Convolutional Neural Network-based Place Recognition
Zetao Chen, Obadiah Lam, Adam Jacobson and Michael Milford
ARC Centre of Excellence for Robotic Vision
Queensland University of Technology

Abstract
Recently Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)
have been shown to achieve state-of-the-art
performance on various classification tasks. In this
paper, we present for the first time a place recognition
technique based on CNN models, by combining the
powerful features learnt by CNNs with a spatial and
sequential filter. Applying the system to a 70 km
benchmark place recognition dataset we achieve a 75%
increase in recall at 100% precision, significantly
outperforming all previous state of the art techniques.
We also conduct a comprehensive performance
comparison of the utility of features from all 21 layers
for place recognition, both for the benchmark dataset
and for a second dataset with more significant
viewpoint changes.

1 Introduction

the PASCAL VOC dataset [Girshick, et al., 2013]. This
good generalization in performance on new tasks and
datasets indicates that CNNs may provide a general and
universal visual feature learning framework applicable
to all tasks. Encouraged by these positive results, in this
paper we develop a place recognition framework
centered around features from pre-trained CNNs as
illustrated in Figure 1.

1

Since their introduction in the early 1990s,
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have been used
to achieve excellent performance on a variety of tasks
such as handwriting recognition and face detection.
More recently, supervised deep convolutional neural
networks have been shown to deliver high level
performance on more challenging classification tasks
[Krizhevsky, et al., 2012]. The key supporting factors
behind these impressive results are their ability to learn
tens of millions of parameters using large amounts of
labelled data. Once trained in this way, CNNs have
been shown to learn discriminative and humaninterpretable feature representations [Zeiler and Fergus,
2013]. Most impressively, these approaches are capable
of producing state of the art performance on tasks that
the model was not explicitly trained for [Donahue, et
al., 2013], including object recognition on the Caltech101 dataset [Fei-Fei, et al., 2007], subcategory
recognition on the Caltech-USCD birds dataset
[Welinder, et al., 2010], scene recognition on the SUN397 dataset [Xiao, et al., 2010] and object detection on

The authors are with the School of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science at the Queensland University of
Technology, Australia. http://roboticvision.org/. email:
zetao.chen@student.qut.edu.au.
This work was supported by a funding from the Australian
Research Council Centre of Excellence CE140100016 in
Robotic Vision.

Figure 1 Schematic illustration of the deep learning-based place
recognition system. Deep learning features are extracted from the test
image and then matched to all training images. After the spatial and
sequential continuity check, the final match is reported.

Place recognition can be considered as an image
retrieval task which consists of determining a match
between the current scene and a previously visited
location. State-of-the-art visual SLAM algorithms such
as FAB-MAP [Cummins and Newman, 2008] match the
appearance of the current scene to a past place by
converting the image into bag-of-words representations
[Angeli, et al., 2008] built on local features such as
SIFT or SURF. However, recent evidence [Krizhevsky,
et al., 2012] suggests that features extracted from CNNs
trained on very large datasets significantly outperform
SIFT features on classification tasks. Donahue
[Donahue, et al., 2013] shows that using mid-level
features from CNN models trained on the ImageNet
database can more efficiently remove dataset bias in
some of the domain adaption studies than a bag of
words approach.

In this paper we investigate whether the advantages
of deep learning in other recognition tasks carries over
to place recognition. We present a deep learning-based
place recognition algorithm that compares the response
of feature layers from a CNN trained on ImageNet
[Deng, et al., 2009] and methods for filtering the
subsequent place recognition hypotheses. We conduct
two experiments, one on a 70 km benchmark place
recognition dataset, and one on a viewpoint varying
dataset, providing both quantitative comparison to two
state of the art place recognition algorithms and analysis
of the utility of different layers within the network for
viewpoint invariance.
The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 provides
an overview of feature-based place recognition
techniques and convolutional neural networks. In
Section 3 we describe the components of the deep
learning-based place recognition system. The
experiments are described in Section 4, with results
presented in Section 5. Finally we conclude the paper in
Section 6 and discuss ongoing and future work.

2 Related Work
In this section, we briefly review feature-based
representations for place recognition and the use of
convolutional neural networks for various visual
classification tasks.
2.1 Vision Representation for Place Recognition
Visual sensors are increasingly becoming the
predominant sensor modality for place recognition due
to their low cost, low power requirements, small
footprint and rich information content. There has been
extensive research on how to best represent and match
images of places.
Several authors have described approaches that
apply global feature techniques to process incoming
sensor information. In [Murillo and Kosecka., 2009],
the authors propose a gist feature-based place
recognition system using panoramic images for urban
environments. Histograms of image gray values or
texture is also a widely used feature in place recognition
systems [Ulrich and Nourbakhsh, 2000, Blaer and
Allen, 2002] due to its compact representation rotation
invariance. However, global features are computed from
the entire image, rendering them unsuitable to effects
such as partial occlusion, lighting change or perspective
transformation [Deselaers, et al., 2008].
Local features are less sensitive to these external
factors and have been widely used in appearance-based
loop closure detection, SIFT [Lowe, 1999] and SURF
[Herbert Bay, et al., 2008] being two widespread
examples. State-of-the-art SLAM systems such as FABMAP [Cummins and Newman, 2008] further represent
appearance data using sets of local features, converting
images into “bag-of-words”, which enables efficient
retrieval. Other feature-less representations have also
been proposed. SeqSLAM [Milford and Wyeth, 2012]
directly uses pixel values to match image sequences and
perform place recognition across extreme perceptual
changes. However, it is rapidly becoming apparent in
other recognition tasks that hand-crafted features are
being outperformed by learnt features, prompting the

question of whether we can learn better features
automatically?
2.2 Convolutional Neural Networks
Convolutional neural networks are multi-layer
supervised networks which can learn features
automatically from datasets (Figure 3). For the last few
years, CNNs have achieved state-of-the-art performance
in almost all important classification tasks [Krizhevsky,
et al., 2012, Donahue, et al., 2013, Sharif Razavian, et
al., 2014]. Their primary disadvantage is that they
require very large amounts of training data. However,
recent studies have shown that state of the art
performance can be achieved with networks trained
using “generic” data, raising the possibility of
developing a place recognition system based on features
learnt from datasets with a classification focus. A
similar approach has already achieved excellent
performance on various visual tasks, such as object
recognition [Fei-Fei, et al., 2007]; subcategory
recognition [Welinder, et al., 2010]; scene recognition
[Xiao, et al., 2010] and detection [Girshick, et al.,
2013].
One research area separate but relevant to the place
recognition problem is the task of image retrieval where
a query image is present to a database to search for
those images containing the same objects or scenes. In
[Babenko, et al., 2014], mid-level features from CNNs
are evaluated for the image retrieval application and
achieve performance comparable to others using stateof-the-art features. Interestingly, the best performance is
obtained using mid-network features rather than those
learnt at the final layers.
Place recognition is essentially a task of image
similarity matching. In [Fischer, et al., 2014], features
from various layers of CNNs are evaluated and
compared with SIFT descriptors on a descriptor
matching benchmark. The benchmark results
demonstrate that deep features from different layers of
CNNs consistently perform better than SIFT on
descriptor matching; indicating that SIFT or SURF may
not be the preferred descriptors for matching tasks
anymore. Our paper is thus inspired by the excellent
performance of CNNs on image classification and the
evidence of their feasibility in feature matching.

3 Approach and Methodology
In this section we describe the two key components of
our approach: feature extraction and spatio-temporal
filtering of place match hypotheses output by
comparison of feature responses. The schematic
illustration of the method procedure is shown in Figure
2:

Figure 2 The place recognition process. A confusion matrix is
constructed from features, resulting in place match hypotheses which
are then filtered to produce finalized matches.

3.1 Feature Extractor
We use a pretrained network called Overfeat
[Sermanet, et al., 2013] which was originally proposed
for the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition
Challenge 2013 (ILSVRC2013). The Overfeat network
is trained on the ImageNet 2012 dataset, which consists
of 1.2 million images and 1000 classes. The network
comprises five convolution stages and three fully
connected stages (Figure 3). Each of the bottom two
convolution stages consists of a convolution layer, a
max pooling layer and a rectification (ReLU) nonlinearity layer. The third and fourth stages consist of a
convolution layer, a zero-padding layer and a ReLU
non-linear layer. The fifth stage contains a convolution
layer, a zero-padding layer, a ReLU layer and a maxpooling layer. Finally, the sixth and seventh stages
contain one fully-connected layer and one ReLU layer,
while the eighth contains only the fully-connected
output layer. In total, there are 21 layers.
When an image I is input into the network, it
produces a sequence of layered activations. We use
, = 1, … ,21 to denote the corresponding output
of the
layer given input image I. Each of these
vectors is a deep learnt representation of the image I;
place recognition is performed by comparing these
feature vector responses to different images. The
network is capable of processing images of any size
equal to or greater than 231 × 231 pixels, consequently
all experiments described here used images resized to
256 × 256 pixels.

Figure 3 Architecture of the Overfeat network.

Figure 4 The procedure for generating a confusion matrix. Features
are extracted by Overfeat from each testing image and then matched
to features from all the training images. The matrix element
,
represents the Euclidean distance between the
training image and
the
testing image.

3.3 Spatial Continuity
We apply two continuity filters to the place match
hypotheses extracted from the confusion matrix. The
first, a spatial continuity check, enforces that
consecutive first-ranked place match hypotheses must
occur in close indices in the confusion matrix, providing
a constraint that does not require a specific motion
model. More specifically, the plausible measurement
of each place match hypothesis is evaluated as
follows:

Pk ( j ) = 1

if M k (u − 1) − M k (u) ≤ ε , ∀u ∈ [ j − d , j ] (3)
j = d ,..., T
where is the threshold for consecutive first-ranked
match difference, determines how far back in time the
evaluation goes and is the current testing image. A
positive match is reported only when
= 1.
Figure 5 provides an illustration of the spatial continuity
check in action. This constraint reduces but does not
eliminate all false positives; consequently we
implement a secondary, sequential filter step that
implements an actual motion model, and is described in
the next section.

3.2 Confusion Matrix
For each layer output
, = 1, … ,21 , we generate
a corresponding confusion matrix
, = 1, … ,21 from
the whole dataset with training images and testing
images (Figure 4). Each element
, represents the
Euclidean distance between the feature vector responses
training image and the
testing image:
to the

M k (i, j ) = d ( Lk ( I i ), Lk ( I j ))
i = 1,..., R, j = 1,..., T

(1)

Each column j stores the mean feature vector
difference between the
testing image and all training
images.
To find the strongest place match hypothesis, each
column is searched for the element with the lowest
feature vector difference.

M k ( j ) = arg min M k (i, j ), ∀i, j = 1,..., T (2)
i

Figure 5: Illustration of spatial continuity constrain. Blue squares
indicate where
is in each column. The left red dot square
represents a non-plausible match because one of the consecutive
match difference within the black dot square (evaluation window)
exceeds the threshold ε. The right red dot square indicates a plausible
match.

3.4 Sequential Filter
The sequential filter is a more sophisticated
implementation of the crude motion filter in SeqSLAM.

Rather than searching for all coherent diagonal
sequences of strong matching hypotheses, we only fit
linear polynomial models to the top matches in each
local sequence =
,
! 1 ,…,
by using:

y = f ( x) = α j x + β j

(4)

where is the sequence length used in Section 3.3, j is
the current frame and
describes the slope of the
linear model in sequence
which represents the
velocity ratio between the second and first traverse. As
shown in Figure 6, the
he place match hypotheses
comprising a sequence are accepted if the velocity ratio
is within a certain bound around a reference velocity
. The parameter is swept over a range of
o values to
generate the precision-recall
recall curves shown in Section
5.1. We also note here that if an odometry source is
available, this sequence search could be significantly
simplified in a manner similar to the SMART approach
[Pepperell, et al., 2013].

Figure 6 Describe how a final place match hypothesis
is
estimated by fitting a linear model to a local sequence
5 ,..,
. The slope of the linear model
is within a
bound around a reference velocity and therefore, the final match
generated by the linear model is considered as a plausible match.

4.2 Ground Truth
For the Eynsham dataset, we
w used the 40 metre
tolerance GPS-derived
derived ground truth provided with the
Eynsham dataset, consistent with the tolerance used in
the original FAB-MAP
MAP study [Cummins and Newman,
2008] and SeqSLAM study [Milford
[
and Wyeth, 2012].
For the QUT dataset, ground truth was obtained by
manually parsing
arsing each frame and building frame
correspondence. We use a tolerance of 2 frames,
frames
corresponding to approximately
approximate 3.8 meters.

Dataset Name Total Distance
Eynsham
QUT

70 km
380 m

Total Number Distance between
of Frames
frames
9575
6.7 m (median)
200
1.9

Table 1 Dataset Description…

Figure 7: Aerial overhead images showing the dataset route for the (a)
70 km Eynsham and (b) 300m QUT dataset. Imagery @2014 Google,
Map data @2014 Google. (c) Illustration of the moderate viewpoint
variation in the QUT dataset.

4 Experimental Setup

4.3 Parameter Values

In this section, we describe the datasets
sets used, ground
gro
truth measures, and parameter values.

In Table 2,, we provide the values of the critical
parameters used in the experiment.
experiment

4.1 Datasets
Parameter

Details of the two datasets used are summarized in
Table 1.. Each dataset consists of two traverses along the
same route, with the first traverse used for training and
the second traverse used for testing. For both
environments, full resolution images were first
converted to gray-scale
scale and then histogram normalized
to reduce the effect of illumination variations. Images
were then resized to 256 × 256 pixels before being input
into the CNNs.
The Eynsham dataset is a large 70 km road-based
road
dataset (2 × 35 km traverses) used in the [Cummins and
Newman, 2009] FAB-MAP
MAP and SeqSLAM studies.
Panoramic images were captured at 7 meter intervals
using a Ladybug 2 camera. The QUT dataset was
collected using a hand-held
held camera walking around the
Queensland University of Technology
hnology campus,
campus with a
viewpoint shift of up to 5 metres lateral camera
movement between the first and second traverses.
traverse

Value

d

Description

3

Threshold for local spatial constrain

5

Length of local sequence for polynomial
model fit
Prior knowledge about the matching slope

"/4
Table 2 Parameter values.

5 Results
In this section we present two sets of results on the
Eynsham and QUT datasets;
datasets firstly, a comparison of
performance between our proposed approach with both
FAB-MAP
MAP 2.0 and SeqSLAM on the benchmark
Eynsham dataset, as well as an evaluation of the
performance of each feature layer for viewpoint
invariant place recognition. We also provide compute
performance statistics and discuss the feasibility of a
real-time implementation.

5.1 Precision-Recall curves
This section presents precision-recall
recall curves on the
Eynsham dataset for the deep learning-based
learning
place
recognition algorithms using features from all layers of
the CNNs with comparison to SeqSLAM and FABFAB
MAP. Each precision-recall
recall curve was generated by
performing a parameter sweep on slope tolerance
discussed in Section 3.4.

network layers provide the best performance, a result
consistent the image retrieval experiments
experiment of [Babenko,
et al., 2014] which suggest that the middle network
layers provide a more general feature description while
the top layers are overtrained for the ImageNet task.

Figure 9 F1 scores on the QUT dataset and Eynsham subset across
layers. (a) Results on the Campus dataset; (b) Results on the Eynsham
subset;

Figure 8 Precision-recall curves on the Eynsham dataset.
dataset (a) Maximal
recall rates at 100% precision using different algorithms; (b)
Precision-recall
recall curves of deep learning method and state-of-the-art
state
method, 19th indicates
ndicates the result using features from the 19th layer of
the network;; (c) Zoom in on a particular section in (b).

Figure 8(a)
(a) demonstrates the maximum recall rates
at 100% precision achieved using the best performing
feature layers and SeqSLAM and FAB-MAP.
FAB
The
maximum recall rate that can be achieved by the deep
learning-based
based approach is 85.7% compared to the
approximately 51% recall rate achieved by SeqSLAM.
Also noteworthy is that this result is achieved using a
filter analogous to SeqSLAM operating with a sequence
length of 5, rather than the sequence length of
o 50 with
which the 51% recall performance is achieved.
Figures 8(b) and 8(c) present the precision-recall
precision
performance curves for all layers. Clearly the middle

Figure 10 Sample place matches from (a) reverse trajectories on
Eynsham dataset (b) and lateral viewpoint
wpoint change on the QUT dataset.
dataset

5.2 Viewpoint Invariance
We evaluate the viewpoint invariance of different
network layers using a custom QUT dataset specifically
gathered with lateral camera variance, and by selecting
a subsection of the Eynsham dataset where the car is
travelling in the reverse direction on the opposite side of
the road.
Figure 9 shows the F1 scores achieved by each
layer of the CNN. There is a clear trend for increasing
viewpoint invariance in later network layers. The red
lines represent a performance baseline calculated by
using a Sum of Absolute Differences
ifferences (SAD) image
comparison. The green dotted lines show the
performance of SAD with offset matching, a measure
frequently used to increase the viewpoint invariance of
such as technique [Milford, 2013].
5.3 Visualization of Confusion Matrix
To provide a qualitative illustration of the superiority of
using deep learnt features over simple techniques like
SAD, we present a comparison between a subsection of
the confusion matrix from the 10th layer generated using
each approach (Figure 11).

CNN Feature Extraction
Using a standard CPU, 10 images can be processed
per second.
Feature Matching
The largest feature vector is from the 10th layer
which contains 64899 uint16 values. Comparing it to all
4789 training images will require:
64899 * 2 * 4789 = 6.22*
6.22 10- comparison/s
Based on this, a standard CPU should be able to process
about 2.5 frames per second.

6 Discussion and Future Work
The results in this paper demonstrate that
th the task of
place recognition can benefit immensely from
incorporating features learnt using CNNs. In particular,
performance using even a relatively simple framework
around these features results in performance
significantly better than the current state of the art
algorithms. Furthermore it is interesting to note that
different layers appear to be suitable
suitab for different
aspects of the place recognition task – the middle layers
being optimal for recognition on relatively static,
similar viewpoint datasets, while later layers appear to
perform better when viewpoint variance becomes
significant. In this section
ion we discuss some of the new
opportunities and challenges that exist in this field.
6.1 Network Adaption Training

Figure 11 Comparison of confusion matrix from the 10th layer using
sum of absolute difference (top) and deep learning features (bottom).
A more clear diagonal pattern can be observed in the bottom figure.

5.4 Feasibility of Real-time Operation
Deep
learning
approaches
are
notoriously
computationally-intensive
intensive so an examination of realreal
time capability is particular necessary. The experiments
in this paper used the Overfeat network, and feature
extraction ran at significantly slower than real-time
real
on a
single PC. However, we have recently re-implemented
re
the system using another convolutional architecture
dubbed Caffe [Jia, et al., 2014],, and initial studies
suggest that recognition performance
rmance is near-identical
near
while being many orders of magnitude faster.
Consequently, here we present a calculation of the
computation required for extracting features and feature
matching using Caffe.

Datasets are inherently biased in computer vision
[Torralba and Efros, 2011].. In [Hoffman, et al., 2013],
the researchers demonstrated that a supervised deep
CNN model trained on large amounts of labelled data
reduces, but does not remove, data bias. The network
we use in this paper is trained for a different
classification task; therefore, although it demonstrates
impressive generalization performance to a different
recognition task, a major question remains unanswered;
whether performance can be further improved by
training a network from scratch with place recognition
datasets. One potential problem with such an approach
is the relative sparsity of very large place recognition
datasets in comparison with the millions of frames
found in the Imagenet database. One option will be to
keep all the parameters from the pre-trained model and
then add a final domain specific classification layer
trained for each particular new dataset. This approach
has been adopted in some domain adaption work from
CNNs for object recognition
on [Hoffman, et al., 2013,
Oquab, et al., 2013, Rodner, et al., 2013].
2013
6.2 Automatic Layer Selection
Currently there is no mechanism for automatically
select the best layer for the specific place recognition
task. Future work will investigate
investigat automating selection
of the best performing layers,
layer most immediately by
introducing a performance measurement for each layer
during the training process.
6.3 Feature Ranking for Deep Learning Features
In this paper, we use a simple Euclidean distance metric
to compare the similarity of feature responses, an

approach that implicitly assumes that each feature
contributes equally to place recognition performance.
This assumption is likely unreasonable because feature
weights are normally dataset-dependent. A feature
which contributes strongly in one dataset may have little
classification power for another dataset. In future work,
we plan to train a dataset-dependent feature ranking
algorithm for each new task to automatically weight the
contributions of different features.

References:
[A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, 2012]
A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton,
"Imagenet classification with deep convolutional
neural networks," presented at the Advances in
neural information processing systems, 2012.
[M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus, 2013] M. D. Zeiler and R.
Fergus,
"Visualizing
and
understanding
convolutional neural networks," arXiv preprint
arXiv:1311.2901, 2013.
[J. Donahue, Y. Jia, O. Vinyals, J. Hoffman, N. Zhang,
E. Tzeng, and T. Darrell, 2013] J. Donahue, Y.
Jia, O. Vinyals, J. Hoffman, N. Zhang, E. Tzeng,
and T. Darrell, "Decaf: A deep convolutional
activation feature for generic visual recognition,"
arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.1531, 2013.
[L. Fei-Fei, R. Fergus, and P. Perona, 2007] L. Fei-Fei,
R. Fergus, and P. Perona, "Learning generative
visual models from few training examples: An
incremental bayesian approach tested on 101
object categories," Computer Vision and Image
Understanding, vol. 106, pp. 59-70, 2007.
[P. Welinder, S. Branson, T. Mita, C. Wah, F. Schroff,
S. Belongie, and P. Perona, 2010] P. Welinder, S.
Branson, T. Mita, C. Wah, F. Schroff, S.
Belongie, and P. Perona, "Caltech-UCSD birds
200," 2010.
[J. Xiao, J. Hays, K. A. Ehinger, A. Oliva, and A.
Torralba, 2010] J. Xiao, J. Hays, K. A. Ehinger,
A. Oliva, and A. Torralba, "Sun database: Largescale scene recognition from abbey to zoo," in
Computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR),
2010 IEEE conference on, 2010, pp. 3485-3492.
[R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik,
2013] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J.
Malik, "Rich feature hierarchies for accurate
object detection and semantic segmentation,"
arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.2524, 2013.
[M. Cummins and P. Newman, 2008] M. Cummins and
P.
Newman,
"FAB-MAP:
Probabilistic
Localization and Mapping in the Space of
Appearance," International Journal of Robotics
Research, vol. 27, pp. 647-665, 2008.
[A. Angeli, D. Filliat, S. Doncieux, and J.-A. Meyer,
2008] A. Angeli, D. Filliat, S. Doncieux, and J.A. Meyer, "Fast and Incremental Method for
Loop-Closure Detection Using Bags of Visual
Words," IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 24,
pp. 1027-1037, 2008.
[J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L.
Fei-Fei, 2009] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J.
Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, "Imagenet: A largescale hierarchical image database," presented at

the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
2009.
[A. C. Murillo and J. Kosecka., 2009] A. C. Murillo and
J. Kosecka., "Experiments in place recognition
using gist panoramas," presented at the
International Conference on Computer Vision
Workshops (ICCV Workshops), 2009.
[I. Ulrich and I. Nourbakhsh, 2000] I. Ulrich and I.
Nourbakhsh,
"Appearance-Based
Place
Recognition for Topological Localization," in
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000, pp.
1023-1029.
[P. Blaer and P. Allen, 2002] P. Blaer and P. Allen,
"Topological mobile robot localization using fast
vision techniques," presented at the IEEE ICRA,
2002.
[T. Deselaers, D. Keysers, and H. Ney, 2008] T.
Deselaers, D. Keysers, and H. Ney, "Features for
image retrieval: an experimental comparison,"
Information Retrieval, vol. 11, pp. 77-107, 2008.
[D. G. Lowe, 1999] D. G. Lowe, "Object Recognition
from Local Scale-Invariant Features," presented
at the Proceedings of the International Conference
on Computer Vision-Volume 2 - Volume 2, 1999.
[Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne Tuytelaars, and L. V.
Gool, 2008] Herbert Bay, Andreas Ess, Tinne
Tuytelaars, and L. V. Gool, "SURF: Speeded Up
Robust Features," Computer Vision and Image
Understanding (CVIU), vol. 110, pp. 346-359,
2008.
[M. Milford and G. Wyeth, 2012] M. Milford and G.
Wyeth, "SeqSLAM: Visual Route-Based
Navigation for Sunny Summer Days and Stormy
Winter Nights," in IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, St Paul,
United States, 2012.
[A. Sharif Razavian, H. Azizpour, J. Sullivan, and S.
Carlsson, 2014] A. Sharif Razavian, H. Azizpour,
J. Sullivan, and S. Carlsson, "CNN Features offthe-shelf:
an
Astounding
Baseline
for
Recognition," arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.6382,
2014.
[A. Babenko, A. Slesarev, A. Chigorin, and V.
Lempitsky, 2014] A. Babenko, A. Slesarev, A.
Chigorin, and V. Lempitsky, "Neural Codes for
Image
Retrieval,"
arXiv
preprint
arXiv:1404.1777, 2014.
[P. Fischer, A. Dosovitskiy, and T. Brox, 2014] P.
Fischer, A. Dosovitskiy, and T. Brox, "Descriptor
Matching with Convolutional Neural Networks: a
Comparison
to
SIFT,"
arXiv
preprint
arXiv:1405.5769, 2014.
[P. Sermanet, D. Eigen, X. Zhang, M. Mathieu, R.
Fergus, and Y. LeCun, 2013] P. Sermanet, D.
Eigen, X. Zhang, M. Mathieu, R. Fergus, and Y.
LeCun, "Overfeat: Integrated recognition,
localization and detection using convolutional
networks," presented at the arXiv preprint
arXiv:1312.6229, 2013.
[E. Pepperell, P. Corke, and M. Milford, 2013] E.
Pepperell, P. Corke, and M. Milford, "Towards
persistent visual navigation using SMART," in

Proceedings of Australasian Conference on
Robotics and Automation, 2013.
[M. Cummins and P. Newman, 2009] M. Cummins and
P. Newman, "Highly scalable appearance-only
SLAM - FAB-MAP 2.0," in Robotics: Science
and Systems, Seattle, United States, 2009.
[M. Milford, 2013] M. Milford, "Vision-based place
recognition: how low can you go?," International
Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, pp. 766789, 2013.
[Y. Jia, E. Shelhamer, J. Donahue, S. Karayev, J. Long,
R. Girshick, S. Guadarrama, and T. Darrell, 2014]
Y. Jia, E. Shelhamer, J. Donahue, S. Karayev, J.
Long, R. Girshick, S. Guadarrama, and T. Darrell,
"Caffe: Convolutional Architecture for Fast
Feature Embedding," 2014.
[A. Torralba and A. A. Efros, 2011] A. Torralba and A.
A. Efros, "Unbiased look at dataset bias," in
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(CVPR), 2011 IEEE Conference on, 2011, pp.
1521-1528.
[J. Hoffman, E. Tzeng, J. J. Donahue, Yangqing, K.
Saenko, and T. Darrell, 2013] J. Hoffman, E.
Tzeng, J. J. Donahue, Yangqing, K. Saenko, and
T. Darrell, "One-Shot Adaptation of Supervised
Deep Convolutional Models," presented at the
arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6204, 2013.
[M. Oquab, L. Bottou, I. Laptev, and J. Sivic, 2013] M.
Oquab, L. Bottou, I. Laptev, and J. Sivic,
"Learning and transferring mid-level image
representations using convolutional neural
networks," 2013.
[E. Rodner, J. Hoffman, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and K.
Saenko, 2013] E. Rodner, J. Hoffman, J.
Donahue, T. Darrell, and K. Saenko, "Towards
adapting imagenet to reality: Scalable domain
adaptation
with
implicit
low-rank
transformations,"
arXiv
preprint
arXiv:1308.4200, 2013.

