Where Am I? Semantic Map Grounding via Vision-Language Models for Multi-Modal Localization
arXiv:2607.01079v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We address robot localization in GPS-denied indoor environments by reframing it as a semantic reasoning task rather than a geometric estimation problem. Motivated by how humans localize using object-level cues and labeled maps, we ask whether a vision-language model, given a front camera image, a polar LiDAR scan, and a top-down semantic grid map, can infer the robot pose. We fine-tune Qwen2.5-VL-7B with LoRA and attach a lightweight regression he
Overview
arXiv:2607.01079v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We address robot localization in GPS-denied indoor environments by reframing it as a semantic reasoning task rather than a geometric estimation problem. Motivated by how humans localize using object-level cues and labeled maps, we ask whether a vision-language model, given a front camera image, a polar LiDAR scan, and a top-down semantic grid map, can infer the robot pose. We fine-tune Qwen2.5-VL-7B with LoRA and attach a lightweight regression head that predicts continuous pose coordinates (x, y, theta) directly from the final hidden state, bypassing text generation. Training uses a composite position-and-direction loss with curriculum learning on a custom Gazebo dataset of 120,112 samples and 527 scenes. On the in-distribution test set of 18,017 samples, the model achieves 98.23 percent position accuracy, 98.00 percent direction accuracy, 96.75 percent full pose accuracy, a mean position error of 0.11 m, and a mean orientation error of 5.7 degrees at 0.62 s per sample. Position accuracy drops by only 7.2 percentage points on seven unseen object categories, reaching 90.99 percent, supporting semantic spatial reasoning rather than appearance memorization. With incomplete maps, fine-tuning recovers performance to 93.72 percent position accuracy, showing adaptability to stale or partial map information. Two ablations highlight cross-modal complementarity. Without LiDAR, using only camera and map inputs, position accuracy remains 95.06 percent, only 3.2 percentage points below the full system. However, when the camera sees no visible objects in a wall-facing view, LiDAR sustains 92.33 percent position accuracy, compared with 70.74 percent when neither LiDAR nor visible objects are available. This shows that LiDAR becomes the primary localization signal when camera semantics are unavailable and provides a reliable fallback under occlusion or sparse layouts.
Source
Originally published at arxiv.org.
Related Articles
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01079
