Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

LunarLoc: Segment-Based Global Localization on the Moon

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LunarLoc claims a lunar rover can recover a drift-free global pose to within 2 cm by matching boulder landmarks between stereo maps.

desk verdict Useful public lunar dataset and a clean pipeline write-up, but the headline sub-cm accuracy claim is likely a fitting residual rather than an independent localization error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16940 v1 pith:PY2VADYR submitted 2025-06-20 cs.CV

Annika Thomas , Robaire Galliath , Aleksander Garbuz , Luke Anger , Cormac O'Neill , Trevor Johst , Dami Thomas , George Lordos
show 1 more author
Jonathan P. How
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords globallocalizationlunarrovernavigationzero-shotinstancesegmentationboulderlandmarksgraph-theoreticdataassociationmulti-sessionmappingstereovisionsimulatedenvironment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

LunarLoc aims to solve global localization on the Moon, where no GPS exists, by using the static positions of boulders as landmarks. The method runs zero-shot instance segmentation on stereo images, converts detected rock segments into 3D centroids, and builds a sparse map of those centroids. It then aligns the current session's map to a reference map from a previous session by solving a graph-theoretic correspondence problem that keeps distances between matched segments consistent. The paper reports translation errors below 2 cm across five pairs of simulated traverses, with values as low as 0.08 cm, and argues this outperforms existing lunar localization approaches. If correct, this gives a rover a drift-free way to recover its pose from onboard perception alone, which matters for precision tasks like regolith excavation and infrastructure deployment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the sparse 3D maps of boulder centroids, $M_{\mathrm{veh}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{ref}}$, together with the consistency-graph formulation of data association. Candidate correspondences between maps are represented as nodes; an edge connects two candidates when both pairwise distances match, $\|a-b\| \approx \|a'-b'\|$. The largest mutually consistent set is found by solving a densest-clique optimization over this graph, and the resulting correspondences are fed into a least-squares rigid-body fit to produce the $SE(3)$ transform. This machinery replaces appearance-based matching with pure geometry, which is what makes the method insensitive to lighting and visual ambiguity.

What would settle it

Run LunarLoc on each traverse pair and compute the difference between the transform it outputs and the simulator's recorded ground-truth rover trajectory at matched timestamps; if the position error of the rover itself exceeds 2 cm, the reported sub-centimeter localization accuracy does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that boulder locations alone carry enough geometric information for global localization on the Moon. Specifically, LunarLoc segments rocks zero-shot in front and rear stereo images, filters the masks by visibility, size, and shape, and projects their centroids into 3D to form a vehicle map $M_{\mathrm{veh}}$. Candidate matches to a reference map $M_{\mathrm{ref}}$ are nodes in a consistency graph, edges mark pairwise distance preservation, and the densest clique gives the largest mutually consistent set of correspondences. A least-squares rigid fit on those correspondences yields a rotation and translation. The paper reports root mean squared translation errors between 0.08 cm and 1.79 cm for five traverse-pair evaluations and presents this as centimeter-level, drift-free global localization that significantly outperforms prior lunar methods.

Load-bearing premise

The reported RMSE is computed from the inlier boulder correspondences after the least-squares transform is estimated, so the central sub-centimeter claim depends on that residual being a genuine localization error rather than a fitting error on the same points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A lunar rover equipped with stereo cameras and an onboard segmentation model can recover a drift-free global pose relative to a prior map, without GNSS or ground infrastructure.
  • The correspondence search tolerates noisy segment detections: evaluations used between 36 and 185 detected segments, with as few as 15 inlier associations still yielding centimeter-level alignment.
  • Because map alignment depends only on distances between rock positions, the method should transfer across different lighting conditions as long as the same boulders are visible.
  • The released traverse dataset and playback library let other researchers test localization methods outside the simulator, which speeds development of alternatives.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sub-centimeter numbers should be treated as map-alignment residuals until the recovered rover pose is compared with the simulator's recorded ground-truth position; the paper does not report that comparison.
  • If the same pipeline were run with crater rims, lander hardware, or other stable topographic features as landmarks, the method's domain could extend beyond boulder fields to other airless bodies.
  • A natural stress test would be to vary lighting, viewpoint, and boulder density systematically; performance would likely degrade once too few geometrically consistent boulders are shared between sessions.
  • The correspondence approach could be combined with an aerial or landing-derived rock map, turning the method into a map-based global localization system for an entire landing site.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LunarLoc, a global localization pipeline for lunar rovers that extracts boulder landmarks using zero-shot instance segmentation (FastSAM) from stereo imagery, builds a 3D set of boulder centroids, and aligns it to a reference map from a previous session via graph-theoretic data association (CLIPPER) followed by Arun's least-squares rigid transform. The authors evaluate on five pairs of traverses from a CARLA-based Lunar Simulator and report RMSE values between 0.08 cm and 1.79 cm, claiming sub-cm to cm-level accuracy and stating that the approach outperforms the state of the art in lunar global localization. The paper also releases a dataset with a playback module. The central methodological idea is reasonable, but the experimental evidence as presented does not support the headline accuracy claim because the reported metric appears to be a fitting residual rather than an independent error against simulator ground truth, and no controlled baseline comparison is provided.

Significance. LunarLoc addresses an important problem: drift-free global localization on the Moon without GNSS. Using boulders as stable landmarks extracted by zero-shot segmentation is a sound and relevant idea, especially for ISRU missions such as IPEx. The public dataset and playback module are valuable community contributions, and the approach is potentially deployable because the front end runs in real time. However, the significance claim rests on the quantitative evaluation, and that evaluation is not currently credible: the reported RMSE is defined on the same inlier correspondences used to estimate the transform, which measures fitting consistency rather than localization error against the environment, and the state-of-the-art comparison in Table I is not a controlled baseline study. If the metric is corrected to compare estimated poses with the simulator's ground truth and direct baselines are added, the contribution could be meaningful; as presented, the significance is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V / Table IV / Section III-B] The reported RMSE is defined as 'the root mean squared error of the translation component t between the vehicle map Mveh and the reference map Mref,' where the transform (R,t) is estimated by Arun's method on the inlier correspondences S returned by CLIPPER. As written, this quantity is the least-squares residual on the same points used for the fit, so it is small by construction and does not indicate whether the rover's global pose is correct. The paper does not state that Tref_veh was applied to the vehicle trajectory and compared with the simulator's ground-truth poses recorded at 20 Hz (Section IV-A). This is a load-bearing issue because the central 'sub-cm' claim rests entirely on Table IV. Please recompute the metric as the error of the estimated rover pose against the simulator ground truth, and specify the metric formula explicitly.
  2. [Abstract / Section V / Table IV] The abstract claims 'sub-cm level accuracy,' but Table IV includes an RMSE of 1.79 cm, and Section V states 'localization error less than 2 cm in all evaluated cases.' These claims are inconsistent unless 'sub-cm' is defined as 'below 2 cm,' which is nonstandard. Please align the headline claim with the reported numbers and define the threshold precisely.
  3. [Section V and Related Work] The claim of 'significantly outperforming the state of the art in lunar global localization' is not supported by the experiments: none of the closest baselines from the related work (SOS-Match [6], ROMAN [16], Ankenbauer et al. [14]) are run on the LunarLoc dataset or in the Lunar Simulator. Table I compares different modalities, reference data types, and environments (e.g., orbital imagery-based terrain relative navigation), so it does not constitute a controlled comparison. Please include direct baseline evaluations on the same data or substantially temper the comparison claim.
  4. [Section IV-A / Section V] The experiments cover a single 27 m x 27 m simulated environment with a fixed rock field and no variation in lighting, viewpoint, or terrain beyond the listed traverses. The abstract's claim of global localization 'in visually ambiguous settings' is therefore not evaluated. Please add experiments that vary lighting conditions or at least restrict the claims to what the experiments actually test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A, Eq. (3)] The symbol alpha is described only as 'angular resolution'; please give units and the numeric value used for the IPEx cameras so the size estimate is reproducible.
  2. [Section IV-A / Section III-A] The text says the cameras are arranged in two sets of stereo-pairs, but Section III-A mentions front-left and rear-left cameras for segmentation and other cameras for stereo depth; please clarify which cameras provide which data.
  3. [Table I] Consider adding a column indicating the reference data type (e.g., orbital imagery vs. onboard map) so readers are not misled into reading Table I as a like-for-like comparison.
  4. [Bibliography] References [14], [23], [24], [25], and [26] have inconsistent formatting (some with author lists, some without); please normalize the bibliography.
  5. [Figure 6 caption] The caption mentions 'Scenarios 1, 2 and 3,' but the text refers to Paths and traverse numbers; please align the terminology.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Table IV RMSE is computed on the same inlier correspondences used for the least-squares transform fit, so the reported 'localization error' is a fitting residual, not an independent pose error.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B (transform estimation) and Section V / Table IV (RMSE definition)]
    "Given the resulting set of geometrically consistent segment correspondences S={(a_i,b_i)}^k_{i=1} ... we estimate the rigid transformation that aligns the current vehicle map to the reference map using Arun's method [29]. This produces the optimal rotation R∈SO(3) and translation t∈R^3 minimizing: ∑_{i=1}^k ||b_i−(R a_i + t)||^2. ... To evaluate the localization performance of LunarLoc, we report the tracking performance defined by the root mean squared error of the translation component t between the vehicle map Mveh and the reference map Mref."

    The transform T is chosen by Arun's method to minimize the sum of squared residuals over the inlier correspondences S found by CLIPPER. The Table IV RMSE is defined between the same two maps after applying 'Transformations returned by LunarLoc', and the paper never states that the RMSE is evaluated on held-out correspondences or on ground-truth rover poses. Since S is the only set of matched points available, the reported RMSE is the root-mean-square of the very objective minimized during fitting: a residual on the fitting set. Such residuals are small by construction once enough inliers are used, so they do not measure localization accuracy against the environment. The simulator records ground-truth rover poses at 20 Hz (Table III) and Fig.

full rationale

LunarLoc's algorithmic pipeline is self-contained: zero-shot segmentation, graph-based data association, and Arun's least-squares alignment are standard components with no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz-smuggling. The circularity is concentrated in the evaluation. Section III-B defines the transform as the minimizer of the sum of squared residuals over the inlier set S, and Section V reports the RMSE between the vehicle and reference maps after applying that transform. If, as the paper's language suggests, this RMSE is computed over the same correspondences S used to fit T, then Table IV reports the optimized fitting residual, not an independent localization error; the 0.08–1.79 cm values are then partly forced by the least-squares construction rather than by correctness of the global pose. The paper never mentions comparison with the simulator's recorded ground-truth rover poses, even though those are available at 20 Hz, and the abstract's 'sub-cm level accuracy' claim is contradicted by the 1.79 cm row even on its own terms. This warrants a partial circularity score of 6: the central quantitative prediction reduces by construction to the fitting objective unless an independent evaluation protocol is supplied.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of hand-chosen filtering thresholds, an assumed simulation fidelity, the static boulder assumption, and the fidelity of the graph matching to find true correspondences. None of these are independently validated in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Segment size thresholds s_min, s_max = not reported
    Used in Eq. (5) to filter masks; values are hand-chosen and not stated, so the reader cannot reproduce the filtering.
  • Elongation threshold tau_elong = not reported
    Used in Eq. (4) to reject anisotropic masks; hand-chosen, unreported.
  • Prompt grid size 32x32 = 32x32
    Density of point prompts for FastSAM; hand-chosen, no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Boulder positions are static across sessions and serve as stable landmarks.
    The whole method depends on rocks not moving and being detectable at roughly the same 3D positions in multi-session maps. Entered in Section I and III-A.
  • domain assumption The CARLA-based Lunar Simulator and its perfect pinhole grayscale cameras faithfully represent lunar imaging and stereo depth accuracy.
    Evaluation is entirely in simulation; the claimed accuracy presupposes sim-to-real transfer. Stated in Section IV-A.
  • domain assumption CLIPPER's densest clique recovers the true, not merely self-consistent, segment correspondences.
    The method trusts the largest geometrically consistent set of associations (Eq. 7) without an independent check against ground-truth correspondences. Section III-B.
  • domain assumption FastSAM provides consistent zero-shot segmentation of boulders across viewpoints and lighting.
    Segmentation consistency is assumed rather than measured; no segmentation accuracy is reported. Section III-A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LunarLoc: Segment-Based Global Localization on the Moon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PY2VADYR

@misc{pith2026250616940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LunarLoc: Segment-Based Global Localization on the Moon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PY2VADYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16940}
}
read the original abstract

Global localization is necessary for autonomous operations on the lunar surface where traditional Earth-based navigation infrastructure, such as GPS, is unavailable. As NASA advances toward sustained lunar presence under the Artemis program, autonomous operations will be an essential component of tasks such as robotic exploration and infrastructure deployment. Tasks such as excavation and transport of regolith require precise pose estimation, but proposed approaches such as visual-inertial odometry (VIO) accumulate odometry drift over long traverses. Precise pose estimation is particularly important for upcoming missions such as the ISRU Pilot Excavator (IPEx) that rely on autonomous agents to operate over extended timescales and varied terrain. To help overcome odometry drift over long traverses, we propose LunarLoc, an approach to global localization that leverages instance segmentation for zero-shot extraction of boulder landmarks from onboard stereo imagery. Segment detections are used to construct a graph-based representation of the terrain, which is then aligned with a reference map of the environment captured during a previous session using graph-theoretic data association. This method enables accurate and drift-free global localization in visually ambiguous settings. LunarLoc achieves sub-cm level accuracy in multi-session global localization experiments, significantly outperforming the state of the art in lunar global localization. To encourage the development of further methods for global localization on the Moon, we release our datasets publicly with a playback module: https://github.com/mit-acl/lunarloc-data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16940 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LunarLoc uses open-set segmentation to generate maps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Extraction of segment locations via open-set segmentation with FastSAM [7]. Images include a front-view image taken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. IPEx rover diagram where the front-left camera and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrative example of the consistency graph and its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Lunar Simulator includes a lunar lander at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ground truth traverses from the Lunar Simulator used to evaluate LunarLoc. Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 refer to traverses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: All traverses available in the LunarLoc dataset shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Sos-match: Segmentation for open-set robust correspondence search and robot localization in unstruc- tured environments,

    A. Thomas, J. Kinnari, P. C. Lusk, K. Kondo, and J. P. How, “Sos-match: Segmentation for open-set robust correspondence search and robot localization in unstruc- tured environments,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024, pp. 5613–5620

    work page 2024

  2. [16]

    Roman: Open-set object map alignment for robust view-invariant global localization,

    M. B. Peterson, Y . X. Jia, Y . Tian, A. Thomas, and J. P. How, “Roman: Open-set object map alignment for robust view-invariant global localization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08262, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [14]

    Global Localization in Unstructured Environments using Semantic Object Maps Built from Various Viewpoints

    J. Ankenbauer, P. C. Lusk, and J. P. How, “Global localization in unstructured environments using seman- tic object maps built from various viewpoints,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04658, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [1]

    Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly super- vised place recognition,

    R. Arandjelovic, P. Gronat, A. Torii, T. Pajdla, and J. Sivic, “Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly super- vised place recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 5297–5307

    work page 2016

  5. [2]

    Dinov2: Learn- ing robust visual features without supervision,

    M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V . V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, R. Howes, P.-Y . Huang, H. Xu, V . Sharma, S.-W. Li, W. Galuba, M. Rabbat, M. Assran, N. Ballas, G. Synnaeve, I. Misra, H. Jegou, J. Mairal, P. Labatut, A. Joulin, and P. Bojanowski, “Dinov2: Learn- ing robust visual features withou...

    work page 2023

  6. [3]

    Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,

    D. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 60, pp. 91–, 11 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [4]

    Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf,

    E. Rublee, V . Rabaud, K. Konolige, and G. Bradski, “Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf,” in2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, 2011, pp. 2564–2571

    2011

  8. [5]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,”Commu- nications of the ACM, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    work page 1981

Show all 30 references
  1. [7]

    Fast segment anything,

    X. Zhao, W. Ding, Y . An, Y . Du, T. Yu, M. Li, M. Tang, and J. Wang, “Fast segment anything,” 2023

    2023

  2. [8]

    Fab-map: Probabilistic localization and mapping in the space of appearance,

    M. Cummins and P. Newman, “Fab-map: Probabilistic localization and mapping in the space of appearance,” The International journal of robotics research, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 647–665, 2008

    2008

  3. [9]

    From coarse to fine: Robust hierarchical localization at large scale,

    P.-E. Sarlin, C. Cadena, R. Siegwart, and M. Dymczyk, “From coarse to fine: Robust hierarchical localization at large scale,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 12 716–12 725

    2019

  4. [10]

    AnyLoc: To- wards universal visual place recognition,

    N. Keetha, A. Mishra, J. Karhade, K. M. Jatavallabhula, S. Scherer, M. Krishna, and S. Garg, “AnyLoc: To- wards universal visual place recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00688, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Su- perpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description,

    D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “Su- perpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 2018, pp. 224–236

    2018

  6. [12]

    Efficient off-road localiza- tion using visually corrected odometry,

    M. Grimes and Y . LeCun, “Efficient off-road localiza- tion using visually corrected odometry,” in2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2009, pp. 2649–2654

    2009

  7. [13]

    Autonomous vehi- cle navigation in rural environments without detailed prior maps,

    T. Ort, L. Paull, and D. Rus, “Autonomous vehi- cle navigation in rural environments without detailed prior maps,” in2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 2040– 2047

    2018

  8. [15]

    Yolov3: An incremental improvement,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “Yolov3: An incremental improvement,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02767, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Open-set semantic un- certainty aware metric-semantic graph matching,

    K. Singh and J. J. Leonard, “Open-set semantic un- certainty aware metric-semantic graph matching,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11555, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ge- omorphic/Geologic Mapping, Localization, and Traverse Planning at the Opportunity Landing Site, Mars,

    T. J. Parker, M. P. Golombek, and M. W. Powell, “Ge- omorphic/Geologic Mapping, Localization, and Traverse Planning at the Opportunity Landing Site, Mars,” in41st Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, ser. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Mar. 2010, p. 2638

    2010

  11. [19]

    Surface navigation and mobility intelligence on the mars exploration rovers. in intelligence for space robotics,

    M. Maimone, J. Biesiadecki, E. Tunstel, Y . Cheng, and C. Leger, “Surface navigation and mobility intelligence on the mars exploration rovers. in intelligence for space robotics,” 01 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Johnson, A

    A. Johnson, A. Ansar, L. Matthies, N. Trawny, A. Mourikis, and S. Roumeliotis,A General Approach to Terrain Relative Navigation for Planetary Landing. [Online]. Available: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/ 6.2007-2854

    2007

  13. [21]

    Topographical landmarks for ground-level terrain relative navigation on mars,

    J. V . Hook, R. Schwartz, K. Ebadi, K. Coble, and C. Pad- gett, “Topographical landmarks for ground-level terrain relative navigation on mars,” in2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO), 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  14. [22]

    The world’s first gps mooc and worldwide laboratory using smartphones,

    F. van Diggelen and P. Enge, “The world’s first gps mooc and worldwide laboratory using smartphones,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2015), Tampa, Florida, Sep. 2015, pp. 361– 369

    2015

  15. [23]

    A Minimal State Augmentation Algorithm for Vision-Based Navigation without Using Mapped Landmarks,

    M. A. San Martin, D. S. Bayard, D. T. Conway, M. Mandic, and E. S. Bailey, “A Minimal State Augmentation Algorithm for Vision-Based Navigation without Using Mapped Landmarks,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/2014/46668

    2017

  16. [24]

    Flying a helicopter on mars: How ingenuity’s flights were planned, executed, and analyzed,

    H. F. Grip, D. Conway, J. Lam, N. Williams, M. P. Golombek, R. Brockers, M. Mischna, and M. R. Cacan, “Flying a helicopter on mars: How ingenuity’s flights were planned, executed, and analyzed,” in2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO), 2022, pp. 1–17

    2022

  17. [25]

    Lunarnav: Crater-based localization for long-range autonomous lunar rover navigation,

    S. Daftry, Z. Chen, Y . Cheng, S. Tepsuporn, B. Coltin, U. Naam, L. M. Ma, S. Khattak, M. Deans, and L. Matthies, “Lunarnav: Crater-based localization for long-range autonomous lunar rover navigation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.01350

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shadownav: Autonomous global localization for lunar navigation in darkness,

    D. Atha, R. Michael Swan, A. Cauligi, A. Bettens, E. Goh, D. Kogan, L. Matthies, and M. Ono, “Shadownav: Autonomous global localization for lunar navigation in darkness,”IEEE Transactions on Field Robotics, vol. 1, p. 213–230, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.11...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Lunar autonomy challenge documen- tation,

    Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab- oratory, “Lunar autonomy challenge documen- tation,” 2024, accessed: 2025-05-15. [Online]. Available: https://lunar-autonomy-challenge.jhuapl.edu/ Challenge-Documentation/index.php#introduction

    2024

  20. [28]

    Clipper: A graph-theoretic framework for robust data association,

    P. C. Lusk, K. Fathian, and J. P. How, “Clipper: A graph-theoretic framework for robust data association,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 828–13 834

    2021

  21. [29]

    Least- squares fitting of two 3-D point sets,

    K. S. Arun, T. S. Huang, and S. D. Blostein, “Least- squares fitting of two 3-D point sets,”IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. PAMI-9, no. 5, pp. 698–700, 1987

    1987

  22. [30]

    CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,” inProceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2017, pp. 1–16

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.