Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inconsistent behavior of jacobian(::Type{RotMatrix}, ::QuatRotation)? #290

Open
trahflow opened this issue Feb 27, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Comments

@trahflow
Copy link

trahflow commented Feb 27, 2024

The method jacobian(::Type{RotMatrix}, ::QuatRotation) is supposed to implement the jacobian of vec(RotMatrix(q)) with respect to the parameters of q, where q isa QuatRotation.
The docstring says:

jacobian(::Type{output_param}, R::input_param)
Returns the jacobian for transforming from the input rotation parameterization
to the output parameterization, centered at the value of R.

Since QuatRotation can be constructed with or without normalization of the input quaternion, it is not entirely clear to me what this means.
I think there are essentially two possibilities:

  • Either it is the 9x4 matrix of derivatives of vec(RotMatrix(q)) with respect to the parameters of a unit quaternion, i.e. the jacobian of vec(RotMatrix(QuatRotation(p, false))), where p is a SVector{4} with norm(p) == 1.
  • Or it is the 9x4 matrix of derivatives of vec(RotMatrix(q)) with respect to the parameters of a general quaternion, i.e. the jacobian of vec(RotMatrix(QuatRotation(p, true))), where p is a SVector{4} with arbitrary norm. In this case the jacobian should be the product of the jacobian of the above case, times the jacobian of the normalization operation.

Now what jacobian(::Type{output_param}, R::input_param) tries to implement is apparently the second case, i.e. the jacobian including the normalization operation.
However even though it includes the normalization operation, the implementation still assumes that the input quaternion is normalized. I think this is inconsistent (but probably even a bug?)

There is a test for this method but it only tests for the case where the QuatRotation is constructed with an already normalized unit quaternion:

@testset "Jacobian (QuatRotation -> RotMatrix)" begin
    for i in 1:10    # do some repeats
        q = rand(QuatRotation)  # a random quaternion

        # test jacobian to a Rotation matrix
        R_jac = Rotations.jacobian(RotMatrix, q)
        FD_jac = ForwardDiff.jacobian(x -> SVector{9}(QuatRotation(x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4])),
                                      Rotations.params(q))

        # compare
        @test FD_jac  R_jac
    end
end

If one would change line 3 st q = rand(QuatRotation) --> q = QuatRotation(rand(QuaternionF64), false), the test would actually fail.

So in summary I think this method should either assume a unit quaternion and thus exclude the jacobian of the normalization operation, or assume a general (not necessarily unit-) quaternion and include the jacobian of the normalization operation.

One suggestion would be to add a jacobian(::Type{RotMatrix}, ::Quaternion) (note the Quaternion instead of QuatRotation), which assumes a general quaternion and returns the jacobian including the normalization term.
And change the behavior of the existing jacobian(::Type{RotMatrix}, ::QuatRotation) to return the jacobian without the normalization term.
I could provide a PR for that. I've proposed a PR: #291 which relaxes above test in said way and provides the suggested change (as a base for discussion).

trahflow added a commit to trahflow/Rotations.jl that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
trahflow added a commit to trahflow/Rotations.jl that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
@trahflow trahflow changed the title Inconsistent behavior of jacobian(::Type{RotMatrix}, ::QuatRotation) Inconsistent behavior of jacobian(::Type{RotMatrix}, ::QuatRotation)? Mar 5, 2024
@hyrodium
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you for the detailed issue description!
I have not implemented the differentiation (jacobian, ∇rotate, etc.) part, but your comment looks correct.
I will review the PR in a week!

@trahflow
Copy link
Author

trahflow commented Aug 15, 2024

This would probably also directly help with #129 (which I could maybe help with if I find time and confidence 🙃 )

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants