Paper Reading AI Learner

Evaluation of Front-End Feature Matching for Lunar Visual SLAM

2026-10-22 05:52:13
Guillem Casadesus Vila, Grace Gao

Abstract

Lunar rovers will primarily rely on cameras for localization until navigation satellite services are deployed, and will continue to need them afterwards for relative navigation, hazard detection, and surface operations. Visual odometry (VO) and Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) mostly estimate motion by matching features between frames. However, feature matchers are developed on urban, indoor and driving scenes, planetary studies compare them on orbital registration or within complete SLAM systems, and real lunar imagery with reference poses is scarce, so matching between rover frames on low-texture, harshly lit terrain, and its effect on VO, has not been compared. We benchmark eleven classical and learned detector-matcher combinations on nine synthetic, lunar-testbed, and terrestrial-analogue datasets, and a feature tracker, scoring pairwise pose accuracy against baseline and the trajectory error of the resulting VO. Under a common rotation-only metric, the SuperPoint pairings outperform SIFT with ratio-tested FLANN matching on both lunar testbeds and one analogue site, with smaller or unresolved differences on synthetic data. When rotation and translation direction are scored jointly, this SIFT pairing exceeds both SuperPoint pairings on four synthetic datasets, so synthetic results alone do not establish relative performance on real rover imagery. In stereo VO, the SuperPoint pairings are not consistently more accurate than SIFT, but only they keep tracking on all eight sequential datasets. Pairings with classical detectors depend on lighting while SuperPoint changes little: a low spotlight makes them more accurate than diffuse light on the same testbed views, consistent with more contrast and detected keypoints. SuperPoint with LightGlue is the fastest learned combination (16 ms per frame), and DINOv2 retrieval proposals still need geometric verification.

Abstract (translated)

URL

https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30774

PDF

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.30774.pdf


Tags
3D Action Action_Localization Action_Recognition Activity Adversarial Agent Attention Autonomous Bert Boundary_Detection Caption Chat Classification CNN Compressive_Sensing Contour Contrastive_Learning Deep_Learning Denoising Detection Dialog Diffusion Drone Dynamic_Memory_Network Edge_Detection Embedding Embodied Emotion Enhancement Face Face_Detection Face_Recognition Facial_Landmark Few-Shot Gait_Recognition GAN Gaze_Estimation Gesture Gradient_Descent Handwriting Human_Parsing Image_Caption Image_Classification Image_Compression Image_Enhancement Image_Generation Image_Matting Image_Retrieval Inference Inpainting Intelligent_Chip Knowledge Knowledge_Graph Language_Model LLM Matching Medical Memory_Networks Multi_Modal Multi_Task NAS NMT Object_Detection Object_Tracking OCR Ontology Optical_Character Optical_Flow Optimization Person_Re-identification Point_Cloud Portrait_Generation Pose Pose_Estimation Prediction QA Quantitative Quantitative_Finance Quantization Re-identification Recognition Recommendation Reconstruction Regularization Reinforcement_Learning Relation Relation_Extraction Represenation Represenation_Learning Restoration Review RNN Robot Salient Scene_Classification Scene_Generation Scene_Parsing Scene_Text Segmentation Self-Supervised Semantic_Instance_Segmentation Semantic_Segmentation Semi_Global Semi_Supervised Sence_graph Sentiment Sentiment_Classification Sketch SLAM Sparse Speech Speech_Recognition Style_Transfer Summarization Super_Resolution Surveillance Survey Text_Classification Text_Generation Time_Series Tracking Transfer_Learning Transformer Unsupervised Video_Caption Video_Classification Video_Indexing Video_Prediction Video_Retrieval Visual_Relation VQA Weakly_Supervised Zero-Shot