You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thank you for sharing the great work! I want to ask a question of the Gauss-Newton method used in your paper.
You used Gauss-Newton method in the 6D space of \xi. The assumption is that the residual is linearly varying around the current \xi_k. By \delta\xi = H^{-1}b, it is basically saying that \xi_{k+1} = \delta\xi + \xi_k is locally the best point (derivative of the energy = 0). However, you didn't update \xi_k in this way, but updated it via exp(\delta\xi)exp(\xi_k) (Equation 2 in paper). However, this composition doesn't necessarily end up with the same SE(3) point (or se(3)) as the additive updating step.
My feeling is that there is a mismatch between the assumption of the Gauss-Newton method and your updating step. Could you provide more detailed reasoning about this?
Thank you very much!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thank you for sharing the great work! I want to ask a question of the Gauss-Newton method used in your paper.
You used Gauss-Newton method in the 6D space of \xi. The assumption is that the residual is linearly varying around the current \xi_k. By \delta\xi = H^{-1}b, it is basically saying that \xi_{k+1} = \delta\xi + \xi_k is locally the best point (derivative of the energy = 0). However, you didn't update \xi_k in this way, but updated it via exp(\delta\xi)exp(\xi_k) (Equation 2 in paper). However, this composition doesn't necessarily end up with the same SE(3) point (or se(3)) as the additive updating step.
My feeling is that there is a mismatch between the assumption of the Gauss-Newton method and your updating step. Could you provide more detailed reasoning about this?
Thank you very much!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: