Open smiles724 opened 2 years ago
Hey !
So if we take their code, we get Rc = Vt.T @ U.T = (U @ Vt).T
. In the article, they make the correspondances U2->U
, U1.T->Vt
and the rotation matrix is thus defined as Ra = U2 @ U1.T = U @ Vt = Rc.T
. The rotation matrix used in the code Rc
is thus the inverse of the rotation matrix used in the article Ra
. So yes, I agree with you.
Have you tried changing the function and if so did it present different results from what was obtained in the article ?
Hi, dear authors of Equidock, I feel really sad to hear the news that Ganea passed away without fully showing his extraordinary genius.
I came across the calculation of the Kabsh Model and found that the computation of the rotation matrix is somehow misleading. To be specific,
U, S, Vt = np.linalg.svd(H)
gives us the U, S, V^T, which corresponds to U2, S, U1^T in the paper. Next, the rotation matrix is obtained viaR = Vt.T @ U.T
, which is different from what is described in the text. Instead,R = U2 @ U^T
, which should beR = U @ Vt
in the code. Do you agree with me?