Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 67 references

A cheat sheet for probability distributions of orientational data

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One reference now gives density, fitting, and sampling recipes for every common orientation distribution.

desk verdict Useful practical cheat sheet with a load-bearing normalization error in Eq. (38); fix that and the experimental overreach, and it earns its place. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08934 v2 pith:OYUAEIQS submitted 2024-12-12 stat.ME cs.RO

P.C. Lopez-Custodio This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEcs.RO MSC 62H1162F10
keywords orientationaldatadirectionalstatisticsprobabilitydistributionsonmanifoldsquaternionsSO(3)angularcentralGaussiandistributionBinghamacceptance-rejectionsampling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Orientational data—angles, unit vectors, quaternions, and rotation matrices—live on curved manifolds where ordinary multivariate normal statistics break down. This paper collects the probability distributions that respect those manifolds and, for each, gives the density, a parameter-fitting procedure, and a sampling algorithm, with a companion Python library. Its working claim is that a single practical reference can close the gap between directional statistics and engineering practice. From the theory and two small real-data experiments, the paper concludes that the angular central Gaussian distribution is the most convenient model for 3-DOF orientations, because its normalising constant is closed-form, fitting is a simple iteration, and sampling reduces to normalising normal draws.

What carries the argument

The central object is the manifold of the data: S, S2, S3/Z2, and SO(3). The carrying mechanisms are the scatter matrix and mean resultant length for descriptive statistics; acceptance-rejection sampling using enveloping distributions, notably an ACG envelope for the Bingham distribution; and the exponential and logarithmic maps used for tangent-space and Lie-algebra Gaussians. The key identity that makes ACG convenient is that it is the distribution of the direction of a zero-mean multivariate normal: y/∥y∥ with y ∼ N(0, Λ), so sampling is trivial and the normalising constant is a closed-form gamma expression instead of an infinite sum.

What would settle it

Fit all four 3-DOF models (ACG, Bingham, matrix Fisher, tangent-space Gaussian) to synthetic orientation data drawn from a known distribution, then compare held-out log-likelihood and sampling cost at matched concentration; if ACG is not competitive with Bingham or matrix Fisher, the paper's convenience claim is wrong. On the calibration experiment, bootstrap confidence intervals for the eigenvalue ratio a1/a2 of the ACG fits would show whether the CAD advantage is statistically real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the practical toolkit for modelling orientational data reduces to a small set of recipes, one per manifold: wrapped normal and von Mises on the circle, von Mises-Fisher, Kent, and ESAG on the sphere, Bingham and angular central Gaussian on the quaternion sphere with antipodal symmetry, and matrix Fisher and tangent-space Gaussian on rotation matrices. For each model the paper supplies a density, an estimator, and a sampler, avoiding expensive normalising constants where possible, and the accompanying library implements them. The survey argues that the angular central Gaussian is the most convenient model for 3-DOF orientations: its density has a closed-form normalising constant, its maximum-likelihood fit is a fixed-point iteration, and sampling is simply drawing from a zero-mean multivariate normal and normalising to unit length; Bingham and matrix Fisher sampling are themselves done through an ACG envelope. The two applications—a pouring-demonstration dataset and an RGBD camera calibration comparison—are offered as evidence that the models work on real data and that the ACG-based comparison favours CAD calibration over hand-eye calibration.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that ACG is the most convenient model and that CAD calibration is more precise rests on directly comparing concentration parameters across different model families using N=20 and N=30 datasets without error bars or statistical tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An engineer can now treat density, fitting, and sampling for 1-DOF, 2-DOF, and 3-DOF orientations as solved recipes rather than literature searches.
  • The angular central Gaussian should become the default first choice for 3-DOF orientation data, ahead of Bingham and matrix Fisher, because its normaliser is closed-form and sampling is just normalising normal draws.
  • The companion Python library lets any practitioner reproduce the pouring-task and camera-calibration results and apply the same models to their own orientation data.
  • For concentrated data, tangent-space or Lie-algebra Gaussians are acceptable and simple, but only the spherical-normal variant carries a proper normalising constant.
  • The diffusion-equation section connects heat-kernel densities on S, S2, and SO(3), giving a route to non-parametric density estimation on orientations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper stops short of a statistical comparison of models; a principled benchmark using held-out log-likelihood on synthetic ground truth would test its convenience claim directly.
  • The CAD-versus-HEC result would be stronger with resampling confidence intervals; the agreement of four models is suggestive but not a significance test.
  • The cheat-sheet format points toward a natural extension: coupled models for full SE(3) poses, pairing a position Gaussian with these orientation models; the paper notes the bi-invariant-metric caveat but does not develop it.
  • Because ACG sampling is essentially free, replacing Bingham-mixture components with ACG components in grasping and robot-learning pipelines is a cheap, testable engineering experiment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review/tutorial on probability distributions for orientational data, covering 1-DOF (wrapped normal, von Mises), 2-DOF (vMF, Kent, ESAG), and 3-DOF (Bingham, ACG, tangent-space Gaussians, matrix Fisher, Lie-algebra Gaussians) models. For each model, it presents density formulas, parameter estimation and sampling methods, and it is accompanied by a Python library (RotStats) and two real-data application experiments (a pouring task and a camera-calibration comparison). The paper concludes that the angular central Gaussian (ACG) distribution is the most convenient model for orientation data.

Significance. If the formulas and code are correct, this is a genuinely useful single reference for engineers and computer scientists who need to work with orientation data. The paper's strengths are its breadth, the explicit treatment of density/fitting/sampling for each model, the inclusion of a companion library, and the visualizations on S^2 and SO(3). However, the presence of several mathematical errors in core equations (the tangent-space Gaussian normalizer, the vMF concentration approximation, and the ESAG density) undermines its reliability as a 'cheat sheet'. These errors are fixable and do not invalidate the overall approach, but they must be corrected before the paper can serve as a dependable reference.

major comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (38), Section 5.3] The normalizing constant of the tangent-space Gaussian is written with Tr(D), but the correct constant for a zero-mean MVN with covariance D in R^{d-1} is (2π)^(d-1)/2 (det D)^(1/2). For the dataset in Table 1, D = diag(0.227, 0.033, 0.012), Tr(D) = 0.272 and det(D) ≈ 8.99×10^-5, so densities computed with Eq. (38) are off by a factor of sqrt(Tr(D)/det(D)) ≈ 55. Since the paper promises accurate density formulas, this is a load-bearing error that must be fixed.
  2. [Eq. (13), Section 3.2] The large-ρ approximation for the vMF concentration parameter is stated as κ ≈ (d−1)/(d(1−ρ)). For a vMF on S^{d-1}, the score equation ρ = I_{d/2}(κ)/I_{d/2−1}(κ) has the large-κ expansion ρ ≈ 1 − (d−1)/(2κ), so the correct leading approximation is κ ≈ (d−1)/(2(1−ρ)). The factor d in the denominator is incorrect; for d=3, the manuscript gives 2/(3(1−ρ)) instead of 1/(1−ρ), which will materially bias the estimated concentration.
  3. [Eq. (22), Section 4.3] The ESAG density has a denominator 2π(x^T V^{-1}x), but the correct expression (Paine et al., Statistics and Computing, 2018) has denominator 2π sqrt(x^T V^{-1}x). As written, the density is not the ESAG density and will yield incorrect likelihoods in the fitting procedure of Eq. (27).
  4. [Eq. (18) and Eq. (24), Sections 4.2 and 4.3] Eq. (18) defines jK = kK × jK, which is self-referential and cannot be evaluated; it should be jK = kK × iK (or an equivalent right-handed construction). In Eq. (24), the text introduces a 'frame K' but then labels its axes {iE, jE, kE}, and the line 'Since kE = γ1' contradicts the previous definition kE = ξ3. These typos will confuse any reader implementing the reparametrizations and should be corrected.
  5. [Section 8.2, Table 2] The conclusion that the CAD calibration is more precise than HEC is based on direct comparison of concentration parameter values across different model families (ACG eigenvalue ratios, Bingham κ_i, Matrix Fisher sums ψ_j+ψ_k, tangent-space eigenvalues) without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Because these parameters have different meanings and scales, the claim that 'all four models agree' is not statistically established. This does not affect the central cheat-sheet content, but it should be reframed as qualitative or supplemented with uncertainty quantification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The text says 1-DOF orientations form 'the manifold of a circle S^1 and the group R^1'; the group should be SO(2) (or S^1), not R^1.
  2. [Section 5.2] The word 'Condiser' is a typo and should be 'Consider'.
  3. [Section 8.1] The word 'distribuitons' is a typo and should be 'distributions'.
  4. [Section 2] The phrase 'This defers from its use' should be 'This differs from its use'.
  5. [Eq. (36), Section 5.3] The log map with the antipodal metric (37) is ambiguous for points with μ^T x < 0; please clarify how x is represented when projecting to the disk D_μ, since the formula uses x directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey whose formulas and fitting/sampling procedures are taken from external directional-statistics literature, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a cheat-sheet review, not a derivation of new results from its own assumptions. Each density, estimator, and sampler is explicitly attributed to an external source (e.g., Mardia and Jupp [39], Kent [24], Tyler [58], Lee [33], Wood [63]), so there is no chain in which the paper's output is fed back as its input. The experiment in Section 8 fits four pre-existing model families to the same datasets and then compares their concentration parameters; this is descriptive model comparison, not a prediction of a fitted quantity, and the absence of error bars or significance tests is an evidential weakness, not circularity. The tangent-space Gaussian formula in Eq. (38) uses Tr(D) where a standard multivariate normal normalizer would use det(D); that is a possible mathematical correctness issue, but it is not circular because the formula is presented as a cited construction rather than derived from, or used to define, the quantities it is supposed to predict. The author's self-citations, [38] (a prior non-parametric regression preprint) and [48] (the code repository), are background and resource references; neither carries the paper's conclusions. Hence no load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central content is a compilation of known results, so its axioms are the standard mathematical facts of directional statistics and the domain assumptions of the two application examples. No free parameters are introduced by the paper itself, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The double cover S^3/Z2 correctly represents the space of 3-DOF rotations, so quaternion densities must be antipodally symmetric.
    Used throughout Section 5 to justify Bingham and ACG models for quaternions.
  • standard math The acceptance-rejection method is valid when the ratio f*/g* is bounded by M*, and the envelopes presented in Sections 4.2 and 5.1 are valid.
    Underlies the sampling algorithms for Kent and Bingham distributions; the Kent bound M*=exp(kappa+beta) is conservative but valid.
  • domain assumption The datasets in Section 8 are representative of orientation data in robotics and calibration, and the fitted models are appropriate.
    The conclusions about precision of calibration and the recommendation of ACG depend on this assumption; no goodness-of-fit or cross-validation is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper The least-squares estimate of the pivot distance dM in Experiment 1 yields an approximately fixed pivot point for the pouring task.
    This is a modeling assumption made to decouple orientation from position in Section 8.1; it is not justified beyond a brief description.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A cheat sheet for probability distributions of orientational data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYUAEIQS

@misc{pith2026241208934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A cheat sheet for probability distributions of orientational data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYUAEIQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08934}
}
read the original abstract

The need for statistical models of orientations arises in many applications in engineering and computer science. Orientational data appear as sets of angles, unit vectors, rotation matrices or quaternions. In the field of directional statistics, a lot of advances have been made in modelling such types of data. However, only a few of these tools are used in engineering and computer science applications. Hence, this paper aims to serve as a cheat sheet for those probability distributions of orientations. Models for 1-DOF, 2-DOF and 3-DOF orientations are discussed. For each of them, expressions for the density function, fitting to data, and sampling are presented. The paper is written with a compromise between engineering and statistics in terms of notation and terminology. A Python library with functions for some of these models is provided. Using this library, two examples of applications to real data are presented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parametrisation of orientations produced by 1-DOF, 2-DOF and 3-dOF rotations. For the 3-DOF case, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density of the von Mises distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of concentration parameters. Let R = exp{(0, 0, π/4)⊤}. LEFT: vMF with µ = R(1, 0, 0)⊤. RIGHT: ESAG with ξ3 = R(1, 0, 0)⊤, ξ2 = R(0, − √ 2/2, √ 2/2)⊤, ξ1 = ξ2 × ξ3. This leads to ψ = π/4 . Note that c(κ, β) depends on the modified Bessel function of the first kind of order 2j + 1/2. Expressions for these functions are provided in Appendix A. Parameter estimation: Given a data set D = {xi ∈ S2} N i=1, the para… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frames used in the reparametrisation of FB5 (left) and ESAG (right) distributions (schematic). 4.3 The elliptically symmetric angular Gaussian distribution In a similar way that the Kent distribution simplifies the Fisher-Bingham distribution by imposing constraints wh…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A d = 3 example of an ACG distribution with Λ = diag(4, 0.25, 0.01) i.e. the mean is (1, 0, 0)⊤ and the other principal directions are parallel to the Y − and Z−axes. LEFT: Generation of contours by intersecting S 2 with the contour ellipsoids of N (0, Λ), showing (x, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A MVN distribution defined in TµS 2 with µ = (−0.62, 0.338, 0.707)⊤, b1 = (−0.028, −0.911, 0.411)⊤ and b2 = µ × b1, and with antipodal symmetry. LEFT: Schematic of the definition. RIGHT: A comparison of two distributions with different covariance, for each showing two …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualisation of MF(F) a) F = 10I3, b) F = 30I3, c) F = diag(45, 5, 1), d) F = exp((0, π/6, 0)⊤)diag(45, 5, 1), e) F = diag(45, 5, 1) exp((0, π/6, 0)⊤), f) 20 samples from the distribution in e) 6.2 Gaussian in the Lie algebra of SO(3) In Sec. 5.3, a Gaussian was defin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Setup for experiment 1, showing coordinate systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualisation of the different models fitted in experiment 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Samples from the fitted ACG distribution. In counterclock-wise order starting from the top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: LEFT: Setup for experiment 2, showing the frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A BSIL , R

    P.-A. A BSIL , R. M AHONY , AND R. S EPULCHRE , Optimization algorithms on matrix manifolds , Princeton University Press, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    A L-DAYEL AND S

    I. A L-DAYEL AND S. D ESHMUKH , The heat equation on submanifolds in Lie groups and random motions on spheres, Mathematics, 11 (2023), p. 1958

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    K. J. A RNOLD , On spherical probability distributions, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1941

    work page 1941

  4. [4]

    Generative grasp synthesis from demonstration using parametric mixtures

    E. A RRUDA , C. Z ITO , M. S RIDHARAN , M. K OPICKI , AND J. L. W YATT, Generative grasp synthesis from demonstration using parametric mixtures, preprint: arXiv:1906.11548, (2019)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    T. D. B ARFOOT , State Estimation for Robotics, Cambridge University Press, 2017. 22 P.C. López-Custodio, A cheat sheet for probability distributions of orientational data A PREPRINT

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    N. L. B IHAN , J. F LAMANT , AND J. H. M ANTON , Density estimation on the rotation group using diffusive wavelets, preprint: arXiv:1512.06023, (2015)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    B INGHAM , An antipodally symmetric distribution on the sphere, The Annals of Statistics, (1974), pp

    C. B INGHAM , An antipodally symmetric distribution on the sphere, The Annals of Statistics, (1974), pp. 1201– 1225

    work page 1974

  8. [8]

    BULOW , Spherical diffusion for 3D surface smoothing, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26 (2004), pp

    T. BULOW , Spherical diffusion for 3D surface smoothing, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26 (2004), pp. 1650–1654

    work page 2004

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    G. S. C HIRIKJIAN , Stochastic Models, Information Theory, and Lie Groups, Volume 1: Classical Results and Geometric Methods, Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    2, Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    , Stochastic models, information theory, and Lie groups, volume 2: Analytic methods and modern applica- tions, vol. 2, Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    G. S. C HIRIKJIAN AND A. B. K YATKIN, Engineering applications of noncommutative harmonic analysis: with emphasis on rotation and motion groups, CRC press, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    C HUNG , Heat kernel smoothing on unit sphere, in 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro, 2006., 2006, pp

    M. C HUNG , Heat kernel smoothing on unit sphere, in 3rd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro, 2006., 2006, pp. 992–995

    2006

  5. [13]

    R. F. DE SOUZA AND C. Z ANNONI , Rotational diffusion of shape-switching particles dissolved in biaxial liquid crystals, Liquid Crystals, 51 (2024), pp. 919–935

    2024

  6. [14]

    T. D. D OWNS , Orientation statistics, Biometrika, 59 (1972), pp. 665–676

    1972

  7. [15]

    R. A. F ISHER , Dispersion on a sphere, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 217 (1953), pp. 295–305

    1953

  8. [16]

    P. T. FLETCHER , S. V ENKATASUBRAMANIAN , AND S. J OSHI , The geometric median on Riemannian manifolds with application to robust atlas estimation, NeuroImage, 45 (2009), pp. S143–S152

    2009

  9. [17]

    A. M. G ANEIBER , Estimation and simulation in directional and statistical shape models, PhD thesis, University of Leeds, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Gaussian

    A. G HOSH , J. S AMUEL , AND S. S INHA , A “Gaussian” for diffusion on the sphere, Europhysics letters, 98 (2012), p. 30003

    2012

  11. [19]

    G LOVER , The quaternion Bingham Distribution, 3D object detection, and dynamic manipulation, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014

    J. G LOVER , The quaternion Bingham Distribution, 3D object detection, and dynamic manipulation, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    G LOVER AND L

    J. G LOVER AND L. P. K AELBLING , Tracking 3-D Rotations with the Quaternion Bingham Filter , tech. rep., Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    H AUBERG , Directional statistics with the spherical normal distribution, in 2018 21st International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), IEEE, 2018, pp

    S. H AUBERG , Directional statistics with the spherical normal distribution, in 2018 21st International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), IEEE, 2018, pp. 704–711

    2018

  14. [22]

    H UANG , F

    Y. H UANG , F. J. A BU-DAKKA , J. S ILVÉRIO , AND D. G. C ALDWELL , Toward orientation learning and adaptation in cartesian space, IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 37 (2020), pp. 82–98

    2020

  15. [23]

    K ASARAPU , Modelling of directional data using Kent distributions, preprint: arXiv:1506.08105, (2015)

    P. K ASARAPU , Modelling of directional data using Kent distributions, preprint: arXiv:1506.08105, (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. T. K ENT, The Fisher-Bingham distribution on the sphere, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 44 (1982), pp. 71–80

    1982

  17. [25]

    J. T. K ENT, A. M. G ANEIBER , AND K. V. M ARDIA , A new method to simulate the Bingham and related distributions in directional data analysis with applications, preprint, arXiv:1310.8110, (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K HATRI AND K

    C. K HATRI AND K. V. M ARDIA , The von Mises–Fisher matrix distribution in orientation statistics, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 39 (1977), pp. 95–106

    1977

  19. [27]

    S. K IM, R. H ASCHKE , AND H. R ITTER , Gaussian mixture model for 3-DOF orientations , Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 87 (2017), pp. 28–37

    2017

  20. [28]

    K UME , S

    A. K UME , S. P. P RESTON , AND A. T. W OOD, Saddlepoint approximations for the normalizing constant of Fisher–Bingham distributions on products of spheres and Stiefel manifolds, Biometrika, 100 (2013), pp. 971–984

    2013

  21. [29]

    K UME AND A

    A. K UME AND A. T. W OOD, Saddlepoint approximations for the Bingham and Fisher–Bingham normalising constants, Biometrika, 92 (2005), pp. 465–476

    2005

  22. [30]

    A. K. L AHA , K. M AHESH , AND D. K. G HOSH , SB-robust estimators of the parameters of the wrapped normal distribution, Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 42 (2013), pp. 660–672

    2013

  23. [31]

    L ANGEVIN , Magnétisme et théorie des électrons, Annales de Chimie et de Physique, (1905), p

    P. L ANGEVIN , Magnétisme et théorie des électrons, Annales de Chimie et de Physique, (1905), p. 203. 23 P.C. López-Custodio, A cheat sheet for probability distributions of orientational data A PREPRINT

    1905

  24. [32]

    LE NGUYEN AND R

    V. LE NGUYEN AND R. J. C AVERLY, Cable-driven parallel robot pose estimation using extended Kalman filtering with inertial payload measurements, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6 (2021), pp. 3615–3622

    2021

  25. [33]

    LEE, Bayesian attitude estimation with the matrix Fisher distribution on SO(3), IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63 (2018), pp

    T. LEE, Bayesian attitude estimation with the matrix Fisher distribution on SO(3), IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63 (2018), pp. 3377–3392

    2018

  26. [34]

    T. LEE, M. L EOK , AND N. H. M CCLAMROCH , Global symplectic uncertainty propagation on SO(3), in 2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, 2008, pp. 61–66

    2008

  27. [35]

    L ILGE , T

    S. L ILGE , T. D. B ARFOOT , AND J. B URGNER -K AHRS , Continuum robot state estimation using Gaussian process regression on SE(3), The International Journal of Robotics Research, 41 (2022), pp. 1099–1120

    2022

  28. [36]

    J. L IN, M. R ICKERT , AND A. K NOLL , LieGrasPFormer: Point transformer-based 6-DOF grasp detection with Lie algebra grasp representation, in 2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

    2023

  29. [37]

    A. W. L ONG , K. C. W OLFE , M. J. M ASHNER , AND G. S. C HIRIKJIAN , The banana distribution is Gaussian: A localization study with exponential coordinates, in Robotics: Science and Systems VIII, The MIT Press, 07 2013, pp. 265–272

    2013

  30. [38]

    P. C. L ÓPEZ -C USTODIO , K. B HARATH , A. K UCUKYILMAZ , AND S. P. P RESTON , Non-parametric regression for robot learning on manifolds, preprint, arXiv:2310.19561v2, (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    K. V. M ARDIA AND P. E. J UPP, Directional Statistics, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, first ed., 1999

    1999

  32. [40]

    M ARRELEC AND A

    G. M ARRELEC AND A. G IRON , Estimating the concentration parameter of a von Mises distribution: a systematic simulation benchmark, Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 53 (2024), pp. 117–129

    2024

  33. [41]

    M OUSAVIAN , C

    A. M OUSAVIAN , C. E PPNER , AND D. F OX, 6-DOF Graspnet: Variational grasp generation for object manipula- tion, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 2901–2910

    2019

  34. [42]

    P. J. P AINE , S. P. P RESTON , M. T SAGRIS , AND A. W OOD, An elliptically symmetric angular Gaussian distribution, Statistics and Computing, 28 (2018), pp. 689–697

    2018

  35. [43]

    P ENNEC , Intrinsic statistics on Riemannian manifolds: Basic tools for geometric measurements, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 25 (2006), pp

    X. P ENNEC , Intrinsic statistics on Riemannian manifolds: Basic tools for geometric measurements, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 25 (2006), pp. 127–154

    2006

  36. [44]

    P EWSEY AND E

    A. P EWSEY AND E. G ARCÍA -PORTUGUÉS , Recent advances in directional statistics, Test, 30 (2021), pp. 1–58

    2021

  37. [45]

    M. J. P RENTICE , Orientation statistics without parametric assumptions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 48 (1986), pp. 214–222

    1986

  38. [46]

    L. S. S. R AY, B. Z HOU , L. K RUPP, S. S UH, AND P. LUKOWICZ , A synthetic benchmarking pipeline to compare camera calibration algorithms, preprint, arXiv:2307.01013, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R IEDEL , Z.-C

    S. R IEDEL , Z.-C. M ARTON , AND S. K RIEGEL , Multi-view orientation estimation using Bingham mixture models, in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, robotics (AQTR), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  40. [48]

    https://github.com/PabloLopezCustodio/rotation-statistics, 2025

    R OTSTATS. https://github.com/PabloLopezCustodio/rotation-statistics, 2025. Acc: Mar-2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    R OZO AND V

    L. R OZO AND V. DAVE, Orientation probabilistic movement primitives on Riemannian manifolds, in Conference on Robot Learning, PMLR, 2022, pp. 373–383

    2022

  42. [50]

    S ARABANDI AND F

    S. S ARABANDI AND F. THOMAS , A survey on the computation of quaternions from rotation matrices, ASME Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 11 (2019), p. 021006

    2019

  43. [51]

    J. M. S ELIG , Geometric fundamentals of robotics, Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  44. [52]

    Y. C. S HIU AND S. A HMAD , Calibration of wrist-mounted robotic sensors by solving homogeneous transform equations of the form AX=XB, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 5 (1989), pp. 16–29

    1989

  45. [53]

    M. D. S HUSTER , A survey of attitude representations, Navigation, 8 (1993), pp. 439–517

    1993

  46. [54]

    S RA, A short note on parameter approximation for von Mises-Fisher distributions: and a fast implementation of Is(x), Computational Statistics, 27 (2012), pp

    S. S RA, A short note on parameter approximation for von Mises-Fisher distributions: and a fast implementation of Is(x), Computational Statistics, 27 (2012), pp. 177–190

    2012

  47. [55]

    S TRAUB , J

    J. S TRAUB , J. C HANG , O. F REIFELD , AND J. F ISHER III, A Dirichlet process mixture model for spherical data, in Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2015, pp. 930–938

    2015

  48. [56]

    TANABE , K

    A. TANABE , K. F UKUMIZU , S. O BA, T. TAKENOUCHI , AND S. I SHII , Parameter estimation for von Mises– Fisher distributions, Computational Statistics, 22 (2007), pp. 145–157

    2007

  49. [57]

    T ARRONI AND C

    R. T ARRONI AND C. Z ANNONI , On the rotational diffusion of asymmetric molecules in liquid crystals , The Journal of chemical physics, 95 (1991), pp. 4550–4564. 24 P.C. López-Custodio, A cheat sheet for probability distributions of orientational data A PREPRINT x y z w x y z ...

    1991

  50. [58]

    D. E. T YLER , Statistical analysis for the angular central Gaussian distribution on the sphere, Biometrika, 74 (1987), pp. 579–589

    1987

  51. [59]

    WANG, Applications of diffusion processes in robotics, optical communications and polymer science, PhD thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, 2002

    Y. WANG, Applications of diffusion processes in robotics, optical communications and polymer science, PhD thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, 2002

    2002

  52. [60]

    WANG AND G

    Y. WANG AND G. S. C HIRIKJIAN , Error propagation on the euclidean group with applications to manipulator kinematics, IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 22 (2006), pp. 591–602

    2006

  53. [61]

    1258–1273

    , Nonparametric second-order theory of error propagation on motion groups, The International Journal of Robotics Research, 27 (2008), pp. 1258–1273

    2008

  54. [62]

    G. S. W ATSON AND E. J. W ILLIAMS , On the construction of significance tests on the circle and the sphere , Biometrika, 43 (1956), pp. 344–352

    1956

  55. [63]

    A. T. W OOD, Simulation of the von Mises Fisher distribution , Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 23 (1994), pp. 157–164

    1994

  56. [64]

    M. J. A. Z EESTRATEN , I. H AVOUTIS , J. S ILVÉRIO , S. C ALINON , AND D. G. C ALDWELL , An approach for imitation learning on Riemannian manifolds, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2 (2017), pp. 1240–1247

    2017

  57. [65]

    Z ERO AND R

    K. Z ERO AND R. P ECORA , Rotational and translational diffusion in semidilute solutions of rigid-rod macro- molecules, Macromolecules, 15 (1982), pp. 87–93

    1982

  58. [66]

    Z HAO AND J

    C. Z HAO AND J. S. S ONG, Exact heat kernel on a hypersphere and its applications in kernel SVM, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 4 (2018), p. 1

    2018

  59. [67]

    Z HU AND K.-L

    J. Z HU AND K.-L. T ING, Uncertainty analysis of planar and spatial robots with joint clearances, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 35 (2000), pp. 1239–1256. A Relevant expressions The modified Bessel function of the first kind and order v are defined as follows: Iν(z) = ∞X n=0 1 ...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.