2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC)

Windsor Oceanico Hotel, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, November 1-4, 2016

Precise vehicle localization in dense urban environments

Jan Rohde1 , Benjamin Völz1 , Holger Mielenz1 , J. Marius Zöllner2

Abstract— In this contribution we introduce a framework

for precise vehicle localization in dense urban environments
which are characterized by high rates of dynamic and semi-
static objects. The proposed localization method is specifically
designed to handle inconsistencies between map material and
sensor measurements. This is achieved by means of a robust
map matching procedure based on the Fourier-Mellin trans-
formation (FMT) for global vehicle pose estimation. Accurate
and reliable relative localization is obtained from a LiDAR
odometry. Consistency checks based on the cumulative sum
(CUSUM) test are instrumented for rejection of inconsistent
map matching results from the fusion procedure.
Our key contributions are: i) Introduction and adaptation
of a spectral map matching procedure based on the FMT for
urban automated driving, ii) Presentation of a framework for
efficient and robust localization in dense urban environments
based on a novel LiDAR odometry, map matching, wheel
odometry and GPS, iii) Proposal of a procedure for localization
integrity monitoring which leads to significantly increased
pose estimation accuracy. Evaluation results show the superior
performance of the proposed approach compared to another
state-of-the-art localization algorithm for a challenging urban
Fig. 1: 3D maps are created from unprocessed LiDAR scans
dataset. All maps were recorded two years in advance of the by utilization of state-of-the-art mapping algorithms. The 2D
evaluation test run. Furthermore, different LiDAR-based sensor map M(2) (black dots) contains a high number of semi-static
setups were used for mapping and localization. objects after feature extraction and projection to the ground
plane, which leads to inconsistent sensor measurements.
I. I NTRODUCTION Spectral map matching can deal with such adverse situations
For safe operation of automated vehicle systems that rely and hence, precise matching results (yellow dots) can be
on geo-referenced information from a global map, robustness calculated from inaccurate initial pose estimates (red dots)
of global localization is of crucial importance. Throughout as obtained from consumer grade GPS systems.
this contribution, we define robustness as the ability of
vehicle systems or subsystems to meet specified performance
requirements even in adverse situations. For vehicle localiza-
achieved by utilization of a spectral map matching algorithm
tion, these situations include low feature detection rates (e.g.
(compare Fig. 1). This FMT-based algorithm is characterized
due to high occlusion and false negative rates), inconsistent
by its ability to handle high outlier rates and a deterministic
localization maps and sensor measurements (e.g. due to out-
runtime behavior, which is desirable in the context of auto-
dated maps and clutter) and violations of model assumptions.
motive real-time applications and distinguishes it from most
As automated driving further enters urban environments, the
feature-based methods. It is used in combination with a 2D
occurrence rate of adverse situations, e.g. due to densely
grid environment representation. By utilization of geometric
parked cars along domestic roads and missing road markings,
features instead of intensity values (e.g. [1]), it is possible to
is likely to increase. Additionally, deterministic runtime
increase resistance against weather influences. Nonetheless,
behavior and low requirements on signal processing and map
map matching might fail in some situations. Therefore,
material are desirable in the context of automotive real-time
the pose estimation performance is further improved by
applications.
instrumentation of consistency checks to detect and reject
The proposed localization framework (Fig. 2) explicitly
erroneous map matching results before these are incorporated
addresses the aforementioned environmental circumstances
into the information fusion process. To this point, odometry
and design constraints. Robustness against inconsistencies
measurements are used as a local reference. Hence, we
between localization maps and sensor measurements is
pay special attention to precise relative pose estimation by
1 Jan Rohde and Holger Mielenz are with Robert Bosch GmbH, Corpo- introducing a suitable LiDAR odometry. The overall structure
rate Research, Vehicle Safety and Assistance Systems, 71272 Renningen, of the proposed localization framework is given in Fig. 2.
Germany
2 Johann Marius Zöllner is with Research Center for Information Tech- Our main contributions are: i) introduction and adaptation
nology (FZI), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany of a spectral map matching algorithm to the domain of

978-1-5090-1889-5/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 853

vehicle localization in urban environments. This enables
a LiDAR-based odometry and robust, yet computationally
efficient global map matching even under inaccurate ini-
tialization, e.g. from GPS measurements (see Fig. 1). ii)
Consecutively, consistency checks are instrumented to further
enhance the system’s outlier rejection capability. Feasible
matching results are then fused with LiDAR and wheel
odometry for global vehicle localization.
This work is organized as follows. An overview over
related work is given in Sec. II and a formal problem state-
ment, followed by an introduction to the 2D map projection
procedure and the Fourier-Mellin transformation used in
map and scan matching in Sec. III. In Sec. IV we present
our localization framework, combining FMT-based global
map matching, a LiDAR odometry, and a consistency check
procedure based on a CUSUM test. An evaluation of the
presented approaches in Sec. V and a conclusion in Sec. VI
end this paper.
II. R ELATED W ORK
The design of robust localization algorithms is of great
interest in the intelligent transportation systems research
community. In this work, we contribute to finding inherently
robust, yet efficient, localization algorithms. Robustness can
be increased at different levels of the localization procedure,
including the sensor measurement processing [2], [3], map
matching [4], adapting localization strategies [5] and the
creation of temporary maps [6]. As opposed to [6], we do
not create local maps that can be used by other traffic partic-
ipants. To this point, we resort to a precise LiDAR odometry.
Additionally, we explicitly state a switching condition to
chose between relative and global localization approaches.
A diagnostic approach to robust localization may comprise
the detection of localization failures and recovery, e.g. [7],
[8], [?]. We argue that a combination of separated, inherently
robust algorithms for global and relative localization and
additional diagnostic procedures is well suited for our use
case. In this work, we focus on robust map matching and
LiDAR odometry in combination with an integrity moni-
toring procedure. Beside this, we utilize efficient standard
algorithms which have been successfully applied in the past,
such as Kalman filter for fusion of global and local pose
information (e.g. [9]). In contrast to [9], the presented work
focuses on localization in dynamic environments. Hence,
we utilize a robust map matching procedure in combination
with consistency check based outlier rejection mechanisms,
leading to superior performance in dynamic environments.
A great variety of current successful localization proce-
dures use 3D LiDAR measurements in combination with
precise, up-to-date and static 3D maps (e.g. [1]). These strong
requirements regarding the map quality lead to increased
efforts in map creation and maintenance. Nonetheless, the
resulting maps might still be corrupted. Furthermore, it is
often assumed that the global map was created from the
same sensor suite as the one utilized for localization. To this
point, we argue that robust localization methods might be
instrumented in order to significantly relax the requirements
854
regarding the map material. In literature, a rich body of re-
search is existent that deals with the removal of dynamic and
semi-static objects from sensor and map data, e.g. [10]. In
environments with high numbers of dynamic and semi-static
objects, or with constrained signal processing capacities,
these algorithms might lead to non-optimal results. Thus,
as opposed to these approaches, we are focusing on robust
localization in presence of clutter and unmodeled changes in
the environment. In this context, robust matching algorithms
are of significant importance.
Feature and correspondence-based algorithms are a popu-
lar choice for map matching. Algorithms from this class nor-
mally contain a feature, e.g. interest points and lines, extrac-
tion step followed by correspondence estimation, e.g. based
on local similarity, heuristics (ICP) or sampling (RANSAC).
The transformation is then found by minimization of a
specified cost function. As a popular variant, ICP possesses
a narrow basin of convergence and thus requires a good prior
since inaccurate initial transformations estimates increase
the probability of convergence to a local minimum. Given
a sufficiently accurate prior, robust variants such as M-
ICP can deal with high noise levels, see e.g. [4] for a
thorough survey. The computational performance of ICP
and RANSAC strongly depends on the initial offset as
well as the feature density in the map and scan. For static
environments with sufficiently high feature densities and low
sensor noise, these approaches have led to good matching
results while maintaining a high level of computational
efficiency, e.g. [9]. Dense map matching procedures do not
rely on feature extraction and can deal with high noise
levels and inaccurate initial guesses. Furthermore, these can
be used to obtain multi-modal transformation estimates. To
this point, we argue that dense map matching algorithms
are well suited for application in urban environments. The
normal distribution transform (NDT) [11] has become a well-
established method for dense scan registration. It requires
the iterative minimization of a score function and therefore
depends on the characteristics of the input data. The Fourier-
Mellin transformation has been used by O BERL ÄNDER et
al. in [4] for indoor applications. FMT is characterized by
a deterministic runtime, which exclusively depends on the
size of the scan and submap. This is of particular interest
for real-time applications. Additionally, it is robust against
high amounts of noise and clutter. We expand former works
on FMT-based map matching by further adaptation of this
method for the usage with maps and LiDAR scans from
urban settings in the context of global vehicle localization.
In [12] a visual-LiDAR odometry is introduced. In [13] the
authors apply appearance-based methods to LiDAR intensity
images in order to overcome the shortcoming of video-based
localization and mapping systems, i.e. significant sensitivity
against changes in lighting conditions. In agreement with
[13], we argue that the utilization of LiDAR intensity values
introduces an additional source of uncertainty in the context
of adverse weather conditions and, therefore, we resort to
geometrical features extracted from 3D point clouds.
 Map matching (Sec. IV-A)
zk
2D submap mk , sk → FMT/SPOMF
mk θk
mk , sk,θ → SPOMF
2D scan ulo
k
sk = |(zk−1 − zk ) − (uk−1 − uk )|
sk Scan matching (Sec. IV-B)
sk−1 , sk → FMT/SPOMF
2D scan
sk−1 θko
sk−1 , sk,θ → SPOMF
Fig. 2: Map and scan matching is conducted based on the FMT. The relative and absolute vehicle pose estimates from
LiDAR odometry, wheel odometry and map matching are monitored for integrity. Outliers in map matching are rejected and
thus not included in the fusion process. Thereby, the overall localization accuracy and reliability is significantly increased.
III. BACKGROUND AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
In the following, localization
 describes the
>
task of esti-
mating the global pose xk := xk yk θk of a dynamic
vehicle system at time step k. xk is estimated relative to
the coordinate frame of a localization map M(2) . Odometry
measurements uk are used for relative motion estimation
between two map matching steps. M(2) is obtained from
a projection of a prerecorded 3D map M(3) , i.e. a set of N
3D points, to the ground plane.
A sensor measurement sk is obtained from a 2D projection
of a 3D LiDAR scan and matched with the submap mk ∈
M(2) to retrieve a global vehicle pose measurement zk .
Submaps mk are extracted from M(2) for an adaptively de-
fined radius (see Sec. IV-A for details) around the estimated
global vehicle pose. This procedure will be denoted as map
matching and the matching of consecutive scans sk−1 and sk
as scan matching. The latter will be utilized in the LiDAR
odometry framework for relative pose estimation. A Kalman-
based method is then used to fuse wheel odometry, LiDAR
odometry and map matching results in order to obtain the
global pose estimate x̂k . In the following subsections, a more
detailed description of the projection algorithm used to create
M(2) and sk (Sec. III-A) and the spectral map matching
approach utilized for scan and map matching (Sec. III-B) is
provided.
A. 2D scan projection
The projection of a 3D localization map M(3) to M(2) en-
ables an efficient vehicle pose estimation [14]. In a first step,
features are extracted from M(3) which are then projected
to the z-plane. Therefore, we calculate the normal vectors
ni for every point pi ∈ M(3) . We propose an extension
of [15] by a velocity vk dependent selection of the local
neighborhood Pi of pi from which ni is calculated. This
modification yields better projection results since it enables
the selection of a minimal radius which leads to a higher
accuracy in the normal vector calculation step compared to
[15]. This is especially important for small structures with
high information density for localization, such as curb stones.
855
Outlier rejection (Sec. IV-C)
x̂k
Fusion
CUSUM test
uwo
k
Wheel
odometry
For higher velocities, scans become sparse and consequently
the radius is expanded to enclose enough points for the
calculation of ni .
Feature selection is then done by selecting all K points
corresponding to normal vectors with an orientation within a
given range. For the creation of M(2) (Fig. 1) we select all
points belonging to vertical surfaces, e.g. house wall and curb
stones, which carry high information density for localization
and project them to the z-plane. This procedure will also
be applied to the projection of 3D sensor measurements to
obtain sk . A results of the projection are depicted in Fig. 1.
B. Spectral registration
The goal of registration is the determination of the
rigid transformation between two digital maps a and b.
In map matching the latter represent mk and sk and for
scan matching sk−1 and sk . These maps are represented
as 2-dimensional, discrete functions f (x, y) with x =
0, 1, . . . , M −1, y = 0, 1, . . . , N −1 and polar representation
f (r, ρ). The Fourier-Mellin transformation (FMT) is then
given as
Z ∞ Z 2π
1 dr
F Mf = f (r, ρ) r−ju e−jvρ dρ (1)
2π 0 0 r
with the Mellin and Fourier transform parameters u and
v. Its magnitude can be efficiently calculated as the polar-
logarithmic notation of the magnitudes of the respective
Fourier transforms. The latter can be efficiently calcu-
lated via fast Fourier transformation (FFT) for which high-
performance software and hardware implementations exist.
Depending on the implementation, the FFT can have a
runtime complexity of O (n log n) with n = M N .
The FMT is independent of translation offsets between
the maps and rotations are equivalent to phase shifts. Hence,
phase correlation methods can be applied to the magnitudes
of the transformed F Ma and F Mb in order to estimate the
rotational transformation parameter θk . In a follow up step,
phase correlation is used to calculate the translational offset
between the rotated scan sk,θk and mk or sk−1 , respectively
(compare Fig. 2).
 The robustness of the matching procedure significantly
depends on the utilized phase correlation method. Thus,
we instrument symmetric phase-only filtering (SPOMF) for
decreased sensitivity to noise as compared to the POMF
utilized in [4]. For the filter inputs c and d, the Fourier
transformed C (u, v) = F {c} and D (u, v) = F {d}
are determined. Afterwards, the normalized cross-power-
spectrum is calculated from the phases of the transformed
[16]:
D (u, v) C∗ (u, v)
Q0 (u, v) = · ∗ (2)
|D (u, v)| |C (u, v)|
= ej(φd (u,v)−φc (u,v)) (3)
The transformation is then determined from the peak lo-
cation in the inverse Fourier transformed q0 (u, v) =
F −1 {Q0 (u, v)}. For SPOMF, q0 is characterized by a
sharper peak compared to the POMF solution, leading to a
better detectability in the presence of noise, e.g. points from
parked cars. Therefore, it is used for robust map matching
throughout the presented work. The correlation coefficient,
given by the hight of the peak in q0 , is a strong indicator
for the correctness of the matching result. Thus, it will be
considered in the integrity monitoring procedure (Sec. IV-C).
IV. OVERALL LOCALIZATION CONCEPT
For pose estimation, we instrument global map matching
results zk (Sec. IV-A), LiDAR odometry ulo k (Sec. IV-B)
and wheel odometry uwo k (see Fig. 2 for an overview).
Furthermore, we introduce consistency checks for integrity
monitoring (Sec. IV-C) as a mean for detection and isolation
of map matching failures early in the signal processing chain.
A. Map matching
Global pose measurements are obtained from map match-
ing. Special attention is payed to the extraction of submaps
mk from M(2) , since the computational efficiency is con-
siderably affected by the map dimensions. Since a decreased
resolution has negative impact on the robustness of the
matching procedure, a good trade-off between efficiency
and robustness is mandatory. For map matching, we use
a resolution of 0.1 m. Another possibility of map size re-
duction is the selection of the covered area. To this point,
we distinguish different localization states, namely normal
operation and initialization or relocalization, i.e initialization
after occurrence of localization failures, e.g. from inaccurate
GPS signals.
During localization, we chose mk as the area around the
current pose estimate. The radius is set to the sum of the
sensor range and three standard deviations of the current
estimation uncertainty. For relocalization, the pose estimate
x̂0 has to be calculated from a very uncertain vehicle state
estimate (Fig. 1). Due to the uncertain initial estimate, the
size of m0 is increased in comparison to standard submaps
mk . The FMT-based map matching procedure can then
directly be utilized for calculation of x̂0 . Nonetheless, the
runtime of the map matching algorithms is dependent on the
map size. Hence, relocalization is computationally expensive.
856
B. LiDAR based odometry
LiDAR odometry measurements ulo k are introduced as a
mean for accurate relative vehicle motion estimation from
matching of consecutive scans sk−1 and sk . Odometry mea-
surements provide a good local reference for consistency
checks for global pose estimates based on exteroceptive
sensor measurements and map matching. To this point, we
argue that odometry plays a major role in overall system
robustness against adverse environmental conditions, such as
low feature density and high occlusion rates and thus has
to be sufficiently reliable. For computationally efficient scan
matching, we utilize a scan resolution of 0.3 m and limit the
scanner range to 30.0 m.
We are not using a prediction step in order to estimate the
vehicle’s motion based on former odometry measurements
by a motion model. This might seem overly pessimistic
since motion models often provide a good motion prediction.
Nonetheless, this approach does not pose a problem for the
proposed odometry-based on spectral scan matching. On the
contrary, the reduced amount of instrumented model knowl-
edge renders our approach independent of the underlying
vehicle dynamics and increases the robustness against errors
in the model assumptions. uk is obtained by fusing ulo k and
uwo
k .
C. Localization with integrity monitoring
For the design of a reliable localization system, we resort
to additional mechanisms for the detection of inconsistent
map matching results. As a distance measure, we utilize
the residuals from global and relative pose estimates sk =
|(zk−1 − zk ) − (uk−1 − uk )|. Furthermore, cumulative sum
(CUSUM) tests [17] with an adaptive detection threshold are
used for detecting linear and abrupt changes. In accordance
with [17], we recursively calculate and threshold the test
statistic gk as follows in order to obtain an alarm time ka
and change time k̂.
gk = gk−1 + sk − δ (4)
gk = 0, and k̂ = k if gk < 0 (5)
gk = 0, and ka = k and alarm if gk < h < 0, (6)
with drift δ and threshold h parameters, alarm time ka ,
estimated change time k̂. Changes between the two mutually
independent odometry sources and the map matching results
are monitored. If low correlation values are observed in scan
or map matching, the drift parameter is decreased for a
faster jump detection. This way the false alarm rate can be
kept as low as possible while maintaining high sensitivity
to differences in the information sources. Inconsistent map
matching results are rejected and odometry measurements
are used for relative localization instead.
V. E VALUATION
The testing vehicle was equipped with a Velodyne HDL-
64E sensor, dGPS and GPS modules and proprioceptive
sensors for calculation of wheel odometry. The performance
of the pose estimation was evaluated relative to a dGPS
 FMT odometry M-ICP odometry dGPS reference
0 projection method stated in Sec. III-A. As a measurement
−200
y [m]
−400
−600
−800
−800 −600 −400 −200 0 in Fig. 4. The evaluation results are summarized in Tab. I.
x [m]
Fig. 3: The LiDAR odometry based on FMT is characterized
by small deviations from the dGPS trajectory. The robust ICP
variant does not lead to sufficiently accurate results.
reference. For the evaluation of the localization (Sec. V-B),
we used data from 3.4 km of urban roads with high density of
semi-static and dynamic objects. Data from additional 0.8 km
is used for LiDAR odometry evaluation (Sec. V-A).
The global localization maps required less than 2.8
megabytes of storage for a grid cell size of 10 cm. This is a
significant reduction of map size compared to [1] where the
authors state a map size of 10 megabyte per mile. The test
track was selected in such a way, that the uncertainty estimate
of the dGPS system stated 2 cm standard deviation. M(2) was
recorded roughly two years in advance of the evaluation test
run in order to show the proposed methods ability to handle
outdated map material. Additionally, a different set of LiDAR
sensors was used for recording the map and for localization.
M(3) was obtained from a state-of-the-art mapping algorithm
[1].
A. LiDAR odometry evaluation
We performed a comparison of LiDAR odometry on basis
of different scan matching algorithms, namely FMT with
SPOMF and a robust ICP variant with Tukey’s bi-weight
[18], [19] cost function instead of the standard squared cost
function. The results are summarized in Fig. 3.
The odometry-based on ICP showed an average deviation
in position estimation of 23.1 %. Spectral scan matching
based odometry showed an average deviation in position
estimation of 0.8 %. Hence, the results of the FMT odometry
are comparable to existing results, e.g. [?], [12] (0.69 % for
a different data set).
B. Localization evaluation
For evaluation of the localization procedure, we compared
it to the state-of-the-art localization algorithm presented in
857
[15]. We modified [15] in order to use the same scan and map
model, we used the likelihood field model [2] as a more
precise alternative to the classical beam model. Despite
these changes, the approach based on adaptive Monte Carlo
localization remained unmodified. We chose 5000 particles
as lower and 25000 as upper bound.
The initial accurate pose estimate x̂0 was obtained from
a GPS measurement. Therefore, m0 was extracted as a disk
with radius of 45 m around the GPS pose estimate. From the
radius 15 m accounted for GPS positioning uncertainty and
30 m for the scanner range. The refined estimate x̂0 deviated
11 cm from the dGPS position and the correlation index was
above 0.02, thus indicating a valid matching result.
From the starting point, we then performed LiDAR odom-
etry for the prediction step and spectral map matching for
the update step. The obtained correlation values are depicted
During the test run our localization approach resulted in a
median RMS error in position of 0.12 m and in orientation of
0.03◦ . Without the integrity monitoring from Sec. IV-C the
results were 0.26 m and in orientation of 0.12◦ . Compared
to the other localization procedure under test, with a median
RMS error in position of 0.37 m and in orientation of 0.15◦ ,
this yields a significant improvement.
RMS transl. error RMS ang. error
AMCL 0.37 m 0.15◦
FMT w/o outlier rejection 0.26 m 0.12◦
FMT w outlier rejection 0.12 m 0.03◦
TABLE I: The results for the proposed FMT-based localiza-
tion approach show its superior performance to the tested
adaptive Monte Carlo localization algorithm. In combination
with identification and isolation of inconsistent measure-
ments the performance is further improved.
VI. C ONCLUSION
We presented a novel method for accurate and reliable
vehicle localization in dense urban environments. For the
refinement of inaccurate global pose estimates, as provided
by consumer grade GPS, FMT in combination with matched
filtering was evaluated and provided accurate map matching
results. The presented approach is capable of localizing
the vehicle from ignition on and perform relocalization
when required. Furthermore, a LiDAR-based odometry was
presented, which is independent of wheel odometry and thus
increases redundancy in relative vehicle motion estimation.
These two approaches were combined in the Kalman filtering
framework for continuous vehicle localization. Additionally,
consistency checks were utilized to ensure measurement
integrity throughout the localization process.
The results from LiDAR odometry evaluation verify its
performance in dense urban environments. Overall localiza-
tion shows superior performance to existing approaches by
reaching a median Euclidean error of 0.12 m.
Fig. 4: The localization results for a part of the urban test track are shown. Map data (black dots) were recorded 2 years
in advance. The color coding indicates the correlation coefficient value as a map matching quality metric. For values below
0.015 (dark blue) the map matching results were classified as outliers with high probability and, accordingly, not fed into
the Kalman filtering framework in order to avoid the incorporation of erroneous vehicle pose information.

R EFERENCES [10] M. Rapp, M. Hahn, T. Markus, J. Dickmann, K. Dietmeyer, “Semi-

[1] J. Levinson, S. Thrun, “Robust vehicle localization in urban environ-
ments using probabilistic maps,” Robotics and Automation (ICRA),
IEEE International Conference on, pp. 4372–4378, 2010.
[2] S. Thrun, W. Burgard, D. Fox, “Probabilistic Robotics,” The MIT
Press, 2005.
[3] P. Pfaff, C. Plagemann, W. Burgard, “Gaussian mixture models for
probabilistic localization,” Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE
International Conference on, pp. 467–472, 2008.
[4] J. Oberländer, A. Roennau, R. Dillmann, “Hierarchical slam using
spectral submap matching with opportunities for long-term operation,”
Advanced Robotics (ICAR), International Conference on, pp. 1–7,
2013.
[5] K. M. Wurm, C. Stachniss, G. Grisetti, “Bridging the gap between
feature- and grid-based slam,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
pp. 140–148, 2010.
[6] D. Meyer-Delius, J. Hess, G. Grisetti, W. Burgard, “Temporary maps
for robust localization in semi-static environments,” Intelligent Robots
and Systems (IROS), IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp.
5750–5755, 2010.
[7] C. Zinoune, P. Bonnifait, J. Ibañez-Guzmán, “Sequential FDIA for
autonomous integrity monitoring of navigation maps on board vehi-
cles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp.
143–155, 2016.
[8] A. Fujii, M. Tanaka, H. Yabushita, T. Mori, T. Odashima, “Detection of
localization failure using logistic regression,” Intelligent Robots and
Systems (IROS), IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 4313–
4318, 2015.
[9] C. Heigele, H. Mielenz, J. Heckel, D. Schramm, “Accurate and
fast localization in unstructured environment based on shape context
keypoints,” Information Fusion (FUSION), International Conference
on, pp. 1–7, 2014.
markov process based localization using radar in dynamic environ-
ments,” Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), IEEE International
Conference on, pp. 423–429, 2015.
[11] P. Biber, W. Strasser, “The normal distributions transform: a new
approach to laser scan matching,” Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 2743–2748, 2003.
[12] J. Zhang, S. Singh, “Visual-lidar odometry and mapping: low-drift, ro-
bust, and fast,” Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE International
Conference on, pp. 2174–2181, 2015.
[13] C. McManus, P. Furgale, T. D. Barfoot, “Towards appearance-based
methods for lidar sensors,” Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE
International Conference on, pp. 1930–1935, 2011.
[14] J. Rohde, I. Jatzkowski, H. Mielenz and J. M. Zöllner, “Vehicle pose
estimation in cluttered urban environments using multilayer adaptive
Monte Carlo localization,” International Conference on Information
Fusion (FUSION), pp. 1774–1779, 2016.
[15] Z. J. Chong, B. Qin, T. Bandyopadhyay, M. H. Ang, E. Frazzoli, D.
Rus, “Synthetic 2D LiDAR for precise vehicle localization in 3D urban
environment,” Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE International
Conference on, pp. 1554–1559, 2013.
[16] Qin-Sheng Chen, M. Defrise, F. Deconinck, “Symmetric phase-only
matched filtering of Fourier-Mellin transforms for image registration
and recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 1156–1168, 1994.
[17] F. Gustafsson, “Adaptive filtering and change detection,” Wiley New
York, 2000.
[18] S. Kaneko, T. Kondo, A. Miyamoto, “Robust matching of 3d contours
using iterative closest point algorithm improved by m-estimation,“
Pattern Recognition, pp. 2041–2047, 2003.
[19] A. W. Fitzgibbon, “Robust registration of 2d and 3d point sets,” Image
and Vision Computing, pp. 1145–1153, 2003.

858