pith. sign in

arxiv: 2008.01574 · v3 · submitted 2020-08-04 · 💻 cs.CV

A Robust 3D Registration Method via Simultaneous Inlier Identification and Model Estimation

Xianyun Qian , Fei Wen , Peilin Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 14:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords robust 3D registrationsimultaneous inlier identificationmodel estimationalternating minimizationsemidefinite relaxationpoint cloud registrationrotation estimationoutlier handling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simultaneous inlier identification and model estimation yields lower fitting residuals than maximum consensus methods in 3D registration.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper revisits a truncated-loss formulation that identifies inliers and estimates the geometric transformation at the same time rather than in separate stages. It claims this SIME approach reaches a lower fitting residual than maximum consensus estimators because it uses the actual size of each residual when deciding which points count as inliers. The authors develop an alternating minimization solver, then embed semidefinite relaxation inside it, to handle the resulting nonconvex binary optimization problem. They apply the framework to quaternion-based 3D rotation search and rigid point-set registration. A reader would care because registration under heavy outliers is a recurring bottleneck in robotics and vision pipelines.

Core claim

The central claim is that a truncated-loss based simultaneous inlier identification and model estimation (SIME) formulation for 3D registration achieves lower fitting residuals than maximum consensus estimators because it incorporates residual magnitudes into the inlier selection process, and that the nonconvex SIME problem can be solved reliably by an alternating minimization algorithm embedded with semidefinite relaxation, as demonstrated on quaternion formulations for rotation search and rigid point-set registration.

What carries the argument

truncated-loss based simultaneous inlier identification and model estimation (SIME) solved via alternating minimization embedded with semidefinite relaxation

If this is right

  • SIME produces tighter alignments than separate inlier-then-fit pipelines when residual magnitudes vary.
  • The AM-SDR procedure makes the nonconvex binary problem tractable for rotation search and rigid registration.
  • Advantages appear most clearly under high noise and high outlier ratios in both simulated and real data.
  • Quaternion parametrizations allow the same SIME machinery to cover both rotation-only and full rigid cases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same simultaneous selection idea could be tested on other estimation tasks where residuals carry magnitude information.
  • If the solver scales, it might reduce the need for separate RANSAC-style preprocessing in real-time pipelines.
  • A natural next measurement would compare run time and accuracy against M-estimator baselines on the same benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The nonconvex SIME problem for 3D registration can be reliably solved to good solutions by the proposed alternating minimization algorithm embedded with semidefinite relaxation.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment on the same point sets where the AM-SDR solver returns a transformation with higher residual error than a standard maximum consensus solver would falsify the claimed advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2008.01574 by Fei Wen, Peilin Liu, Xianyun Qian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Rotation error of the proposed algorithm with random or RANSAC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Model estimation error versus outlier ratio in the linear regression experiment with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Consensus size and runtime comparison in the linear regression experiment with uniformly distributed outliers in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Homography estimation results on 20 image pairs with algebraic dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sample qualitative results of MCME in (a) homography estimation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Rotation error comparison in the rotation registration experiment with low and high noise conditions. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Runtime comparison in the rotation registration experiment for two cases, (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rotation error, translation error and runtime comparison in the 6-DoF Euclidean registration experiment. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of 6-DoF Euclidean registration by RANSAC and MCME (with outlier ratio being 80%), along with the rotation error (RotErr) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Robust 3D registration is a fundamental problem in computer vision and robotics, where the goal is to estimate the geometric transformation between two sets of measurements in the presence of noise, mismatches, and extreme outlier contamination. Existing robust registration methods are mainly built on either maximum consensus (MC) estimators, which first identify inliers and then estimate the transformation, or M-estimators, which directly optimize a robust objective. In this work, we revisit a truncated-loss based formulation for simultaneous inlier identification and model estimation (SIME) and study it in the context of 3D registration. We show that, compared with MC-based robust fitting, SIME can achieve a lower fitting residual because it incorporates residual magnitudes into the inlier selection process. To solve the resulting nonconvex problem, we develop an alternating minimization (AM) algorithm, and further propose an AM method embedded with semidefinite relaxation (SDR) to alleviate the difficulty caused by the binary inlier variables. We instantiate the proposed framework for 3D rotation search and rigid point-set registration using quaternion-based formulations. Experimental results on both simulated and real-world registration tasks demonstrate that the proposed methods compare favorably with strong baseline solvers, especially in challenging cases with high noise levels and many outliers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a truncated-loss formulation for simultaneous inlier identification and model estimation (SIME) in robust 3D registration. It argues that this yields lower fitting residuals than maximum-consensus (MC) methods because inlier selection incorporates residual magnitudes. An alternating minimization (AM) algorithm, extended with semidefinite relaxation (SDR) to handle binary variables, is developed to solve the resulting nonconvex quaternion-based problems for rotation search and rigid registration. Experiments on simulated and real data are reported to show favorable comparisons with baseline solvers under high noise and outliers.

Significance. If the empirical gains hold, the work supplies a practical optimization framework that improves on pure MC estimators for registration tasks with extreme contamination while retaining the interpretability of explicit inlier selection. The concrete quaternion parameterization and the AM+SDR solver constitute reusable technical contributions for nonconvex robust fitting.

minor comments (3)
  1. Abstract: the statement that SIME 'can achieve a lower fitting residual' is presented without any numerical illustration or pointer to a specific table/figure; adding one sentence with a representative residual value or dataset reference would improve immediate readability.
  2. The description of the AM+SDR procedure would benefit from an explicit statement of the relaxation tightness guarantee (or lack thereof) for the quaternion formulation, even if only as a brief remark in the solver section.
  3. Figure captions and table headers should consistently report the exact outlier ratio, noise level, and number of trials so that the 'challenging cases' claims can be directly cross-checked with the plotted results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary and recommendation of minor revision. We appreciate the recognition of the practical value of the SIME framework, the quaternion-based AM+SDR solver, and the empirical advantages over pure MC estimators under high contamination.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper introduces a truncated-loss SIME formulation for simultaneous inlier identification and model estimation in 3D registration, then develops an AM+SDR solver for the resulting nonconvex program using quaternion parameterizations. The claim that SIME yields lower fitting residual than MC methods follows directly from the explicit inclusion of residual magnitudes in the objective (a modeling choice), not from any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or from a self-citation chain. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or load-bearing premise reduces to prior self-authored work; the approach is evaluated on simulated and real external data without internal reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. The derivation remains self-contained as an algorithmic proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the method builds on standard optimization techniques such as alternating minimization and semidefinite relaxation without introducing new postulated objects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5754 in / 1116 out tokens · 28002 ms · 2026-05-24T14:17:06.442005+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The maximum consensus problem: recent algorithmic advances,

    T. J. Chin and D. Suter, “The maximum consensus problem: recent algorithmic advances,” Synthesis Lectures on Computer Vision (Eds. Gerard Medioni and Sven Dickinson) , Morgan and Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA, USA, Feb 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Robust techniques for computer vision,

    P. Meer, “Robust techniques for computer vision,” in G. Medioni and S. B. Kang eds.: Emerging topics in computer vision . Prentice Hall, pp. 107–190, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Robust rotation and translation estimation in multiview reconstruction,

    D. Martinec and T. Pajdla, “Robust rotation and translation estimation in multiview reconstruction,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Automatic panoramic image stitching using invariant features,

    M. Brown and D. G. Lowe, “Automatic panoramic image stitching using invariant features,” Int. J. Computer Vision , vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59–73, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    Locally optimized ransac,

    O. Chum, J. Matas, and J. Kittler, “Locally optimized ransac,” in DAGM, Springer, 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Guided-mlesac: Faster image transform estimation by using matching priors,

    B. J. Tordoff and D. W. Murray, “Guided-mlesac: Faster image transform estimation by using matching priors,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1523–1535, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Matching with PROSAC–Progressive sample consensus,

    O. Chum and J. Matas, “Matching with PROSAC–Progressive sample consensus,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Jun. 2005, pp. 220–226

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Performance evaluation of RANSAC family,

    S. Choi, T. Kim, and W. Yu, “Performance evaluation of RANSAC family,” in British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) , 2009

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    Fixing the locally optimized ransac- Cfull experimental evaluation,

    K. Lebeda, J. Matas, and O. Chum, “Fixing the locally optimized ransac- Cfull experimental evaluation,” in British Machine Vision Conference , 2012, pp. 1–11

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Consensus set maximization with guaranteed global optimality for robust geometry estimation,

    H. Li, “Consensus set maximization with guaranteed global optimality for robust geometry estimation,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2009, pp. 1074–1080

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    Deterministically maximizing feasible subsystem for robust model fitting with unit norm constraint,

    Y . Zheng, S. Sugimoto, and M. Okutomi, “Deterministically maximizing feasible subsystem for robust model fitting with unit norm constraint,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2011, pp. 1825–1832

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Consensus maximization with linear matrix inequality constraints,

    P. Speciale, D. P. Paudel, M. R. Oswald, T. Kroeger, L. V . Gool, and M. Pollefeys, “Consensus maximization with linear matrix inequality constraints,” in IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), July 2017, pp. 5048–5056

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Efficient globally op- timal consensus maximisation with tree search,

    T. J. Chin, P. Purkait, A. Eriksson, and D. Suter, “Efficient globally op- timal consensus maximisation with tree search,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2015, pp. 2413–2421

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Robust fitting for multiple view geometry,

    O. Enqvist, E. Ask, F. Kahl, and K. Astrom, “Robust fitting for multiple view geometry,” in European Conference on Computer Vision , 2012, pp. 738–751

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    A polynomial-time bound for matching and registration with outliers,

    C. Olsson, O. Enqvist, and F. Kahl, “A polynomial-time bound for matching and registration with outliers,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2008, pp. 1–8. 15 (a) σ = 0.01 (low noise) (b) σ = 0.1 (high noise) Fig. 9. Rotation error, translation error and runtime comparison in the 6-DoF Euclidean registration experiment. (a) σ ...

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Outlier removal using duality,

    C. Olsson, A. P. Eriksson, and R. Hartley, “Outlier removal using duality,” inIEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 1450–1457, 2010

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Maximum consensus parameter estimation by reweighted L1 methods,

    P. Purkait, C. Zach, and A. Eriksson, “Maximum consensus parameter estimation by reweighted L1 methods,” in Int. Workshop on Energy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 312–32

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Efficient algorithms for maximum consensus robust fitting,

    F. Wen, R. Ying, Z. Gong, and P. Liu, “Efficient algorithms for maximum consensus robust fitting,” IEEE Trans. Robotics , vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 92– 106, Feb. 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    An exact penalty method for locally convergent maximum consensus,

    H. Le, T. J. Chin, and D. Suter, “An exact penalty method for locally convergent maximum consensus,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 1888–1896

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Deterministic approximate methods for maximum consensus robust fitting,

    H. Le, T. J. Chin, A. Eriksson, and D. Suter, “Deterministic approximate methods for maximum consensus robust fitting,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Removing outliers using the l-infinity norm,

    K. Sim and R. Hartley, “Removing outliers using the l-infinity norm,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2006, pp. 485–494

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Outlier removal by convex optimization for l-infinity approaches,

    Y . Seo, H. Lee, and S. W. Lee, “Outlier removal by convex optimization for l-infinity approaches,” in Pacific Rim Symposium on Advances in Image and Video Technology (PSIVT) , 2009

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    A recipe for semidefinite relax- ation for (0, 1)-quadratic programming,

    S. Poljak, F. Rendl, and H. Wolkowicz, “A recipe for semidefinite relax- ation for (0, 1)-quadratic programming,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 51–73, 1995

    work page 1995

  25. [25]

    A nonlinear programming algorithm for solving semidefinite programs via low-rank factorization,

    S. Burer and R. D. C. Monteiro, “A nonlinear programming algorithm for solving semidefinite programs via low-rank factorization,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 329–357, 2003

    work page 2003

  26. [26]

    Determining the epipolar geometry and its uncertainty: A review,

    Z. Zhang, “Determining the epipolar geometry and its uncertainty: A review,” Int. J. of Computer Vision , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 161–195, 1998

    work page 1998

  27. [27]

    MLESAC: A new robust estimator with application to estimating image geometry,

    P. H. S. Torr and A. Zisserman, “MLESAC: A new robust estimator with application to estimating image geometry,” Comput. Vis. Image Understand., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 138–156, 2000

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    Convergence of iteratively re-weighted least squares to robust m-estimators,

    K. Aftab and R. Hartley, “Convergence of iteratively re-weighted least squares to robust m-estimators,” in IEEE Winter Conf. on Applications of Computer Vision, 2015, pp. 480–487

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Graduated nonconvexity for robust spatial perception: From non-minimal solvers to global outlier rejection,

    H. Yang, P. Antonante, V . Tzoumas, and L. Carlone, “Graduated nonconvexity for robust spatial perception: From non-minimal solvers to global outlier rejection,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2020

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Fast global registration,

    Q. Y . Zhou, J. Park, and V . Koltun, “Fast global registration,” in European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pp. 766–782, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    A quaternion-based certifiably optimal solution to the Wahba problem with outliers,

    H. Yang and L. Carlone, “A quaternion-based certifiably optimal solution to the Wahba problem with outliers,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Grant, S

    M. Grant, S. Boyd, and Y . Ye. CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, 2014

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    On the rank of extreme matrices in semidefinite programs and the multiplicity of optimal eigenvalues,

    G. Pataki, “On the rank of extreme matrices in semidefinite programs and the multiplicity of optimal eigenvalues,” Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 23, pp. 339–358, 1998

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    The non-convex Burer- Monteiro approach works on smooth semidefinite programs,

    N. Boumal, V . V oroninski, and A. Bandeira, “The non-convex Burer- Monteiro approach works on smooth semidefinite programs,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2016, pp. 2757–2765,

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Design and performance of parallel and distributed approximation algorithm for the maxcut,

    S. Homer and M. Peinado, “Design and performance of parallel and distributed approximation algorithm for the maxcut,” J. of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 46, pp. 48–61, 1997

    work page 1997

  36. [36]

    Fletcher

    R. Fletcher. Practical Methods of Optimization . John Wiley and Sons, New York, second edition, 1987

    work page 1987

  37. [37]

    Hartley and A

    R. Hartley and A. Zisserman. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge university press, 2003

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Quasiconvex optimization for robust geometric reconstruction,

    Q. Ke and T. Kanade, “Quasiconvex optimization for robust geometric reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1834–1847, 2007

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    Multiple view geometry under the ℓ∞-norm,

    F. Kahl and R. Hartley, “Multiple view geometry under the ℓ∞-norm,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1603–1617, 2008

    work page 2008

  40. [40]

    A fast method to minimize ℓ∞ error norm for geometric vision problems,

    Y . Seo and R. Hartley, “A fast method to minimize ℓ∞ error norm for geometric vision problems,” in IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2007

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    Biconvex sets and optimization with biconvex functions: a survey and extensions,

    J. Gorski, F. Pfeuffer, and K. Klamroth, “Biconvex sets and optimization with biconvex functions: a survey and extensions,”Mathematical Methods of Operations Research , vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 373–407, 2007

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    A least squares estimate of satellite attitude,

    G. Wahba, “A least squares estimate of satellite attitude,” SIAM review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 409–409, 1965

    work page 1965

  43. [43]

    Globally optimal inlier set maximization with unknown rotation and focal length,

    J.-C. Bazin, Y . Seo, R. Hartley, and M. Pollefeys, “Globally optimal inlier set maximization with unknown rotation and focal length,” in European Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pp. 803–817, 2014

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Global optimization through rotation space search,

    R. I. Hartley and F. Kahl, “Global optimization through rotation space search,” Int. J. of Computer Vision , vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 64–79, 2009

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    Global optimality for point set registration using semidefinite programming,

    J. P. Iglesias, C. Olsson, and F. Kahl, “Global optimality for point set registration using semidefinite programming,” in IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Globally optimal consensus set maximization through rotation search,

    J.-C. Bazin, Y . Seo, and M. Pollefeys, “Globally optimal consensus set maximization through rotation search,” in Asian Conference on Computer Vision, 2012, pp. 539–551

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    A survey of attitude representations,

    M. D. Shuster, “A survey of attitude representations,” Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 439–517, 1993

    work page 1993

  48. [48]

    Vlfeat: An open and portable library of computer vision algorithms,

    A. Vedaldi and B. Fulkerson, “Vlfeat: An open and portable library of computer vision algorithms,” in ACM Int. Conf. on Multimedia, 2010, pp. 1469–1472

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Orb-slam: a versatile and accurate monocular slam system,

    R. Mur-Artal, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardos, “Orb-slam: a versatile and accurate monocular slam system,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics , vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1147–1163, 2015

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Guaranteed outlier removal for point cloud registration with correspondences,

    A. P. Bustos and T. J. Chin, “Guaranteed outlier removal for point cloud registration with correspondences,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2868–2882, 2017

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Teaser: Fast and certifiable point cloud registration,

    H. Yang, J. Shi, and L. Carlone, “Teaser: Fast and certifiable point cloud registration,” Preprint, arXiv:2001.07715, 2020

    work page arXiv 2001

  52. [52]

    The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual

    MOSEK ApS. The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual . Version 8.1., 2017

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    A volumetric method for building complex models from range images,

    B. Curless and M. Levoy, “A volumetric method for building complex models from range images,” in SIGGRAPH, pp. 303–312, 1996

    work page 1996

  54. [54]

    M. Schmidt. minFunc: unconstrained differentiable multivariate opti- mization in Matlab . 2005

    work page 2005