American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
October  2005, 1(4): 565-587. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.565

Gauss-Newton-on-manifold for pose estimation

Pei Yean Lee 1, and  John B Moore 1,

1. 

National ICT Australia Ltd., Australia, Australian National University, Australia, Australia

Received  May 2005 Revised  August 2005 Published  October 2005

We consider the task of estimating the relative pose (position and orientation) between a 3D object and its projection on a 2D image plane from a set of point correspondences. Our approach is to formulate the task as an unconstrained optimization problem on the intersection of the special orthogonal group and a cone, and exploit as much as possible the geometry of the underlying parameter space. The optimization does not require Riemannian geometry. It involves successive parameterization of the constraint manifold and is based on Newton-type iterations in local parameter space. A direct proof of local quadratical convergence to the optimum is provided. A key feature of the proposed approach, not used in earlier studies, is an analytic geodesic search, alternating between gradient, Gauss, Newton and random directions, which ensures the escape from local minima and convergence to a global minimum without the need to reinitialize the algorithm. Indeed, for a prescribed number of iterations, the proposed algorithm achieves significantly lower pose estimation errors than earlier methods and it converges to a global minimum in typically 5--10 iterations.
Keywords: pose estimation., manifold, geometric optimization, Newton-like methods, local parameterization, differential geometry, machine vision.
Mathematics Subject Classification: 90C90, 49M37, 68T45, 68U0.
Citation: Pei Yean Lee, John B Moore. Gauss-Newton-on-manifold for pose estimation. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2005, 1 (4) : 565-587. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.565
[1]

Hong-Yi Miao, Li Wang. Preconditioned inexact Newton-like method for large nonsymmetric eigenvalue problems. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 2021, 11 (4) : 677-685. doi: 10.3934/naco.2021012
[2]

Tibor Krisztin. A local unstable manifold for differential equations with state-dependent delay. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2003, 9 (4) : 993-1028. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2003.9.993
[3]

Shummin Nakayama, Yasushi Narushima, Hiroshi Yabe. Memoryless quasi-Newton methods based on spectral-scaling Broyden family for unconstrained optimization. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (4) : 1773-1793. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018122
[4]

C. M. Groothedde, J. D. Mireles James. Parameterization method for unstable manifolds of delay differential equations. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2017, 4 (1&2) : 21-70. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2017002
[5]

B. S. Goh, W. J. Leong, Z. Siri. Partial Newton methods for a system of equations. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 2013, 3 (3) : 463-469. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.463
[6]

Qiumei Huang, Xiuxiu Xu, Hermann Brunner. Continuous Galerkin methods on quasi-geometric meshes for delay differential equations of pantograph type. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2016, 36 (10) : 5423-5443. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2016039
[7]

Aurore Back, Emmanuel Frénod. Geometric two-scale convergence on manifold and applications to the Vlasov equation. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2015, 8 (1) : 223-241. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2015.8.223
[8]

Dmitry Pozharskiy, Noah J. Wichrowski, Andrew B. Duncan, Grigorios A. Pavliotis, Ioannis G. Kevrekidis. Manifold learning for accelerating coarse-grained optimization. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2020, 7 (2) : 511-536. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2020021
[9]

Inácio Andruski-Guimarães, Anselmo Chaves-Neto. Estimation in polytomous logistic model: Comparison of methods. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2009, 5 (2) : 239-252. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2009.5.239
[10]

Miguel Ángel Evangelista-Alvarado, José Crispín Ruíz-Pantaleón, Pablo Suárez-Serrato. On computational Poisson geometry II: Numerical methods. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2021, 8 (3) : 273-307. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2021012
[11]

Domokos Szász. Algebro-geometric methods for hard ball systems. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2008, 22 (1&2) : 427-443. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2008.22.427
[12]

Sebastián J. Ferraro, David Iglesias-Ponte, D. Martín de Diego. Numerical and geometric aspects of the nonholonomic SHAKE and RATTLE methods. Conference Publications, 2009, 2009 (Special) : 220-229. doi: 10.3934/proc.2009.2009.220
[13]

Ulrike Kant, Werner M. Seiler. Singularities in the geometric theory of differential equations. Conference Publications, 2011, 2011 (Special) : 784-793. doi: 10.3934/proc.2011.2011.784
[14]

Dmitri E. Kvasov, Yaroslav D. Sergeyev. Univariate geometric Lipschitz global optimization algorithms. Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization, 2012, 2 (1) : 69-90. doi: 10.3934/naco.2012.2.69
[15]

Zohre Aminifard, Saman Babaie-Kafaki. Diagonally scaled memoryless quasi–Newton methods with application to compressed sensing. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021191
[16]

Cheng-Dar Liou. Note on "Cost analysis of the M/M/R machine repair problem with second optional repair: Newton-Quasi method". Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2012, 8 (3) : 727-732. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2012.8.727
[17]

Kuo-Hsiung Wang, Chuen-Wen Liao, Tseng-Chang Yen. Cost analysis of the M/M/R machine repair problem with second optional repair: Newton-Quasi method. Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, 2010, 6 (1) : 197-207. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2010.6.197
[18]

Carlangelo Liverani. On the work and vision of Dmitry Dolgopyat. Journal of Modern Dynamics, 2010, 4 (2) : 211-225. doi: 10.3934/jmd.2010.4.211
[19]

Robert J. McCann. A glimpse into the differential topology and geometry of optimal transport. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2014, 34 (4) : 1605-1621. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2014.34.1605
[20]

Łukasz Rudnicki. Geophysics and Stuart vortices on a sphere meet differential geometry. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 2022, 21 (7) : 2479-2493. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2022075

2020 Impact Factor: 1.801

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (145)
  • HTML views (0)
  • Cited by (6)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2022 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences | Privacy Policy