There is a set of coordinates $P=\{P_i\}$. $P_i=[x_i,y_i]$ and a set of coordinates $Q=\{Q_i\}$, $Q_i=[X_i, Y_i]$, where $Q_i$ coordinates are given by the following non-linear functions

$$X = f (a_1, a_2, a_3, ..., a_7)$$

$$Y = g (a_1, a_2, a_3, ..., a_7)$$

Parameters ai are estimated by non-linear least squares adjustment (BFGS) so as $\left\lVert P-Q \right\rVert$ is minimal.

Algorithm has a poor convergence when P has non-zero shifts sx, sy (i.e., large) against Q.

The values of ai are in interval $(-30P_i , 30P_i)$, but shifts can be "very large" compared to $a_i$: $\pm 10^9$.

Residuals with included shifts are given by

$$rx_i = f (a_1, a_2, a_3, \ldots, a7)_i -sx - x_i$$

$$ry_i = g (a_1, a_2, a_3, \ldots, a_7)_i -sy - y_i$$

And a Jacobi matrix $J$

$$ J = \begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial X}{\partial a_1}&\cdots&\frac {\partial X}{\partial a_7}& -1& 0\\ \frac{\partial Y}{\partial a_1}&\cdots &\frac{\partial Y}{\partial a_7}& 0 &-1\end{pmatrix}$$,

where $$ \frac{\partial X}{\partial sx} = \frac{\partial Y}{\partial sy}=-1 $$ $$ \frac{\partial X}{\partial sy} = \frac{\partial Y}{\partial sx}=0 $$

How to ensure a convergence of this problem?

I tried to estimate $sx$ and $sy$ from a 2D Helmert transformation. But it works only for an initial vector very close to local minima.

In a current case (random initial vector) this method does not work, shifts are estimated incorrectly...

UPDATED QUESTION I tried to implement the case with zero shifts sx, sy, where

$$rx_i = f (a_1, a_2, a_3, \ldots, a7)_i - x_i$$

$$ry_i = g (a_1, a_2, a_3, \ldots, a_7)_i - y_i$$


$$ J = \begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial X}{\partial a_1}&\cdots&\frac {\partial X}{\partial a_7}\\ \frac{\partial Y}{\partial a_1}&\cdots &\frac{\partial Y}{\partial a_7}\end{pmatrix}$$

and there is a very fast convergence for such sets P,Q...

But I am still not able to estimate shifts between P, Q and solve the old problem...

  • $\begingroup$ Are $sx, sy$ given numbers? Can't they be part of $f$ and $g$? Could it be that you are losing precision in the subtraction because $sx, sy$ are so large? $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Feb 15 '13 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ Sx and sy are a-priori unknown. I think that the precision has not been lost... Added shifts cause more local minima and a problem becomes non-convex... See my updated question, please. $\endgroup$ – justik Feb 15 '13 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ So are you fitting to find $sx, sy$ as well as the $a_i$'s? I still don't understand what the shifts are. It looks like they could be part of $f$ and $g$. $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Feb 15 '13 at 22:16
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is a type of the fit problem when we have to estimate ai, sx, sy so as norm (P-Q) is minimal. Heref,g are some functions describing deformation and Pi, Qi something like a control points in a grid. I try to rescale sx, sy but tomorrow, now I am going to sleep :-) $\endgroup$ – justik Feb 15 '13 at 23:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.