Map-Based Localization for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Navigation

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) require precise pose estimation when navigating in indoor and GNSS-denied / GNSS-degraded outdoor environments. The possibility of crashing in these environments is high, as spaces are confined, with many moving obstacles. There are many solutions for localization in GNSS-denied environments, and many different technologies are used. Common solutions involve setting up or using existing infrastructure, such as beacons, Wi-Fi, or surveyed targets. These solutions were avoided because the cost should be proportional to the number of users, not the coverage area. Heavy and expensive sensors, for example a high-end IMU, were also avoided. Given these requirements, a camera-based localization solution was selected for the sensor pose estimation. Several camera-based localization approaches were investigated. Map-based localization methods were shown to be the most efficient because they close loops using a pre-existing map, thus the amount of data and the amount of time spent collecting data are reduced as there is no need to re-observe the same areas multiple times. This dissertation proposes a solution to address the task of fully localizing a monocular camera onboard a UAV with respect to a known environment (i.e., it is assumed that a 3D model of the environment is available) for the purpose of navigation for UAVs in structured environments. Incremental map-based localization involves tracking a map through an image sequence. When the map is a 3D model, this task is referred to as model-based tracking. A by-product of the tracker is the relative 3D pose (position and orientation) between the camera and the object being tracked. State-of-the-art solutions advocate that tracking geometry is more robust than tracking image texture because edges are more invariant to changes in object appearance and lighting. However, model-based trackers have been limited to tracking small simple objects in small environments. An assessment was performed in tracking larger, more complex building models, in larger environments. A state-of-the art model-based tracker called ViSP (Visual Servoing Platform) was applied in tracking outdoor and indoor buildings using a UAVs low-cost camera. The assessment revealed weaknesses at large scales. Specifically, ViSP failed when tracking was lost, and needed to be manually re-initialized. Failure occurred when there was a lack of model features in the cameras field of view, and because of rapid camera motion. Experiments revealed that ViSP achieved positional accuracies similar to single point positioning solutions obtained from single-frequency (L1) GPS observations standard deviations around 10 metres. These errors were considered to be large, considering the geometric accuracy of the 3D model used in the experiments was 10 to 40 cm. The first contribution of this dissertation proposes to increase the performance of the localization system by combining ViSP with map-building incremental localization, also referred to as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Experimental results in both indoor and outdoor environments show sub-metre positional accuracies were achieved, while reducing the number of tracking losses throughout the image sequence. It is shown that by integrating model-based tracking with SLAM, not only does SLAM improve model tracking performance, but the model-based tracker alleviates the computational expense of SLAMs loop closing procedure to improve runtime performance. Experiments also revealed that ViSP was unable to handle occlusions when a complete 3D building model was used, resulting in large errors in its pose estimates. The second contribution of this dissertation is a novel map-based incremental localization algorithm that improves tracking performance, and increases pose estimation accuracies from ViSP. The novelty of this algorithm is the implementation of an efficient matching process that identifies corresponding linear features from the UAVs RGB image data and a large, complex, and untextured 3D model. The proposed model-based tracker improved positional accuracies from 10 m (obtained with ViSP) to 46 cm in outdoor environments, and improved from an unattainable result using VISP to 2 cm positional accuracies in large indoor environments. The main disadvantage of any incremental algorithm is that it requires the camera pose of the first frame. Initialization is often a manual process. The third contribution of this dissertation is a map-based absolute localization algorithm that automatically estimates the camera pose when no prior pose information is available. The method benefits from vertical line matching to accomplish a registration procedure of the reference model views with a set of initial input images via geometric hashing. Results demonstrate that sub-metre positional accuracies were achieved and a proposed enhancement of conventional geometric hashing produced more correct matches - 75% of the correct matches were identified, compared to 11%. Further the number of incorrect matches was reduced by 80%

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field