# Where Am I? Semantic Map Grounding via Vision-Language Models for Multi-Modal Localization

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01079 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.01079/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Embodied and 3D vision-language models, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 10 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Embodied and 3D vision-language models](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/embodied-and-3d-vision-language-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08485/) (2023)
- [RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15818/) (2023)
- [NetVLAD: CNN architecture for weakly supervised place recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.07247/) (2015)
- [From Coarse to Fine: Robust Hierarchical Localization at Large Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.03506/) (2018)
- [LM-Nav: Robotic Navigation with Large Pre-Trained Models of Language, Vision, and Action](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04429/) (2022)
- [Hydra: A Real-time Spatial Perception System for 3D Scene Graph Construction and Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.13360/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.