Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Cross-View Image Set Geo-Localization

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unordered sets of ground photos, fused by similarity, make cross-view geo-localization substantially more accurate.

desk verdict Genuine new task and large benchmark, but the 22% headline is overstated and the dataset arithmetic is internally inconsistent (480k/16,530 ≈ 29, not 40). read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18852 v1 pith:IJHFG6B3 submitted 2024-12-25 cs.CV

Qiong Wu , Panwang Xia , Lei Yu , Yi Liu , Mingtao Xiong , Liheng Zhong , Jingdong Chen , Ming Yang
show 2 more authors
Yongjun Zhang Yi Wan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cross-viewgeo-localizationimagesetretrievalmulti-perspectivequerysatellitematchingcontrastivelearningfeaturefusionbenchmark
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

The paper proposes a new version of cross-view geo-localization called Set-CVGL: instead of matching one ground photo or an ordered video clip to a satellite image, the query is an unordered set of ground-level photos taken from varied perspectives near one place. To study the task, the authors introduce SetVL-480K, with 480,000 ground images and 16,530 satellite reference tiles spanning six cities, and each tile has about 40 ground images on average. They also present FlexGeo, which encodes each ground image with a shared backbone, fuses the set with a similarity-guided feature fuser, and adds per-image geo-attribute learning. On SetVL-480K, FlexGeo with four-image sets reaches 39.48% Recall@1-N, more than 22 percentage points above the best prior method tested, and it transfers to sequence-based SeqGeo and KITTI-CVL without relying on image order.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the unordered image set as the query unit, carried by two FlexGeo modules. The Similarity-guided Feature Fuser (SFF) computes a cosine-similarity matrix among the ground features in a set, turns it into an adjacency matrix, and assigns each feature a weight inverse to its summed similarity, so distinctive content dominates the fused vector while redundant views are down-weighted. The Individual-level Attributes Learner (IAL) concatenates each ground feature with its satellite feature and runs three classification heads for city, quadrant position, and orientation, plus an individual contrastive loss, so images with low fusion weight still shape the backbone during training. At inference only the fused ground vector and the satellite vector are compared.

What would settle it

A human audit of a random sample of SetVL-480K query sets: if more than a small fraction of the ground images in a set are farther apart than the intended capture radius, or fall outside their paired satellite tile, then the labels used for training and Recall@K-N are wrong, and the reported advantage over baselines could come from label leakage instead of from set-based fusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' terms, the central discovery is that an unordered set of ground images, fused with similarity-aware weights, produces a query representation that matches satellite reference imagery more reliably than single images or sequence-dependent aggregations. FlexGeo reaches 39.48% Recall@1-N on SetVL-480K with four-image sets, an improvement of more than 22 percentage points over the strongest comparison method at 16.86%, and it outperforms sequence-based methods on SeqGeo and on KITTI-CVL's Recall@1 even though it never uses image order. The design that carries this result has two parts: the Similarity-guided Feature Fuser (SFF) down-weights redundant views and up-weights distinctive ones, and the Individual-level Attributes Learner (IAL) keeps each image accountable through per-image contrastive losses and prediction of the city, relative position, and orientation of that image. The paper concludes that set-based, order-free querying is a more natural and stronger formulation of cross-view geo-localization than the single-image and sequence setups used previously.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the benchmark's ground-truth correspondences are correct: every ground image in a query set really was captured close to the same place and really belongs to the satellite tile it is paired with, which is not manually verified and whose allowed radius the paper never states for SetVL-480K.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On SetVL-480K, increasing the query set from one to four images raises FlexGeo's Recall@1-N from 18.05% to 39.48%, and the gain is steep up to eight images, so even a couple of extra photos substantially help localization.
  • Similarity-guided fusion is worth more than average pooling: the ablation moves Recall@1-N from 32.31% without either module to 34.73% with SFF, 38.54% with IAL, and 39.48% with both.
  • FlexGeo handles single-image, sequence, and set inputs with the same weights, making the set formulation a superset of existing cross-view geo-localization tasks.
  • On KITTI-CVL, where each sequence is labeled by its first image, whole-set scoring raises Recall@1 but lowers top-5 and top-10 tolerance, because FlexGeo will not credit a reference that matches only one image in the sequence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable next step is to vary the maximum allowed distance between images inside a set; if accuracy collapses as that radius grows, the gain is coming from tight spatial coherence, which would define how far apart a user's photos can be before the method stops helping.
  • The same similarity-guided fusion idea could be applied to unordered multi-camera or multi-sensor inputs, for instance combining photos taken by several people of the same place before matching, without needing to know who was first or where each camera pointed.
  • Because the SetVL-480K correspondences come from automatically matching Google Street View locations to Esri tiles, a sample audit of those labels would directly test whether the reported 22-point advantage is real or partly an artifact of label leakage.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines a new task, Cross-View Image Set Geo-Localization (Set-CVGL), in which a query is an unordered set of ground images with diverse perspectives and the goal is to retrieve the corresponding satellite reference image. It introduces SetVL-480K, a benchmark with 480,000 ground images and 16,530 satellite references from six cities, and proposes FlexGeo, a contrastive network with two modules: a Similarity-guided Feature Fuser (SFF) that reweights features by distinctiveness and an Individual-level Attributes Learner (IAL) that adds auxiliary classification tasks for city, relative position, and orientation. The paper reports that FlexGeo outperforms existing methods on SetVL-480K and on the public SeqGeo and KITTI-CVL datasets, with a 22% improvement on SetVL-480K, and ablates the contribution of each module.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: the unordered image-set formulation is natural and underexplored, and the proposed SFF and IAL components are well motivated and clearly described. The authors also introduce a new benchmark that could support future work, and the paper is unusually explicit about some protocol choices, such as the supplementary analysis of KITTI-CVL label inconsistency. However, the central evidence rests on a newly constructed benchmark whose correspondence statistics are internally inconsistent and whose ground-truth assignment is not validated. The headline 22% figure is an ablation gain over the paper's own baseline rather than a comparison against existing methods under the same query-set protocol, and public-dataset gains are modest or mixed. The paper is internally consistent in its architecture, but the empirical claims require revision before the results can be considered established.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1] The claimed average of 40 query images per reference in Section 3.2 and Table 1 is arithmetically inconsistent with the stated totals: 480,000 ground images divided by 16,530 satellite references is approximately 29.0, not 40. Please correct the statistic or explain the discrepancy, since the dense-distribution rationale and the experiments that vary N up to 40 depend on the actual number of queries per reference.
  2. [§3.1, §3.2] The task definition in Section 3.1 requires that the maximum inter-image distance within a query set be at most R, but Section 3.2 never states the value of R used to construct SetVL-480K or reports how ground images were assigned to satellite tiles. The paper should specify the correspondence procedure, the set-construction rule, and the resulting distribution of inter-image distances. Without this information, a reader cannot rule out that some query images in a set belong to neighboring reference cells, which would contaminate both the InfoNCE training pairs and the Recall@K-N evaluation.
  3. [§5.2, Table 2, and §5.1] The headline over-22% improvement on SetVL-480K is computed relative to the paper's own baseline, namely 39.48% versus 32.31% in Table 5, not relative to any previously published method under the same protocol. In Table 2, existing methods are evaluated with single-image queries (N=1) while FlexGeo is evaluated with sets of four images (N=4), so the comparison is not apples-to-apples. To support the claimed advantage for set-based queries, the paper should adapt the baseline methods to consume four-image sets and report their performance under the same protocol, or it should explicitly state that the 22% figure is an ablation gain.
  4. [Supplementary §D.3, §5.2] The SFF hyperparameter scale is selected by evaluating different values on SetVL-480K and choosing the best (Supplementary Table 7), and the same dataset is then used for the final results in Table 2 and the ablations in Table 5. This creates a risk of overfitting the hyperparameter to the evaluation benchmark. Please use a dedicated validation split or cross-validation for hyperparameter selection, and report results with multiple random seeds or error bars so that the significance of the reported differences can be assessed.
  5. [§5.3, Table 4] The KITTI-CVL comparison is not fully fair as presented. The dataset labels each sequence by the location of its first image, while FlexGeo does not use that information and scores the sequence as a whole; the supplementary analysis itself shows that 33.08% of the N=4 sequences contain inconsistent reference labels across the query images. Under this protocol, FlexGeo's mixed performance at higher recall thresholds cannot be described as a straightforward state-of-the-art result. The paper should either adopt the original KITTI-CVL evaluation protocol or explicitly reframe the KITTI-CVL results as a different, stricter task.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §3.2] There are several grammatical and typographical errors in the dataset description, and the reference to Esri World Imagery is typeset with spaces. Please proofread the manuscript before resubmission.
  2. [Figure 4] Figure 4 has no error bars or numeric labels, and the claim of an about-30% jump from N=1 to N=8 is difficult to assess. Please provide the underlying values and, ideally, seed-averaged results.
  3. [§5.4, Table 5] The ablations are reported only on SetVL-480K with N=4. Adding an ablation on SeqGeo or KITTI-CVL would help show that SFF and IAL generalize beyond the new benchmark.
  4. [§5.3, Table 3] The SeqGeo improvement over GAReT is small (3.51% versus 3.34% Recall@1-N) and no variance is reported; the claim of state-of-the-art on SeqGeo should be qualified or supported with seed statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: FlexGeo's components are defined from input features and dataset metadata, not from the evaluation metric; only non-load-bearing self-citations and test-set hyperparameter tuning keep the score slightly above zero.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The SFF weights (Eqs. 2-3) are computed from cosine similarities among the query-set features and are not defined in terms of the retrieval labels; IAL (Eqs. 4-5) adds InfoNCE and geo-attribute cross-entropy losses during training, and the IAL branch is removed at inference. The retrieval objective (Eq. 1) is evaluated on a held-out split of SetVL-480K plus the external SeqGeo and KITTI-CVL datasets, so the headline gains are not guaranteed by construction. The only self-citations ([42] and [43]) appear in the related-work survey and are not load-bearing. A real but non-circular concern is that the SFF scale hyperparameter is selected by running an ablation on SetVL-480K itself (Supp. D.3, Tab. 7) before reporting the main SetVL-480K numbers, so the 22% improvement is subject to test-set tuning; this weakens the independence of the result but does not make it a by-construction reduction. The inconsistent 'average of 40' queries-per-reference figure (480,000/16,530 ≈ 29) is a dataset-construction arithmetic/validation issue, not circularity. No circular step meets the quote-and-reduction bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical results rest mainly on dataset correspondence assumptions and on several hyperparameters selected for the proposed benchmark. No new physical entities are introduced; SFF and IAL are computational modules assembled from standard contrastive and classification components.

free parameters (5)
  • scale (SFF) = 2
    Exponent in Eq. 2 that controls how strongly similarity suppresses a feature's fusion weight; selected by ablating on SetVL-480K (Supp. Tab. 7) and then used for the final results on the same benchmark.
  • lambda_1 (city loss) = 0.1
    Balance weight for city classification in Eq. 4; set by hand with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • lambda_2 (position loss) = 0.2
    Balance weight for relative-position classification in Eq. 4; set by hand with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • lambda_3 (orientation loss) = 0.2
    Balance weight for orientation classification in Eq. 4; set by hand with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • lambda (overall loss) = 1.0
    Balance weight between set-level InfoNCE and IAL losses in Eq. 5; set by hand with no sensitivity analysis reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each query image set is associated with exactly one reference satellite image, and all ground images in the set are captured within a small radius of the same scene.
    Section 3.1 defines sets with max pair distance <= R, and Section 3.2 constructs correspondences by matching Street View locations to Esri tiles, but R is never stated and correspondence correctness is not manually verified.
  • domain assumption The satellite tile is the correct geo-label for the whole query set even when images come from scattered perspectives.
    Section 3.2 and Eq. 1 treat one satellite image per scene as ground truth; a query image near a tile boundary could plausibly match a neighboring tile, which would introduce label noise.
  • ad hoc to paper SFF's distinctiveness-weighting heuristic (Eq. 2) is a valid fusion principle for cross-view retrieval.
    The paper motivates the inverse-similarity weighting with an intuition about unique views but provides no theoretical justification or independent validation beyond ablations on SetVL-480K (Supp. Tab. 7).
  • ad hoc to paper Evaluating KITTI-CVL query sequences as unordered whole sets is a fair comparison with CVLNet, which is trained and evaluated against first-image labels.
    Section 5.3 and Supp. D.1 acknowledge that 33.08% of the KITTI-CVL test sequences have a first-image label inconsistent with the other images; this protocol difference can disadvantage CVLNet at higher recall levels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-View Image Set Geo-Localization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJHFG6B3

@misc{pith2026241218852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-View Image Set Geo-Localization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJHFG6B3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18852}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-view geo-localization (CVGL) has been widely applied in fields such as robotic navigation and augmented reality. Existing approaches primarily use single images or fixed-view image sequences as queries, which limits perspective diversity. In contrast, when humans determine their location visually, they typically move around to gather multiple perspectives. This behavior suggests that integrating diverse visual cues can improve geo-localization reliability. Therefore, we propose a novel task: Cross-View Image Set Geo-Localization (Set-CVGL), which gathers multiple images with diverse perspectives as a query set for localization. To support this task, we introduce SetVL-480K, a benchmark comprising 480,000 ground images captured worldwide and their corresponding satellite images, with each satellite image corresponds to an average of 40 ground images from varied perspectives and locations. Furthermore, we propose FlexGeo, a flexible method designed for Set-CVGL that can also adapt to single-image and image-sequence inputs. FlexGeo includes two key modules: the Similarity-guided Feature Fuser (SFF), which adaptively fuses image features without prior content dependency, and the Individual-level Attributes Learner (IAL), leveraging geo-attributes of each image for comprehensive scene perception. FlexGeo consistently outperforms existing methods on SetVL-480K and two public datasets, SeqGeo and KITTI-CVL, achieving a localization accuracy improvement of over 22% on SetVL-480K.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18852 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the Set-CVGL Task: Using multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of query data across different datasets. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (1) Overview of the proposed FlexGeo method, featuring two modules: IAL and SFF. (2) Illustration of the FlexGeo inference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation of the number of query images. The blue line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heatmap visualization of SetVL-480K dataset images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of images in SetVL-480K. The basic world map is obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of weight adjustment results in SFF. The first column shows the reference images, while the second to fifth columns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of retrieval results. The top two rows depict successful localization cases, where the green boxes indicate correct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This behavior helps SFF avoid information redun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. SeqLoc: Beyond the Single Frame for Cross-View Geo-Localization in Feature-Sparse Scenes

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SeqLoc recursively fuses per-frame pose likelihoods with entropy weighting, map-guided relocalization, and sub-grid smoothing, raising position and orientation recall by over 50 percent on sparse rural scenes.

  2. Cross-View Localization via Redundant Sliced Observations and A-Contrario Validation

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Slice-Loc divides panoramic query images into slices, estimates each slice's 3-DoF pose, and uses an a-contrario false-alarm model to reject unreliable localizations, cutting DReSS cross-area mean error from 4.47 m to 1.86 m.

  3. Symmetry-Constrained Multi-Scale Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Graphene Electronic Band Structure Prediction

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The abstract claims a symmetry-constrained neural network reproduces graphene band structures with near-zero Dirac gap, but the manuscript body is a different paper.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Geo-localization of street views with aerial image databases

    Mayank Bansal, Harpreet S Sawhney, Hui Cheng, and Kostas Daniilidis. Geo-localization of street views with aerial image databases. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia , pages 1125–1128, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    A comprehensive survey of research towards ai-enabled unmanned aerial systems in pre-, active- , and post-wildfire management

    Sayed Pedram Haeri Boroujeni, Abolfazl Razi, Sahand Khoshdel, Fatemeh Afghah, Janice L Coen, Leo O’Neill, Pe- ter Fule, Adam Watts, Nick-Marios T Kokolakis, and Kyri- akos G Vamvoudakis. A comprehensive survey of research towards ai-enabled unmanned aerial systems in pre-, active- , and post-wildfire management. Information Fusion, page 102369, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Semantic cross-view match- ing

    Francesco Castaldo, Amir Zamir, Roland Angst, Francesco Palmieri, and Silvio Savarese. Semantic cross-view match- ing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pages 9–17, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Touchdown: Natural language navigation and spatial reasoning in visual street environments

    Howard Chen, Alane Suhr, Dipendra Misra, Noah Snavely, and Yoav Artzi. Touchdown: Natural language navigation and spatial reasoning in visual street environments. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12538–12547, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Aug- mented reality driving using semantic geo-registration

    Han-Pang Chiu, Varun Murali, Ryan Villamil, G Drew Kessler, Supun Samarasekera, and Rakesh Kumar. Aug- mented reality driving using semantic geo-registration. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User In- terfaces (VR), pages 423–430. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    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 Transac- tions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 32(7): 4376–4389, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    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

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 16847–16856, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Orientation-guided contrastive learning for uav- view geo-localisation

    Fabian Deuser, Konrad Habel, Martin Werner, and Norbert Oswald. Orientation-guided contrastive learning for uav- view geo-localisation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Workshop on UAVs in Multimedia: Capturing the World from a New Perspective, pages 7–11, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Esri world imagery

    Esri. Esri world imagery. https : / / www . arcgis . com / home / item . html ? id = 10df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Statewide visual geolocalization in the wild

    Florian Fervers, Sebastian Bullinger, Christoph Boden- steiner, Michael Arens, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. Statewide visual geolocalization in the wild. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 438–455. Springer, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research , 32(11):1231–1237, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Google street view static api

    Google. Google street view static api. https : / / developers . google . com / maps / documentation/streetview?hl=zh-cn, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    3d visual perception for self-driving cars using a multi-camera system: Calibration, mapping, localization, and obstacle de- tection

    Christian H ¨ane, Lionel Heng, Gim Hee Lee, Friedrich Fraun- dorfer, Paul Furgale, Torsten Sattler, and Marc Pollefeys. 3d visual perception for self-driving cars using a multi-camera system: Calibration, mapping, localization, and obstacle de- tection. Image and Vision Comput...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Cvm-net: Cross-view matching network for image- based ground-to-aerial geo-localization

    Sixing Hu, Mengdan Feng, Rang MH Nguyen, and Gim Hee Lee. Cvm-net: Cross-view matching network for image- based ground-to-aerial geo-localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7258–7267, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Terrain detection and segmentation for autonomous vehicle navigation: A state-of-the-art systematic review.Information Fusion, 113:102644, 2025

    Md Mohsin Kabir, Jamin Rahman Jim, and Zolt ´an Istenes. Terrain detection and segmentation for autonomous vehicle navigation: A state-of-the-art systematic review.Information Fusion, 113:102644, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Satellite image-based localization via learned embeddings

    Dong-Ki Kim and Matthew R Walter. Satellite image-based localization via learned embeddings. In 2017 IEEE interna- tional conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 2073–2080. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works. Advances in neural information processing systems , 25, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Unleashing un- labeled data: A paradigm for cross-view geo-localization

    Guopeng Li, Ming Qian, and Gui-Song Xia. Unleashing un- labeled data: A paradigm for cross-view geo-localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 16719–16729, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Learning cross-view visual geo-localization without ground truth

    Haoyuan Li, Chang Xu, Wen Yang, Huai Yu, and Gui-Song Xia. Learning cross-view visual geo-localization without ground truth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12702, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    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 , 31: 3780–3792, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Cross-view image geolocalization

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Serge Belongie, and James Hays. Cross-view image geolocalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 891–898, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Learning deep representations for ground-to-aerial geolocal- ization

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Yin Cui, Serge Belongie, and James Hays. Learning deep representations for ground-to-aerial geolocal- ization. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5007–5015, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Lending orientation to neural networks for cross-view geo-localization

    Liu Liu and Hongdong Li. Lending orientation to neural networks for cross-view geo-localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5624–5633, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    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. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition , pages 11976–11986, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi-enhanced large multimodal language model

    Dilxat Muhtar, Zhenshi Li, Feng Gu, Xueliang Zhang, and Pengfeng Xiao. Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi-enhanced large multimodal language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02544, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Repre- sentation learning with contrastive predictive coding

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Repre- sentation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Garet: Cross-view video geolocalization with adapters and auto-regressive transformers

    Manu S Pillai, Mamshad Nayeem Rizve, and Mubarak Shah. Garet: Cross-view video geolocalization with adapters and auto-regressive transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02840, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A mathematical theory of commu- nication

    Claude Elwood Shannon. A mathematical theory of commu- nication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3):379–423, 1948

    1948

  22. [30]

    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 Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Spatial- aware feature aggregation for image based cross-view geo- localization

    Yujiao Shi, Liu Liu, Xin Yu, and Hongdong Li. Spatial- aware feature aggregation for image based cross-view geo- localization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Where am i looking at? joint location and orientation es- timation by cross-view matching

    Yujiao Shi, Xin Yu, Dylan Campbell, and Hongdong Li. Where am i looking at? joint location and orientation es- timation by cross-view matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4064–4072, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Optimal feature transport for cross-view image geo- localization

    Yujiao Shi, Xin Yu, Liu Liu, Tong Zhang, and Hongdong Li. Optimal feature transport for cross-view image geo- localization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence, pages 11990–11997, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Cvl- net: Cross-view semantic correspondence learning for video- based camera localization

    Yujiao Shi, Xin Yu, Shan Wang, and Hongdong Li. Cvl- net: Cross-view semantic correspondence learning for video- based camera localization. In Asian Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 123–141. Springer, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cross-view image matching for geo-localization in urban environments

    Yicong Tian, Chen Chen, and Mubarak Shah. Cross-view image matching for geo-localization in urban environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3608–3616, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Gama: Cross- view video geo-localization

    Shruti Vyas, Chen Chen, and Mubarak Shah. Gama: Cross- view video geo-localization. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 440–456. Springer, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Learning cross-view geo- localization embeddings via dynamic weighted decorrelation regularization

    Tingyu Wang, Zhedong Zheng, Zunjie Zhu, Yuhan Gao, Yi Yang, and Chenggang Yan. Learning cross-view geo- localization embeddings via dynamic weighted decorrelation regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05296, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Multiple-environment self- adaptive network for aerial-view geo-localization

    Tingyu Wang, Zhedong Zheng, Yaoqi Sun, Chenggang Yan, Yi Yang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Multiple-environment self- adaptive network for aerial-view geo-localization. Pattern Recognition, 152:110363, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Image and object geo-localization

    Daniel Wilson, Xiaohan Zhang, Waqas Sultani, and Safwan Wshah. Image and object geo-localization. International Journal of Computer Vision, 132(4):1350–1392, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    On the location depen- dence of convolutional neural network features

    Scott Workman and Nathan Jacobs. On the location depen- dence of convolutional neural network features. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, pages 70–78, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Wide-area image geolocalization with aerial reference im- agery

    Scott Workman, Richard Souvenir, and Nathan Jacobs. Wide-area image geolocalization with aerial reference im- agery. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3961–3969, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    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, pages 1–1, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Enhancing cross-view geo-localization with do- main alignment and scene consistency

    Panwang Xia, Yi Wan, Zhi Zheng, Yongjun Zhang, and Ji- wei Deng. Enhancing cross-view geo-localization with do- main alignment and scene consistency. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , pages 1–1, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Bdd100k: A diverse driving dataset for heterogeneous multitask learning

    Fisher Yu, Haofeng Chen, Xin Wang, Wenqi Xian, Yingying Chen, Fangchen Liu, Vashisht Madhavan, and Trevor Dar- rell. Bdd100k: A diverse driving dataset for heterogeneous multitask learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition ...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Aligning geometric spatial layout in cross-view geo-localization via feature re- combination

    Qingwang Zhang and Yingying Zhu. Aligning geometric spatial layout in cross-view geo-localization via feature re- combination. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence, pages 7251–7259, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Cross- view image sequence geo-localization

    Xiaohan Zhang, Waqas Sultani, and Safwan Wshah. Cross- view image sequence geo-localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2914–2923, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    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, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Deep reinforcement learning based mobile robot navigation: A review

    Kai Zhu and Tao Zhang. Deep reinforcement learning based mobile robot navigation: A review. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 26(5):674–691, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Vigor: Cross- view image geo-localization beyond one-to-one retrieval

    Sijie Zhu, Taojiannan Yang, and Chen Chen. Vigor: Cross- view image geo-localization beyond one-to-one retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 3640–3649, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Transgeo: Trans- former is all you need for cross-view image geo-localization

    Sijie Zhu, Mubarak Shah, and Chen Chen. Transgeo: Trans- former is all you need for cross-view image geo-localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1162–1171, 2022. Cross-View Image Set Geo-Localization Supplementa...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.