Rajitha de Silva, Jonathan Cox, James R. Heselden, Marija Popović, Cesar Cadena, Riccardo Polvara
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Reliable localisation in vineyards is hindered by row-level perceptual aliasing: parallel crop rows produce nearly identical LiDAR observations, causing geometry-only and vision-based SLAM systems to converge towards incorrect corridors, particularly during headland transitions. We present a Semantic Landmark Particle Filter (SLPF) that integrates trunk and pole landmark detections with 2D LiDAR within a probabilisti ...
c localisation framework. Detected trunks are converted into semantic walls, forming structural row boundaries embedded in the measurement model to improve discrimination between adjacent rows. GNSS is incorporated as a lightweight prior that stabilises localisation when semantic observations are sparse. Field experiments in a 10-row vineyard demonstrate consistent improvements over geometry-only (AMCL), vision-based (RTAB-Map), and GNSS baselines. Compared to AMCL, SLPF reduces Absolute Pose Error by 22% and 65% across two traversal directions; relative to a NoisyGNSS baseline, APE decreases by 65% and 61%. Row correctness improves from 0.67 to 0.73, while mean cross-track error decreases from 1.40 m to 1.26 m. These results show that embedding row-level structural semantics within the measurement model enables robust localisation in highly repetitive outdoor agricultural environments.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Reliable localisation in vineyards is hindered by row-level perceptual aliasing: parallel crop rows produce nearly identical LiDAR observations, causing geometry-only and vision-based SLAM systems to converge towards incorrect corridors, particularly during headland transitions.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
None detected
Methods
None detected
Domains
Computer vision
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.