pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.10692 · v2 · submitted 2025-03-12 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.RO

Exploring the best way for UAV visual localization under Low-altitude Multi-view Observation Condition: a Benchmark

Yibin Ye , Xichao Teng , Shuo Chen , Leqi Liu , Kun Wang , Xiaokai Song , Zhang Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 00:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.RO
keywords UAVvisual localizationbenchmarkdatasetlow-altitudemulti-viewAVL
0
0 comments X

The pith

A benchmark for low-altitude UAV visual localization reaches 74.1 percent accuracy within 5 meters using the best combination of existing methods.

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

The paper constructs a large-scale dataset called AnyVisLoc with 18,000 multi-view low-altitude UAV images paired with 2.5D reference maps from aerial and satellite sources. It then builds a unified framework to evaluate multiple state-of-the-art absolute visual localization approaches under these challenging conditions of extreme viewpoint changes. The best performing combination is selected as a baseline, which attains 74.1 percent localization accuracy within 5 meters, while a new metric PDM@K is proposed to better suit the UAV task. This work aims to highlight the difficulties in GNSS-denied low-altitude multi-view scenarios and guide future improvements.

Core claim

Under low-altitude multi-view conditions, a unified framework integrating state-of-the-art AVL approaches identifies a best combined method that achieves 74.1 percent localization accuracy within 5 m on the new AnyVisLoc dataset, with the introduction of the PDM@K metric aiding evaluation.

What carries the argument

The AnyVisLoc dataset with its 2.5D reference maps and the unified framework that integrates and tests state-of-the-art AVL approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The AnyVisLoc dataset and its 2.5D reference maps accurately represent the extreme viewpoint changes and real-world conditions in operational low-altitude multi-view UAV flights.

What would settle it

Testing the baseline on a fresh collection of low-altitude multi-view UAV flights in new scenes where accuracy within 5 m falls substantially below 74.1 percent would falsify the reported performance level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.10692 by Kun Wang, Leqi Liu, Shuo Chen, Xiaokai Song, Xichao Teng, Yibin Ye, Zhang Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Benchmark Overview. This benchmark focuses on UAV visual localization under low-altitude multi-view observation condition using the 2.5D aerial or satellite reference maps. The vi￾sual localization is mainly achieved via a unified framework com￾bining image retrieval, image matching, and PnP problem solving. and jamming [49], while INS suffers from drifting over time [22]. Consequently, there is a growing … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pitch Angle and Flight Altitude Distribution. 3.2. Data Characteristics • Multi-altitude: Our dataset covers low-altitude flight conditions from 30m to 300m (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dataset Overview. The AnyVisLoc dataset contians Multi-scene, Multi-altitude, and Multi-view UAV images taken in 15 cities across China, as well as aerial and satellite reference maps. Each UAV image shows its flight altitude and pitch angle below. tion. After offline reconstruction, DJI Terra’s quality re￾ports show an average reprojection error of 1.0 pixel and an average geo-registration error of 0.1 me… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of PDM@K. (a) Different retrieval metric comparison. For clarity in the same figure, we have converted the spatial distance di of SDM@1 to Ri and the threshold for Recall@1 is set to 0.5. (b) Different parameter combinations for PDM@1. (c) Relation between localization accuracy and Ri. This curve is based on the actual AVL experiment results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the relation between Ri in PDM@K and subsequent localization accuracy. For the retrieval score function f(Ri) (see Fig. 4b), α determines the Ri threshold at which the score drops, while λ controls the sharpness of the decay. When Ri exceeds the normalized diagonal length of the image, l (e.g., l = 1.67 when the aspect ratio of drone image is 4:3), there is no overlap between the images, r… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Challenging Cases for UAV AVL. The Low-altitude Multi-view condition presents greater challenge for image re￾trieval (a) and image matching (b). Temporal and modality dif￾ferences in satellite maps makes localization more difficult (c). however, pre-aerial photography and precise 3D modeling of the flight area are required, making them less suitable for time-sensitive missions (e.g., emergency rescue) or l… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of Pitch Angle on Localization Accuracy. A smaller pitch angle tends to reduce localization accuracy. This section analyzed the localization results across dif￾ferent pitch angles. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Absolute Visual Localization (AVL) enables an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to determine its position in GNSS-denied environments by establishing geometric relationships between UAV images and geo-tagged reference maps. While many previous works have achieved AVL with image retrieval and matching techniques, research in low-altitude multi-view scenarios still remains limited. Low-altitude multi-view conditions present greater challenges due to extreme viewpoint changes. To investigate effective UAV AVL approaches under such conditions, we present this benchmark. Firstly, a large-scale low-altitude multi-view dataset called AnyVisLoc was constructed. This dataset includes 18,000 images captured at multiple scenes and altitudes, along with 2.5D reference maps containing aerial photogrammetry maps and historical satellite maps. Secondly, a unified framework was proposed to integrate the state-of-the-art AVL approaches and comprehensively test their performance. The best combined method was chosen as the baseline, and the key factors influencing localization accuracy are thoroughly analyzed based on it. This baseline achieved a 74.1% localization accuracy within 5 m under low-altitude, multi-view conditions. In addition, a novel retrieval metric called PDM@K was introduced to better align with the characteristics of the UAV AVL task. Overall, this benchmark revealed the challenges of low-altitude, multi-view UAV AVL and provided valuable guidance for future research. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/UAV-AVL/Benchmark

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a benchmark for absolute visual localization (AVL) of UAVs in low-altitude multi-view conditions. It constructs the AnyVisLoc dataset (18,000 images across scenes and altitudes with 2.5D reference maps from aerial photogrammetry and satellite imagery), proposes a unified framework integrating state-of-the-art AVL methods, selects the best combined method as baseline (reporting 74.1% accuracy within 5 m), introduces the PDM@K retrieval metric, analyzes key factors affecting accuracy, and releases the dataset and code.

Significance. If the central empirical results hold, the work supplies a concrete performance baseline and open resources for a challenging UAV AVL regime. The dataset and code release, together with the held-out test evaluation, constitute a clear strength that supports reproducibility and future comparisons.

major comments (2)
  1. [Dataset construction] Dataset construction section: the manuscript describes collection of the 18,000-image AnyVisLoc corpus but supplies no quantitative comparison (e.g., histograms or statistics) of altitude ranges, viewpoint-angle distributions, or scene diversity against operational UAV flight logs or other public low-altitude corpora; this directly affects whether the 74.1% figure can be interpreted as performance under the stated operating regime.
  2. [Results / experimental setup] Experimental results / baseline selection: the abstract and results sections state that 'the best combined method was chosen as the baseline' and report 74.1% accuracy, yet provide no detail on the selection procedure, whether post-hoc filtering was applied, or how error bars / confidence intervals were computed; these omissions make the central numerical claim difficult to assess for robustness.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Metric definition] The motivation and precise definition of the new PDM@K metric could be expanded with a short comparison table against standard retrieval metrics to clarify its alignment with UAV AVL task characteristics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and constructive comments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Dataset construction] Dataset construction section: the manuscript describes collection of the 18,000-image AnyVisLoc corpus but supplies no quantitative comparison (e.g., histograms or statistics) of altitude ranges, viewpoint-angle distributions, or scene diversity against operational UAV flight logs or other public low-altitude corpora; this directly affects whether the 74.1% figure can be interpreted as performance under the stated operating regime.

    Authors: We agree that providing quantitative comparisons would help contextualize the dataset within operational UAV conditions. Although the AnyVisLoc dataset was designed to include diverse altitudes, viewpoints, and scenes, the original manuscript did not include such comparative statistics. In the revised version, we will incorporate histograms and statistical summaries of altitude ranges, viewpoint-angle distributions, and scene diversity, and discuss their relation to other public corpora where feasible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / experimental setup] Experimental results / baseline selection: the abstract and results sections state that 'the best combined method was chosen as the baseline' and report 74.1% accuracy, yet provide no detail on the selection procedure, whether post-hoc filtering was applied, or how error bars / confidence intervals were computed; these omissions make the central numerical claim difficult to assess for robustness.

    Authors: We will revise the experimental setup section to provide a clear description of the baseline selection procedure, specifying the combinations evaluated within the unified framework and the selection criterion. No post-hoc filtering was applied to the results. We will also report error bars or confidence intervals for the accuracy metric to better convey robustness. These additions will be included in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical benchmark on newly constructed dataset

full rationale

The paper constructs the AnyVisLoc dataset (18k images + 2.5D maps) and evaluates existing AVL methods inside a unified framework, selecting the best performer and reporting its 74.1% accuracy at the 5 m threshold on held-out test imagery. No mathematical derivation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain is present; the central quantitative claim is a direct empirical measurement rather than a quantity forced by construction from the paper's own inputs. The new PDM@K metric is introduced as an auxiliary evaluation tool but does not alter the non-circular status of the accuracy result. This is a standard self-contained benchmark study whose results stand or fall on the representativeness of the released data, not on any internal reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical representativeness of the newly collected imagery and the validity of the chosen evaluation protocol; no mathematical free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 18,000 images and 2.5D maps in AnyVisLoc capture the distribution of viewpoint changes and scene types that matter for operational low-altitude UAV flights.
    Dataset construction paragraph implicitly treats the collected scenes and altitudes as representative.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5819 in / 1300 out tokens · 49885 ms · 2026-05-23T00:42:26.380932+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Weather-Robust Cross-View Geo-Localization via Prototype-Based Semantic Part Discovery

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SkyPart uses learnable prototypes for patch grouping, altitude modulation only in training, graph-attention readout, and Kendall-weighted loss to set new state-of-the-art single-pass performance on SUES-200, Universit...

  2. Seeing Across Skies and Streets: Feedforward 3D Reconstruction from Satellite, Drone, and Ground Images

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Cross3R performs feed-forward 3D reconstruction and 6-DoF pose estimation from any combination of satellite, UAV, and ground images, outperforming baselines on a new 278K-image tri-view dataset.

  3. Beyond Matching to Tiles: Bridging Unaligned Aerial and Satellite Views for Vision-Only UAV Navigation

    cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Bearing-UAV predicts UAV location and heading directly from cross-view image features, yielding lower localization error than tile-matching methods across diverse terrains on a new multi-city benchmark.

  4. Weather-Robust Cross-View Geo-Localization via Prototype-Based Semantic Part Discovery

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SkyPart achieves state-of-the-art single-pass cross-view geo-localization on SUES-200, University-1652, and DenseUAV by using prototype-based part discovery, altitude-conditioned modulation, and Kendall-weighted loss,...

  5. SCC-Loc: A Unified Semantic Cascade Consensus Framework for UAV Thermal Geo-Localization

    cs.CV 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    SCC-Loc achieves 9.37 m mean localization error for UAV thermal images against satellite references, a 7.6-fold gain inside the 5 m threshold over prior methods, using a shared DINOv2 backbone plus three new semantic-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/ content/202306/content_6888799.htm, 2023

    Interim regulations on the flight management of unmanned aerial vehicles. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/ content/202306/content_6888799.htm, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition

    Relja Arandjelovic, Petr Gronat, Akihiko Torii, Tomas Pa- jdla, and Josef Sivic. Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition. In CVPR, pages 5297–5307,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Surf: Speeded up robust features

    Herbert Bay, Tinne Tuytelaars, and Luc Van Gool. Surf: Speeded up robust features. In ECCV, pages 404–417. Springer, 2006. 2

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Deep visual geo-localization benchmark

    Gabriele Berton, Riccardo Mereu, Gabriele Trivigno, Carlo Masone, Gabriela Csurka, Torsten Sattler, and Barbara Ca- puto. Deep visual geo-localization benchmark. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5396–5407, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Uav localization using autoencoded satellite images

    Mollie Bianchi and Timothy D Barfoot. Uav localization using autoencoded satellite images. IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters, 6(2):1761–1768, 2021. 1

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    G ´omez Rodr´ıguez, Jos´e M

    Carlos Campos, Richard Elvira, Juan J. G ´omez Rodr´ıguez, Jos´e M. M. Montiel, and Juan D. Tard ´os. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 37(6): 1874–1890, 2021. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A review of uav autonomous navigation in gps- denied environments

    Yingxiu Chang, Yongqiang Cheng, Umar Manzoor, and John Murray. A review of uav autonomous navigation in gps- denied environments. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , page 104533, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Os-fpi: A coarse-to-fine one-stream network for uav geo-localization

    Jiahao Chen, Enhui Zheng, Ming Dai, Yifu Chen, and Yusheng Lu. Os-fpi: A coarse-to-fine one-stream network for uav geo-localization. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Real-time geo-localization using satellite imagery and topography for unmanned aerial vehicles

    Shuxiao Chen, Xiangyu Wu, Mark W Mueller, and Koushil Sreenath. Real-time geo-localization using satellite imagery and topography for unmanned aerial vehicles. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2275–2281. IEEE, 2021. 4, 7

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    An oblique-robust absolute vi- sual localization method for gps-denied uav with satellite im- agery

    Yuan Chen and Jie Jiang. An oblique-robust absolute vi- sual localization method for gps-denied uav with satellite im- agery. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing, 2023. 1, 2, 3

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    A review on ab- solute visual localization for uav

    Andy Couturier and Moulay A Akhloufi. A review on ab- solute visual localization for uav. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 135:103666, 2021. 1, 3

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    A transformer-based feature segmentation and region align- ment method for uav-view geo-localization

    Ming Dai, Jianhong Hu, Jiedong Zhuang, and Enhui Zheng. A transformer-based feature segmentation and region align- ment method for uav-view geo-localization. IEEE TCSVT, 32(7):4376–4389, 2021. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Vision-based uav self- positioning in low-altitude urban environments.IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 2023

    Ming Dai, Enhui Zheng, Zhenhua Feng, Lei Qi, Jiedong Zhuang, and Wankou Yang. Vision-based uav self- positioning in low-altitude urban environments.IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description

    Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabi- novich. Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description. In CVPRw, 2018. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Sam- ple4geo: Hard negative sampling for cross-view geo- localisation

    Fabian Deuser, Konrad Habel, and Norbert Oswald. Sam- ple4geo: Hard negative sampling for cross-view geo- localisation. In ICCV, pages 16847–16856, 2023. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Detection and Description of Lo- cal Features

    Mihai Dusmanu, Ignacio Rocco, Tomas Pajdla, Marc Polle- feys, Josef Sivic, Akihiko Torii, and Torsten Sattler. D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Detection and Description of Lo- cal Features. In CVPR, 2019. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    DKM: Dense kernelized feature matching for geometry estimation

    Johan Edstedt, Ioannis Athanasiadis, M ˚arten Wadenb ¨ack, and Michael Felsberg. DKM: Dense kernelized feature matching for geometry estimation. In CVPR, 2023. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Dedode: Detect, don’t de- scribe—describe, don’t detect for local feature matching

    Johan Edstedt, Georg B ¨okman, M ˚arten Wadenb ¨ack, and Michael Felsberg. Dedode: Detect, don’t de- scribe—describe, don’t detect for local feature matching. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 148–157. IEEE, 2024. 4, 7

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    RoMa: Robust Dense Feature Matching

    Johan Edstedt, Qiyu Sun, Georg B ¨okman, M ˚arten Wadenb¨ack, and Michael Felsberg. RoMa: Robust Dense Feature Matching. CVPR, 2024. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Complete solution classification for the perspective-three-point problem

    Xiao-Shan Gao, Xiao-Rong Hou, Jianliang Tang, and Hang-Fei Cheng. Complete solution classification for the perspective-three-point problem. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 25(8):930–943,

    work page

  21. [21]

    Vision-based gnss-free localization for uavs in the wild

    Marius-Mihail Gurgu, Jorge Pe ˜na Queralta, and Tomi West- erlund. Vision-based gnss-free localization for uavs in the wild. In 2022 7th International Conference on Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research (ICMERR), pages 7–12. IEEE, 2022. 2, 3, 4, 7

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Leveraging map retrieval and alignment for robust uav visual geo-localization

    Mengfan He, Jiacheng Liu, Pengfei Gu, and Ziyang Meng. Leveraging map retrieval and alignment for robust uav visual geo-localization. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Foundloc: Vision-based onboard aerial localization in the wild

    Yao He, Ivan Cisneros, Nikhil Keetha, Jay Patrikar, Zelin Ye, Ian Higgins, Yaoyu Hu, Parv Kapoor, and Sebastian Scherer. Foundloc: Vision-based onboard aerial localization in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16299, 2023. 1

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Game4loc: A uav geo-localization benchmark from game data

    Yuxiang Ji, Boyong He, Zhuoyue Tan, and Liaoni Wu. Game4loc: A uav geo-localization benchmark from game data. In AAAI, 2025. 3

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Omniglue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance

    Hanwen Jiang, Arjun Karpur, Bingyi Cao, Qixing Huang, and Andr´e Araujo. Omniglue: Generalizable feature match- ing with foundation model guidance. In CVPR, pages 19865–19875, 2024. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Learn- ing to make keypoints sub-pixel accurate

    Shinjeong Kim, Marc Pollefeys, and Daniel Barath. Learn- ing to make keypoints sub-pixel accurate. In ECCV, 2024. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Joint representa- tion learning and keypoint detection for cross-view geo- localization

    Jinliang Lin, Zhedong Zheng, Zhun Zhong, Zhiming Luo, Shaozi Li, Yi Yang, and Nicu Sebe. Joint representa- tion learning and keypoint detection for cross-view geo- localization. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (TIP),

    work page

  28. [28]

    LightGlue: Local Feature Matching at Light Speed

    Philipp Lindenberger, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, and Marc Polle- feys. LightGlue: Local Feature Matching at Light Speed. In ICCV, 2023. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    A convnet for the 2020s

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feicht- enhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. CVPR, 2022. 5 9

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    D. G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 60(2):91–110, 2004. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    Raising the ceiling: Conflict- free local feature matching with dynamic view switching

    Xiaoyong Lu and Songlin Du. Raising the ceiling: Conflict- free local feature matching with dynamic view switching. In ECCV, pages 256–273. Springer, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Assisting uav localization via deep contextual image matching

    Muhammad Hamza Mughal, Muhammad Jawad Khokhar, and Muhammad Shahzad. Assisting uav localization via deep contextual image matching. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 14:2445–2457, 2021. 1, 2, 3

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Xfeat: Accelerated fea- tures for lightweight image matching

    Guilherme Potje, Felipe Cadar, Andr ´e Araujo, Renato Mar- tins, and Erickson R Nascimento. Xfeat: Accelerated fea- tures for lightweight image matching. InCVPR, pages 2682– 2691, 2024. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    SuperGlue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks

    Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. SuperGlue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks. In CVPR, 2020. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Vpair-aerial visual place recognition and localization in large-scale outdoor environments

    Michael Schleiss, Fahmi Rouatbi, and Daniel Cremers. Vpair-aerial visual place recognition and localization in large-scale outdoor environments. arXiv:2205.11567, 2022. 1, 3

    work page arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Mccg: A convnext-based multiple- classifier method for cross-view geo-localization

    Tianrui Shen, Yingmei Wei, Lai Kang, Shanshan Wan, and Yee-Hong Yang. Mccg: A convnext-based multiple- classifier method for cross-view geo-localization. IEEE TCSVT, 2023. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Gim: Learning generalizable image matcher from internet videos

    Xuelun Shen, Zhipeng Cai, Wei Yin, Matthias M ¨uller, Zijun Li, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Cheng Wang. Gim: Learning generalizable image matcher from internet videos. In ICLR, 2024. 7

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Oblique aerial image matching based on iterative simulation and homography evaluation

    Woo-Hyuck Song, Hong-Gyu Jung, In-Youb Gwak, and Seong-Whan Lee. Oblique aerial image matching based on iterative simulation and homography evaluation. Pattern Recognition, 87:317–331, 2019. 2, 3

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers

    Jiaming Sun, Zehong Shen, Yuang Wang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers. In CVPR, 2021. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Absolute localization using image alignment and particle fil- tering

    Gerald J Van Dalen, Daniel P Magree, and Eric N Johnson. Absolute localization using image alignment and particle fil- tering. In AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Confer- ence, page 0647, 2016. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    Unmanned aerial vehicle oblique image registration using an asift-based matching method

    Chengyi Wang, Jingbo Chen, Jiansheng Chen, Anzhi Yue, Dongxu He, Qingqing Huang, and Yi Zhang. Unmanned aerial vehicle oblique image registration using an asift-based matching method. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing , 12 (2):025002–025002, 2018. 3

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    Each part matters: Local patterns facilitate cross-view geo- localization

    Tingyu Wang, Zhedong Zheng, Chenggang Yan, Jiyong Zhang, Yaoqi Sun, Bolun Zheng, and Yi Yang. Each part matters: Local patterns facilitate cross-view geo- localization. IEEE TCSVT, 32(2):867–879, 2021. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Efficient loftr: Semi-dense local feature matching with sparse-like speed

    Yifan Wang, Xingyi He, Sida Peng, Dongli Tan, and Xiaowei Zhou. Efficient loftr: Semi-dense local feature matching with sparse-like speed. In CVPR, pages 21666–21675, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Se- quence matching for image-based uav-to-satellite geolocal- ization

    Zhen Wang, Dianxi Shi, Chunping Qiu, Songchang Jin, Tongyue Li, Yanyan Shi, Zhe Liu, and Ziteng Qiao. Se- quence matching for image-based uav-to-satellite geolocal- ization. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens- ing, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Camp: A cross-view geo-localization method using contrastive attributes mining and position-aware partitioning

    Qiong Wu, Yi Wan, Zhi Zheng, Yongjun Zhang, Guang- shuai Wang, and Zhenyang Zhao. Camp: A cross-view geo-localization method using contrastive attributes mining and position-aware partitioning. IEEE Transactions on Geo- science and Remote Sensing, 2024. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Uavd4l: A large-scale dataset for uav 6-dof localization

    Rouwan Wu, Xiaoya Cheng, Juelin Zhu, Xuxiang Liu, Mao- jun Zhang, and Shen Yan. Uavd4l: A large-scale dataset for uav 6-dof localization. In International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Enhancing cross-view geo-localization with domain alignment and scene consistency

    Panwang Xia, Yi Wan, Zhi Zheng, Yongjun Zhang, and Jiwei Deng. Enhancing cross-view geo-localization with domain alignment and scene consistency. IEEE TCSVT, 2024. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Uav-visloc: A large- scale dataset for uav visual localization

    Wenjia Xu, Yaxuan Yao, Jiaqi Cao, Zhiwei Wei, Chunbo Liu, Jiuniu Wang, and Mugen Peng. Uav-visloc: A large- scale dataset for uav visual localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11936, 2024. 2, 3

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Deepsim: Gps spoofing de- tection on uavs using satellite imagery matching

    Nian Xue, Liang Niu, Xianbin Hong, Zhen Li, Larissa Hof- faeller, and Christina P ¨opper. Deepsim: Gps spoofing de- tection on uavs using satellite imagery matching. In Pro- ceedings of the 36th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, page 304–319, New York, NY , USA, 2020. As- sociation for Computing Machinery. 1

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    A coarse-to-fine visual geo- localization method for gnss-denied uav with oblique-view imagery

    Qin Ye, Junqi Luo, and Yi Lin. A coarse-to-fine visual geo- localization method for gnss-denied uav with oblique-view imagery. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 212:306–322, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 7

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    isimloc: Visual global local- ization for previously unseen environments with simulated images

    Peng Yin, Ivan Cisneros, Shiqi Zhao, Ji Zhang, Howie Choset, and Sebastian Scherer. isimloc: Visual global local- ization for previously unseen environments with simulated images. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(3):1893–1909,

    work page 1909

  52. [52]

    Vision-based absolute localization for unmanned aerial vehicles

    Aurelien Yol, Bertrand Delabarre, Amaury Dame, Jean- Emile Dartois, and Eric Marchand. Vision-based absolute localization for unmanned aerial vehicles. In2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 3429–3434. IEEE, 2014. 2, 4, 5, 6

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    Automated accurate registration method between uav image and google satellite map

    Yijie Yuan, Wei Huang, Xiangxin Wang, Huaiyu Xu, Hongy- ing Zuo, and Ruidan Su. Automated accurate registration method between uav image and google satellite map. Mul- timedia Tools and Applications, 79:16573–16591, 2020. 4, 7

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Alike: Accurate and lightweight keypoint detection and descriptor extraction

    Xiaoming Zhao, Xingming Wu, Jinyu Miao, Weihai Chen, Peter CY Chen, and Zhengguo Li. Alike: Accurate and lightweight keypoint detection and descriptor extraction. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 25:3101–3112, 2022. 2, 4, 7

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    University- 1652: A multi-view multi-source benchmark for drone- based geo-localization

    Zhedong Zheng, Yunchao Wei, and Yi Yang. University- 1652: A multi-view multi-source benchmark for drone- based geo-localization. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on Multimedia , pages 1395–1403,

    work page

  56. [56]

    Sues-200: A multi-height multi- scene cross-view image benchmark across drone and satel- lite

    Runzhe Zhu, Ling Yin, Mingze Yang, Fei Wu, Yuncheng Yang, and Wenbo Hu. Sues-200: A multi-height multi- scene cross-view image benchmark across drone and satel- lite. IEEE TCSVT, 33(9):4825–4839, 2023. 2, 3 10

    work page 2023