-boundary extraction in range-image space, showing rejected detections (black) and the filtered boundary signal (green). (c) RANSAC plane fit to the extracted boundary points (green) within the full LiDAR scan (red). The estimated plane is used to derive absolute roll, pitch, and heave measurements relative to the local water surface.
Figure 5: LiDAR fixed-lag factor graph architecture. Consecutive vehicle poses are connected by KISS-ICP odometry factors. Water-Surface factors provide roll, pitch, and height observations at each scan. Every tenth scan, these observations are fused with cross-view shoreline registration measurements to form a globally referenced Coastal Pose factor that constrains the full state.
Figure 6: Architecture of the visual coastline localization pipeline. The system branches into two processes based on the semantic segmentation of the input image. If the upper water boundary is classified as sky (horizon line), the vehicle’s roll ( ) and pitch ( ) are estimated and a partial attitude measurement is integrated into the local state estimator. Conversely, if the boundary is classified as a coastline, sequential observations are projected and coalesced into a local submap based on the current odometry estimate. This local submap is then aligned against an a priori satellite map via correlative scan matching. Because visual coastline projections lack the fidelity of LiDAR, heading is assumed observable via a magnetometer, restricting the correlative scan match to an exhaustive search over a discretized translation window around the prior state estimate. This exhaustive search generates an observability-aware factor that provides a strong geometric constraint on cross-shore distance while remaining loosely constrained along the shore. Finally, the resulting coastline registration factor and the relative odometry estimates from the local state estimator are incorporated into the global state estimator.
Figure 7: Visual coastline localization pipeline. (a) Extracted coastline observation (red) overlaid on the input image. (b) Single-image shoreline projection from image space into geospatial coordinates, overlaid on the satellite coastline map (light blue); the vehicle position is shown as a blue triangle. (c) Accumulated shoreline observations (multiple colors) forming a 10-second shoreline submap, with the dominant shoreline trend estimated using PCA (green line). The persistent breaking waves visible along the left side of the image introduce a local distortion in the projected shoreline that remain evident in the extracted PCA line. (d) Correlative scan-matching likelihood generated by registering the PCA shoreline estimate against the satellite coastline map. The resulting likelihood distribution strongly constrains cross-shore position while remaining weakly constrained along the shoreline.
Figure 8: Hierarchical factor graph architecture for the visual localization pipeline. The local fixed-lag smoother estimates the high-rate state within a local odometry frame using IMU pre-integration together with horizon, magnetometer, and weak altitude constraints. Marginalized relative pose factors connect the local estimator to a sparse global pose graph, where temporally aligned orientation observations and a weak altitude prior form unified unary pose constraints. Local trajectory estimates are accumulated into shoreline submaps, which are registered against satellite imagery to provide global position constraints.
Figure 9: Overhead view of the three dataset trajectories collected in O‘ahu, Hawaii. Imagery and trajectories are rotated vertically to create a concise visual display with a consistent scale. Axes represent relative local distance in kilometers, with start (green circle) and end (red star) points marked for each trajectory (yellow).
| Dataset Name | Length (km) | Time (min) | Velocity (m/s) | Mean Dist. Shore (m) | Max Dist. Shore (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makali‘i Point | 2.3 | 18 | 2.2 | 25.0 | 48 |
| Kāne‘ohe Bay | 1.5 | 15 | 1.8 | 41.0 | 67 |
| ‘Anahulu River | 1.1 | 16 | 1.2 | 7.5 | 16 |
Table 1: Dataset characteristics and environmental scale
| Dataset | KISS-ICP | FORM | LOAM | LIO-SAM | GenZ-ICP | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makali‘i Point | 42.0 | 2.6 | 80 | 11 | 123 | 15 | 844 | 56 | – | – |
| Kāne‘ohe Bay | 22.4 | 3.0 | 58 | 14 | 1153 | 120 | 148 | 17 | 61 | 41 |
| ‘Anahulu River | 5.1 | 0.8 | 4.1 | 0.8 | 20 | 4.2 | 6.1 | 1.4 | – | – |
Table 2: LiDAR odometry comparison. Metrics are presented as translation [m] / rotation [deg] (ATE RMSE). Bold denotes best results, and ‘–’ indicates failure to produce a solution.
| Mission Name | Roll Error (deg) | Pitch Error (deg) | Z Error (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Makali‘i Point | |||
| Kāne‘ohe Bay | |||
| ‘Anahulu River |
Table 3: LiDAR ground plane estimation accuracy across environments
| Dataset | Coastal-KISS w/ Satellite | Coastal-KISS (Water Plane) | KISS-ICP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makali‘i Point | 7.2 | 0.14 | 2.4 | 24.8 | 0.13 | 2.1 | 40.3 | 12.2 | 2.6 |
| Kāne‘ohe Bay | 8.1 | 0.07 | 3.2 | 20.4 | 0.06 | 2.9 | 22.4 | 0.8 | 3.0 |
| ‘Anahulu River | 4.5 | 0.6 | 3.3 | 16.5 | 0.6 | 5.1 | 4.8 | 1.8 | 0.8 |
Table 4: Trajectory comparison of the proposed Coastal-KISS framework. Metrics are reported as translation , [m] and rotation [deg] (ATE RMSE).
Figure 10: Comparison of trajectories produced by the proposed Coastal-KISS pipeline and KISS-ICP baseline across the three evaluation datasets.
| Model | mIoU | Water IoU | Sky IoU | Land IoU | Shoreline 95% Error (px) | Shoreline Failure | FPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grounded-SAM 2 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 7.0 | 0% | 17.5 |
| Grounded-MobileSAM | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 5.7 | 0% | 5.2 |
| YOLOE | 0.88 | 0.98 | 0.72 | 0.92 | 9.0 | 0% | 117 |
| YoloWorld-SAM 2 | 0.64 | 0.85 | 0.35 | 0.73 | 6.4 | 13% | 6.8 |
| YoloWorld-MobileSAM | 0.66 | 0.86 | 0.36 | 0.76 | 5.2 | 13% | 17.5 |
| SAM 3 | 0.89 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 9.3 | 0% | 6.1 |
Table 5: Comparison of Semantic Segmentation and Shoreline Extraction Performance Across Vision Architectures. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 11: Comparison of semantic segmentation models for classifying water, sky, and land. The red curve denotes the extracted upper water boundary used for shoreline localization. Unless otherwise noted, all models are evaluated in a zero-shot setting without task-specific training. Grounded-SAM 2 and Grounded-MobileSAM produce the most consistent semantic segmentations and mask boundaries, although Grounded-SAM 2 struggles in the fourth image where calm-water reflections introduce ambiguity. YOLOE occasionally hallucinates sky within the water or misclassifies portions of the shoreline, most notably labeling the beach as water in the second image. The YOLO-World variants frequently under-segment the sky or misclassify water as land. SAM 3 produces robust segmentations but yields less precise shoreline boundaries and may omit portions of the land. YOLO-seg, trained on 350 labeled images from a single location on the island, fails to generalize to new coastal environments. These results suggest that transformer-based open-vocabulary detectors, such as Grounding DINO, paired with foundation segmentation models such as MobileSAM and SAM 2, provided the most reliable classification across diverse coastal scenes and were therefore selected for use in the proposed localization pipeline.
| Baseline | Proposed Framework | External Baselines | ||||
| Metric | Odom Only | Fixed Lag | Hierarchy | Full History | VINS Mono | ORB SLAM3 |
| Makali‘i Point (18.3 min) | ||||||
| 42.9 | 13.9 | 12.1 | 12.3 | – | – | |
| 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.4 | – | – | |
| Runtime | 6.5 | 15.2 | 15.7 | 71.8 | – | – |
| Kāne‘ohe Bay (15.0 min) | ||||||
Table 6: Visual trajectory accuracy comparison. Metrics are reported as translational error [m] and rotational error [deg] (ATE RMSE). Runtime [min] includes the complete image-processing and optimization pipeline. – indicates failure to process the entire dataset.
Figure 12: Comparison of trajectories produced by the proposed vision pipeline and visual odometry baselines across the three evaluation datasets.
| Dataset | KISS-ICP | FORM | LOAM | LIO-SAM | GenZ-ICP | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makali‘i Point | 70.0 | 5.0 | 71 | 13 | 390 | 75 | 372 | 46 | ||
| Kāne‘ohe Bay | 15.3 | 3.3 | 839 | 119 | 460 | 41 | ||||
| ‘Anahulu River | 2.8 | 0.5 | 6.4 | 1.4 | 45.6 | 7.9 | 2.6 | 0.4 | ||
Table 7: LiDAR odometry ablation with semantic land masking constraints. Metrics are presented as translation [m] / rotation [deg] (ATE RMSE). Bold entries denote an improvement over the unmasked baseline (Table 2 ), and marks a regression to failure induced by the land mask.
Figure 13: Absolute translational trajectory error as a function of mission time for all three datasets. Both the proposed LiDAR and monocular localization frameworks substantially outperform conventional LiDAR and visual-inertial methods. Although trajectory error may temporarily increase during extended sections of locally linear coastline, shoreline-to-satellite registration provides intermittent global corrections that prevent unbounded drift. As a result, both proposed approaches maintain bounded localization error throughout each mission.
More in this topic
Robot Localization
Robot localization estimates a robot’s position and orientation from onboard sensors, maps, and observations of its surroundings.
See all 177 papers