Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 38 references

PEnG: Pose-Enhanced Geo-Localisation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PEnG combines cross-view geo-localisation with relative pose estimation to cut median street-view localisation error in Manhattan from 734 m to 22.77 m, a 96.9% reduction.

desk verdict The architectural idea is new and the ablation is honest, but the headline 22.77m median may be inflated by self-retrieval because the paper never states a query/reference split. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15742 v1 pith:RVAUVMK6 submitted 2024-11-24 cs.CV cs.AIcs.RO

Tavis Shore , Oscar Mendez , Simon Hadfield This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.RO
keywords cross-viewgeo-localisationrelativeposeestimationgraph-basedcitylocalisationstreet-viewimagerysatelliteurbancanyonnavigationrefinementvisual
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

Cross-view geo-localisation normally retrieves the nearest satellite tile, so its accuracy is capped by how far apart the reference tiles are; with sparse sampling that cap sits in the hundreds of metres. PEnG tries to break that cap by treating the city as a graph of road junctions and road segments, then adding a continuous pose-estimation stage that localises the query image along the predicted road edge. The paper reports that this two-stage combination cuts median Euclidean error on 90-degree-FOV StreetLearn Manhattan queries from the previous best of 734 m to 22.77 m, a 96.9% reduction, with a 213% relative gain in Top-5m accuracy and some queries reaching centimetre-level precision. The significance, if the claim holds, is that camera-only localisation in GNSS-denied urban canyons can move from coarse region retrieval toward a practically usable pose.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a city graph \(G=(N,Q,E)\) with two node classes: primary nodes \(N\) at road junctions and secondary nodes \(Q\) placed at intervals along the edges \(E\) that connect junctions. This graph densifies the reference set (median adjacent-secondary-node spacing 9.83 m, versus 116 m between primary nodes) and gives every edge a known yaw, which is what makes the second stage possible. Stage 1 is graph-based cross-view retrieval over primary-node satellite embeddings; stage 2 is relative pose estimation along candidate edges, where a transformer network predicts dense 3D pointmaps for image pairs, RANSAC+PnP solves the relative pose, and the result is scored against a precomputed median edge rotation ('pose prior') using a weighted [1, 0.25, 1] X/Y/Z rotational error. The argument's force comes from chaining a coarse graph retrieval that prunes the city to a handful of edges with a continuous pose solver that no longer depends on tile spacing.

What would settle it

Take a set of StreetLearn Manhattan queries whose ground-truth positions lie off the road graph (or rotate the query crops so their yaw is not aligned with any adjacent edge), run PEnG, and measure median error; if error stays near the stage-1 retrieval level instead of the reported 22.77 m, the road-edge and yaw assumptions are the load-bearing cause of the gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the two viewpoints already present in cross-view geo-localisation datasets—street-level panoramas and overhead satellite imagery—can be used twice: once for coarse retrieval and once for metric pose refinement, and that this is enough to reach sub-metre accuracy at city scale. PEnG first retrieves candidate road junctions (primary nodes) from a city graph using a siamese CNN embedding, then, for each candidate junction, runs relative pose estimation against densely placed secondary nodes along the connected road edges, using transformer-predicted 3D pointmaps solved by RANSAC and PnP. Precomputed reference poses for each edge ('pose priors') and a compass-style yaw filter narrow the search and stabilise the refinement. The reported outcome is a median error of 22.77 m with 90° horizontal FOV images over a 36.1 km² Manhattan region, compared with 734 m for the best prior method, with the ablation showing each added stage—second pose, pose priors—contributing a measurable improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the query image was taken on a mapped road, facing along that road, so the graph provides a matching edge and yaw; if the camera is in a parking lot, alley, or anywhere off the graph, the pose-refinement stage has no edge to work with and the claimed precision cannot be produced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Localisation precision stops being bounded by satellite tile spacing: the secondary-node graph plus continuous pose estimates push the practical resolution of cross-view geo-localisation from hundreds of metres toward metres and, in some queries, centimetres.
  • A cheap compass-style yaw filter on candidate edges is claimed to be a broadly applicable precision boost; the paper applies it to all baselines and still reports large gains, so the improvement is not an artifact of unfair comparison.
  • The two-stage design is not tied to one first-stage model: results are reported both with a plain ConvNeXt-T retriever and with the SpaGBOL graph-based retriever (PEnG*), and both outperform prior single-stage methods.
  • With 90° FOV images the method reaches median 22.77 m and Top-25m recall above 51%, while 70° images give 26.82 m and 120° images degrade to 37.72 m, indicating the pipeline is sensitive to the information/resolution trade-off of the input crop.
  • The approach makes camera-only localisation a plausible fallback in GNSS-denied urban canyons: a vehicle with a forward monocular camera and a precomputed city graph could estimate its position without satellite navigation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the compass filter and edge assumption require the query camera to face along a mapped road, real-world deployment would likely need a separate heading estimator; a query with unknown orientation would need to try multiple yaw hypotheses, multiplying the pose-estimation cost.
  • The reported comparison augments single-stage baselines with an oracle refinement that matches against ground-truth secondary-node satellite images; the fact that PEnG still wins suggests the pose-estimation stage contributes genuine metric information rather than just denser references, but the gap might shrink on datasets with irregular road geometry or heavier foliage.
  • The same stage-2 pose-refinement head could be grafted onto any future cross-view retriever, so the paper's main transferable idea is the separation of discrete graph retrieval from continuous pose refinement rather than the specific CNN backbone.
  • A natural stress test is to run PEnG on European cities with irregular junctions and varying building heights: Manhattan's grid gives unusually clean edge yaws and consistent urban canyon geometry, so out-of-distribution graph structures may weaken the edge-scoring step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PEnG, a two-stage system for city-scale cross-view geo-localisation. Stage 1 uses graph-based cross-view image retrieval on primary road-junction nodes to identify candidate edges; Stage 2 runs relative pose estimation along those edges, using precomputed reference poses of secondary nodes, to output a refined 3-DoF pose. The method is evaluated on the StreetLearn Manhattan dataset with 70°, 90°, and 120° horizontal FOV crops, reporting a median euclidean error of 22.77 m at 90° FOV versus a previous best of 734 m, a Top-5m accuracy of 29.18%, and a 96.90% reduction in median error. An ablation study attributes the improvement to the pose-refinement stages and to precomputing reference poses.

Significance. If the reported results hold, PEnG would be a substantial advance in precision for cross-view geo-localisation, demonstrating that combining coarse retrieval with relative pose estimation can overcome the tile-spacing limits of pure retrieval. The paper includes a clear ablation, a sensible compass-filtering heuristic, and a promise of code release and pretrained weights, which would aid reproducibility. The main contributions are empirically grounded and the headline improvement is large, but the evaluation protocol currently contains ambiguities and unfair baseline augmentations that need to be resolved before the central claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-A and Section III-B] The paper never states whether the query images are excluded from the reference graph. Section IV-A says all 53,289 StreetLearn images are converted into a graph, and Section III-B builds the reference database from this graph and runs relative pose estimation 'against all reference images' on candidate edges. If a query image is itself a graph node on the selected edge, then Stage 2 can match the query to its own streetview/satellite pair, producing a zero-baseline pose estimate. This would directly inflate the Top-1m/Top-5m values and the median-error improvement. The authors must specify the exact query/reference split, or explicitly state that every query is a held-out image not present in the graph, and ideally report leave-one-out or disjoint-set results.
  2. [Section IV-D] The comparison baseline is unfair as stated: 'we augment these baselines with a secondary refinement stage where the same technique is run again, but only required to match against the ground-truth satellite images of the corresponding secondary nodes.' This gives the baselines oracle knowledge of the correct secondary node, which is infeasible in real operation. The headline claim of a 96.90% reduction from the previous best of 734 m is therefore a comparison against an oracle-boosted baseline, not against the published performance of those methods. The authors should also report results against the standard, unmodified baseline protocols, or clearly label the oracle-augmented numbers as a separate upper-bound comparison.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV-D] The abstract's claim of 'enhance precision to a sub-metre level' is an overstatement of the reported results. The median error is 22.77 m and Top-1m accuracy is 9.12%, so sub-metre localisation applies only to a minority of queries. The phrase should be qualified as 'some examples achieve sub-metre or centimetre-level accuracy' or similar, consistent with the data in Table II.
  4. [Section III-A and Section III-B] The method implicitly assumes that every query image is captured on a road segment represented as an edge in the graph, with the camera facing along the road. This is stated in the methodology but the coverage limitation is never acknowledged or tested. The authors should explicitly state that the method cannot localise queries that lie off the graph (e.g., parking lots, alleys, or newly constructed roads) and evaluate what fraction of typical urban queries fall inside the graph coverage, or provide a failure analysis for such cases.
  5. [Tables I and II] No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated-run statistics are reported anywhere in the evaluation. The headline numbers are single-point estimates from a single evaluation pass, and the system contains stochastic components (training, RANSAC, pose optimisation). The authors should report variance across at least a few seeds or provide per-query error distributions with confidence intervals, especially for the 22.77 m median and the Top-K percentages in Tables I and II.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV-D] The text contains a typographical duplicate percent sign in '96.90%% reduction' and 'approx 213%% increase'.
  2. [Section III-A] There is a typo in the set notation 'i ∈ {M anhattan, ...}' where 'M anhattan' should be 'Manhattan'.
  3. [Section V] The conclusion says the method reduces median distance errors 'to often centimetre level accuracy', but the data show only a small fraction of queries reach centimetre accuracy; this statement should be softened to match the quantitative results.
  4. [Figure 6] The CDF plot would be easier to interpret if the x-axis were shown in log scale, since the vast majority of mass is below 100 m and the differences among methods near zero are not visible on the current linear scale.
  5. [Section II-B] The related-work section mentions SpaGBOL and BEV-CV, which are the authors' own prior works, but it does not clearly distinguish which components of PEnG are newly proposed relative to those papers until Section III. A short sentence in Section II-B stating the novelty of the two-stage pose-refinement idea would help the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline median error is partly forced by construction: the query streetview is never excluded from the graph/reference set used for relative-pose estimation, so RPE can match a query to itself.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B (PEnG Procedure, Algorithm 1) and Section IV-A (Datasets)]
    ""Position along an edge is estimated against all reference images" ... "I pairs = exhaustive(Ecand + I street)" ... "The city's data are converted from unconnected images into a graph representation. This contains 53,289 images, comprising 2,622 primary nodes and 50,667 secondary nodes.""

    The graph is built from all StreetLearn images and no query/reference split or leave-one-out exclusion is reported. Algorithm 1 pairs the query streetview with all reference images on candidate edges. Since every query image is one of the 53,289 graph nodes (50,667 of them secondary), the pair (query, query) is available whenever the correct edge is a candidate. Relative pose estimation on an identical image pair returns identity rotation and zero translation, so the predicted position is the query's own graph position by construction. The paper criticises previous works for '0m error when they correctly retrieve the corresponding correct satellite image' but never states how PEnG avoids the analogous self-match in its streetview-to-streetview RPE stage.

full rationale

The system itself is not a derivation from a fitted parameter; it is a learned two-stage pipeline evaluated on StreetLearn. However, the evaluation protocol creates a construction-level circularity for the headline numbers: the reference gallery for the relative-pose stage is the full set of graph nodes, with no stated removal of the query. Because RPE compares streetview images to streetview reference images, a query that is itself a node can be paired with itself, yielding an exact pose by construction. This is a form of fitted-input-called-prediction: the reference set contains the ground-truth image for most queries, so the reported precision is partly forced rather than measured on unseen poses. The self-citations to SpaGBOL and BEV-CV are present but not load-bearing for the main comparison, which also uses external baselines (L2LTR, GeoDTR+, Sample4Geo). The off-graph coverage limitation is an assumption, not a circularity. If a future version documents a query/reference split and excludes the query from RPE references, the circularity concern would be resolved; as written, the paper does not report such a split.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The graph with primary and secondary nodes is a data structure, not a postulated entity. The central claim rests on a few hand-set thresholds and on domain assumptions about graph coverage, yaw availability, and the transferability of an off-the-shelf pose estimator.

free parameters (6)
  • confidence_threshold_theta_c = 0.9
    Minimum retrieval confidence for a candidate primary node to enter stage 2; chosen by the authors, affects the number of RPE runs and is not swept or justified.
  • median_pose_error_threshold_theta_re = 3 degrees
    Stopping threshold for pose refinement; authors state it is 3 degrees but do not report sensitivity or how it was selected.
  • yaw_filter_threshold = not specified
    Configurable yaw threshold for filtering graph edges by compass heading; the value is never given, yet it determines which edges are considered in stage 2.
  • rotational_error_axis_weights = [1, 0.25, 1]
    Weights for roll/pitch/yaw in the rotational error metric used for stopping and scoring; chosen by hand with the comment that roll has smaller impact.
  • max_candidates_k = not specified
    Upper bound on number of candidate primary nodes passed to stage 2; mentioned in Eq. 3 but no value is given.
  • secondary_node_sampling_density = median spacing 9.83m
    The distribution of secondary nodes along edges (varying intervals) is a design choice that sets the precision upper bound; the paper does not explain how intervals were chosen.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The query street-view image is captured on a road segment that is present as an edge in the city graph.
    Stage 2 only searches candidate edges from a retrieved primary node (Section III-B); off-graph locations have no representation.
  • domain assumption The camera yaw (north-aligned heading) is known for both query and reference images.
    The compass filter discards edges based on yaw (Section III-B2); the StreetLearn dataset provides yaw values, but real deployments require an external heading source.
  • domain assumption Relative pose estimation (Mast3r) trained on generic image collections transfers to limited-FOV street-view crops with sufficient accuracy.
    The pose stage uses a transformer pointmap network 'inspired by [14]' without fine-tuning or a separate validation of pose accuracy on street-view data (Section III-B2).
  • domain assumption The graph representation and satellite images are geographically aligned to the query street-view images.
    Evaluation matches query images to graph nodes; any misalignment between the StreetLearn street-view positions and satellite imagery would propagate into the error metric.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PEnG: Pose-Enhanced Geo-Localisation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVAUVMK6

@misc{pith2026241115742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PEnG: Pose-Enhanced Geo-Localisation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVAUVMK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15742}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-view Geo-localisation is typically performed at a coarse granularity, because densely sampled satellite image patches overlap heavily. This heavy overlap would make disambiguating patches very challenging. However, by opting for sparsely sampled patches, prior work has placed an artificial upper bound on the localisation accuracy that is possible. Even a perfect oracle system cannot achieve accuracy greater than the average separation of the tiles. To solve this limitation, we propose combining cross-view geo-localisation and relative pose estimation to increase precision to a level practical for real-world application. We develop PEnG, a 2-stage system which first predicts the most likely edges from a city-scale graph representation upon which a query image lies. It then performs relative pose estimation within these edges to determine a precise position. PEnG presents the first technique to utilise both viewpoints available within cross-view geo-localisation datasets to enhance precision to a sub-metre level, with some examples achieving centimetre level accuracy. Our proposed ensemble achieves state-of-the-art precision - with relative Top-5m retrieval improvements on previous works of 213%. Decreasing the median euclidean distance error by 96.90% from the previous best of 734m down to 22.77m, when evaluating with 90 degree horizontal FOV images. Code will be made available: tavisshore.co.uk/PEnG

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PEnG Stages: 1) City-scale satellite image with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Section of Manhattan graph with primary (orange) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. 2-Stage system diagram. Stage 1 retrieves scaled similarities of reference embeddings for the latest seen primary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pose estimates within each candidate edge are scored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative Distribution Functions show the significant decrease in distance error achieved with PEnG. Previous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The streetlearn environment and dataset, 2019

    Piotr Mirowski, Andras Banki-Horvath, Keith Anderson, De- nis Teplyashin, Karl Moritz Hermann, Mateusz Malinowski, Matthew Koichi Grimes, Karen Simonyan, Koray Kavukcuoglu, An- drew Zisserman, and Raia Hadsell. The streetlearn environment and dataset, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Monocular Vision for Mobile Robot Localization and Autonomous Navigation

    Eric Royer, Maxime Lhuillier, Michel Dhome, and Jean-Marc Lavest. Monocular Vision for Mobile Robot Localization and Autonomous Navigation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 74(3):237–260, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    From structure-from-motion point clouds to fast location recognition

    Arnold Irschara, Christopher Zach, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Horst Bischof. From structure-from-motion point clouds to fast location recognition. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2599–2606, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Efficient & ef- fective prioritized matching for large-scale image-based localization

    Torsten Sattler, Bastian Leibe, and Leif Kobbelt. Efficient & ef- fective prioritized matching for large-scale image-based localization. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 39(9):1744–1756, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Scene coordinate regression forests for camera relocalization in rgb-d images

    Jamie Shotton, Ben Glocker, Christopher Zach, Shahram Izadi, An- tonio Criminisi, and Andrew William Fitzgibbon. Scene coordinate regression forests for camera relocalization in rgb-d images. 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2930–2937, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization

    Alex Kendall, Matthew Grimes, and Roberto Cipolla. Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof camera relocalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2938–2946, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Geometric loss functions for camera pose regression with deep learning, 2017

    Alex Kendall and Roberto Cipolla. Geometric loss functions for camera pose regression with deep learning, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Dsac - differen- tiable ransac for camera localization, 2018

    Eric Brachmann, Alexander Krull, Sebastian Nowozin, Jamie Shotton, Frank Michel, Stefan Gumhold, and Carsten Rother. Dsac - differen- tiable ransac for camera localization, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Vidloc: A deep spatio-temporal model for 6-dof video- clip relocalization, 2017

    Ronald Clark, Sen Wang, Andrew Markham, Niki Trigoni, and Hongkai Wen. Vidloc: A deep spatio-temporal model for 6-dof video- clip relocalization, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    From coarse to fine: Robust hierarchical localization at large scale

    Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Cesar Cadena, Roland Siegwart, and Marcin Dymczyk. From coarse to fine: Robust hierarchical localization at large scale. In CVPR, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Map-free visual relocalization: Metric pose relative to a single image

    Eduardo Arnold, Jamie Wynn, Sara Vicente, Guillermo Garcia- Hernando, ´Aron Monszpart, Victor Adrian Prisacariu, Daniyar Tur- mukhambetov, and Eric Brachmann. Map-free visual relocalization: Metric pose relative to a single image. In ECCV, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Chris Rockwell, Nilesh Kulkarni, Linyi Jin, Jeong Joon Park, Justin Johnson, and David F. Fouhey. Far: Flexible, accurate and robust 6dof relative camera pose estimation. In CVPR, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy. In CVPR, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and J ´erˆome Revaud. Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Crossfire: Camera relocalization on self-supervised features from an implicit representa- tion

    Arthur Moreau, Nathan Piasco, Moussab Bennehar, Dzmitry Tsishkou, Bogdan Stanciulescu, and Arnaud de La Fortelle. Crossfire: Camera relocalization on self-supervised features from an implicit representa- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer...

    2023

  8. [16]

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

    Sijie Zhu, Mubarak Shah, and Chen Chen. Transgeo: Transformer is all you need for cross-view image geo-localization. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 1152–1161, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Simple, effective and general: A new backbone for cross-view image geo- localization, 2023

    Yingying Zhu, Hongji Yang, Yuxin Lu, and Qiang Huang. Simple, effective and general: A new backbone for cross-view image geo- localization, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bev-cv: Birds-eye- view transform for cross-view geo-localisation, 2023

    Tavis Shore, Simon Hadfield, and Oscar Mendez. Bev-cv: Birds-eye- view transform for cross-view geo-localisation, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    On the location dependence of convolutional neural network features

    Scott Workman and Nathan Jacobs. On the location dependence of convolutional neural network features. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 70–78, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Learn- ing deep representations for ground-to-aerial geolocalization

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Yin Cui, Serge Belongie, and James Hays. Learn- ing deep representations for ground-to-aerial geolocalization. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5007–5015, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    V o and James Hays

    Nam N. V o and James Hays. Localizing and orienting street views using overhead imagery. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

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

    2018

  15. [23]

    Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition

    Relja Arandjelovi ´c, Petr Gron ´at, Akihiko Torii, Tom ´as Pajdla, and Josef Sivic. Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 40:1437–1451, 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 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 5617–5626, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    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. In Neural Information Processing Systems , 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    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. ArXiv, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

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

    Yujiao Shi, Xin Yu, Dylan Campbell, and Hongdong Li. Where am i looking at? joint location and orientation estimation by cross- view matching. 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4063–4071, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Coming down to earth: Satellite-to-street view synthesis for geo- localization

    Aysim Toker, Qunjie Zhou, Maxim Maximov, and Laura Leal-Taix’e. Coming down to earth: Satellite-to-street view synthesis for geo- localization. 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 6484–6493, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Hongji Yang, Xiufan Lu, and Ying J. Zhu. Cross-view geo-localization with layer-to-layer transformer. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Cross-view geo-localization via learning disentangled geo- metric layout correspondence, 2023

    Xiaohan Zhang, Xingyu Li, Waqas Sultani, Yi Zhou, and Safwan Wshah. Cross-view geo-localization via learning disentangled geo- metric layout correspondence, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Geodtr+: Toward generic cross-view geolocalization via geometric disentanglement, 2023

    Xiaohan Zhang, Xingyu Li, Waqas Sultani, Chen Chen, and Safwan Wshah. Geodtr+: Toward generic cross-view geolocalization via geometric disentanglement, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sample4geo: Hard negative sampling for cross-view geo-localisation, 2023

    Fabian Deuser, Konrad Habel, and Norbert Oswald. Sample4geo: Hard negative sampling for cross-view geo-localisation, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Spagbol: Spatial- graph-based orientated localisation, 2024

    Tavis Shore, Oscar Mendez, and Simon Hadfield. Spagbol: Spatial- graph-based orientated localisation, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fischler and Robert C

    Martin A. Fischler and Robert C. Bolles. Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM, 24(6):381–395, June 1981

    1981

  27. [35]

    Wide-area image geolocalization with aerial reference imagery

    Scott Workman, Richard Souvenir, and Nathan Jacobs. Wide-area image geolocalization with aerial reference imagery. In IEEE Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 1–9, 2015. Acceptance rate: 30.3%

    2015

  28. [36]

    A convnet for the 2020s

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s. Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei- Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 248–255, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    Cross-view geo- localization with layer-to-layer transformer

    Hongji Yang, Xiufan Lu, and Yingying Zhu. Cross-view geo- localization with layer-to-layer transformer. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y . Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, ed- itors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 29009–29020. C...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.