Dynamically Weighted Factor-Graph for Feature-based Geo-localization

Feature-based geo-localization relies on associating features extracted from aerial imagery with those detected by the vehicle's sensors. This requires that the type of landmarks must be observable from both sources. This no-variety of feature types generates poor representations that lead to outliers and deviations, produced by ambiguities and lack of detections respectively. To mitigate these drawbacks, in this paper, we present a dynamically weighted factor graph model for the vehicle's trajectory estimation. The weight adjustment in this implementation depends on information quantification in the detections performed using a LiDAR sensor. Also, a prior (GNSS-based) error estimation is included in the model. Then, when the representation becomes ambiguous or sparse, the weights are dynamically adjusted to rely on the corrected prior trajectory, mitigating in this way outliers and deviations. We compare our method against state-of-the-art geo-localization ones in a challenging ambiguous environment, where we also cause detection losses. We demonstrate mitigation of the mentioned drawbacks where the other methods fail.

Detection and depth estimation for domestic waste in outdoor environments by sensors fusion

In this work, we estimate the depth in which domestic waste are located in space from a mobile robot in outdoor scenarios. As we are doing this calculus on a broad range of space (0.3 - 6.0 m), we use RGB-D camera and LiDAR fusion. With this aim and range, we compare several methods such as average, nearest, median and center point, applied to those which are inside a reduced or non-reduced Bounding Box (BB). These BB are obtained from segmentation and detection methods which are representative of these techniques like Yolact, SOLO, You Only Look Once (YOLO)v5, YOLOv6 and YOLOv7. Results shown that, applying a detection method with the average technique and a reduction of BB of 40%, returns the same output as segmenting the object and applying the average method. Indeed, the detection method is faster and lighter in comparison with the segmentation one. The committed median error in the conducted experiments was 0.0298 ${\pm}$ 0.0544 m.