Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

For deep reinforcement learning policies that command rotations, encoding actions as delta tangent vectors in the local frame yields the most reliable training performance across PPO, SAC, and TD3.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 10:10 UTC pith:NJUP2QFT

load-bearing objection A useful empirical primer on SO(3) action representations, but the headline comparison doesn't control for action scaling, so the 'tangent vectors' recommendation is partly a scaling effect. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11103 v3 pith:NJUP2QFT submitted 2025-10-13 cs.RO cs.AI

A Primer on SO(3) Action Representations in Deep Reinforcement Learning

Martin Schuck , Sherif Samy , Angela P. Schoellig This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AI
keywords SO(3) action representationsdeep reinforcement learningrotation controltangent space actionsexploration in RLquaternionsEuler anglescontinuous control
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that when a robot policy's action space includes 3D rotations, the choice of rotation representation is not a neutral implementation detail: it changes how exploration noise is distributed over the manifold, what entropy regularization means, and whether the policy receives conflicting gradients. By swapping only the action representation while holding everything else fixed across three standard continuous-control algorithms and several robotics benchmarks, the authors find that representing an action as a small rotation vector in the body frame — a delta tangent action — consistently matches or outperforms rotation matrices, quaternions, and Euler angles. The practical payoff is an implementation-ready rule: for full-orientation control, use scaled local tangent-space increments, avoid projecting sampled stochastic actions, and beware that dense rewards can mask representation failures that sparse rewards expose.

Core claim

The paper claims that the most reliable way to represent actions on SO(3) in deep reinforcement learning is as tangent vectors applied in the local, body-fixed frame. In the idealized rotation-only environment, this representation gives the best or tied-best final reward for PPO, SAC, and TD3 under both dense and sparse rewards; in the manipulation and drone benchmarks it is competitive or best, with the largest advantages on tasks that require broad coverage of SO(3). The explanation offered is geometric: a local tangent action stays inside a region where the exponential map is nearly linear and the cut-locus singularity is out of reach, needs no projection step, and, when scaled to the max

What carries the argument

The central object is the local tangent space of the SO(3) manifold: a three-dimensional rotation vector in the body frame, mapped to a rotation via the exponential map and attached to the agent's current orientation at each step. This 'delta tangent action' does the argument's work by keeping the policy inside a well-behaved chart, removing the need for feasibility projections, and letting the action magnitude be scaled directly to the physical rotation limit.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's recommendations assume that results from state-based observations and small MLP policies transfer to the vision-based inputs and larger networks used in many real deployments.

What would settle it

Run the same rotation-only and manipulation benchmarks with image observations and substantially larger policy networks; if global matrix or quaternion actions match or beat delta tangent actions across seeds in a task requiring full SO(3) coverage, the central claim would be falsified in that regime.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Practitioners should default to scaled delta tangent-space actions for continuous orientation control, because they are the only representation that was consistently reliable across algorithms and reward types.
  • Sparse rewards amplify representation-induced failures; dense rewards can hide them, so a representation validated only on dense rewards should not be assumed safe for sparse settings.
  • For stochastic policies in PPO and SAC, projecting sampled actions onto the manifold is not recommended: it can significantly hurt PPO and yields no measured benefit for SAC.
  • Global rotation-matrix and quaternion actions can be competitive when the task needs only a few fixed orientations, but they lose to local tangent actions as the required coverage of SO(3) grows.
  • Euler angles should be avoided for general SO(3) control; they are acceptable only in narrow-angle regimes such as stable drone flight, where they still do not beat tangent actions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the geometric explanation is correct, the ordering of representations should persist when the observation encoder is changed to vision or the policy network is made much larger, because the action projection and exploration mechanism is independent of observation modality.
  • The paper's finding that entropy bonuses can push SAC actions toward large norms suggests a concrete remedy: compute entropy on the induced distribution over SO(3) rather than on the ambient Gaussian, and test whether that closes the sparse-reward gap between matrix/quaternion and tangent actions.
  • The same comparison could be run for diffusion-based action generation, where multimodality and the noise process are different; the paper itself flags this as an open question, and it would directly test whether the geometry-based ranking is universal or algorithm-specific.
  • A practical extension would be to use local tangent deltas as the action representation and then measure whether the policy's learned value function becomes smoother and more unimodal, which would corroborate the proposed mechanism inside the critic.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic empirical comparison of SO(3) action representations—rotation matrices, quaternions, Euler angles, and tangent-space (Lie algebra) vectors—for continuous-control deep RL with PPO, SAC, and TD3. It studies global vs. delta actions in an idealized pure-rotation environment with dense and sparse rewards, and then on drone, RoboSuite, and Fetch-style manipulation benchmarks. The central claim is that delta actions in the local tangent space yield the most reliable results across algorithms, and the paper distills practical guidelines for choosing and scaling SO(3) actions. It also analyzes mechanisms such as action projection, entropy regularization, exploration distributions, and scaling, with supporting ablations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would fill a real gap in the RL-robotics literature by providing concrete, algorithm-agnostic guidance for representing orientation actions. The study has notable strengths: 50 runs per condition in the idealized environment, explicit hypothesis-driven ablations (scaling, entropy, sample projection, double-cover gradients), extension of HER benchmarks to pose goals, and a promised code release. The analysis of entropy warping and the double-cover effect on critics is a useful contribution. However, the main comparison is confounded by an important scaling asymmetry between the tangent representation and the quaternion/matrix deltas, which directly affects the paper's headline recommendation. Until that confound is addressed, the central claim is not fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, Table 2, §3.3 Hypothesis 4, A.1.5] The central comparison confounds action representation with action scaling. The sτ policy is explicitly bounded to α_max via norm limiting or tanh squashing, while ∆q and ∆R are not scaled. Since Eq. (3) caps the physical rotation at α_max, any unscaled delta with angle > α_max maps to the same transition as a smaller capped delta—exactly the redundancy that Hypothesis 4 claims hurts unscaled tangents. The paper's own ablation (A.1.5) shows that scaling alone improves tangent actions by ~1.5 across PPO, SAC, and TD3. No analogous scaling is applied to ∆q or ∆R, though §2.5 acknowledges it is possible via Exp(α Log R). The claimed advantage of 'tangent vectors in the local frame' may largely be the scaling mechanism, not the local tangent geometry. Please add an ablation that scales ∆q and ∆R to a comparable maximum rotation (e.g., Exp(α Log R) with α=α_max, or a tanh-squashed geodesic sc
  2. [§A.6] Hyperparameters are optimized separately per representation, algorithm, and environment ('hyperparameters used for each algorithm and action representation are optimized per environment using Bayesian optimization'). The comparison is therefore between per-representation tuned pipelines, not between representations under a common protocol. This matters because §3.3 Hypothesis 3 and A.1.7 show that entropy coefficients interact strongly with representation; a representation that is robust to hyperparameters may be unfairly penalized by tuning, or conversely a representation may benefit from an especially good tuned setting. The paper should report the tuned hyperparameters for all conditions, or show that the Table 2 conclusions are stable across a shared hyperparameter sweep.
  3. [§4, Figures 3–5] The robot-benchmark evidence is based on small sample sizes: RoboSuite uses 5 seeds, the Fetch-style environments use 5 runs each, and the drone tasks use 25 seeds. The PickAndPlaceOrient claim—sτ at 69.8% vs. matrix at 54.1%—is made from n=5 with no reported variance or significance test; the text gives no error bars or confidence intervals for this result. This is suggestive but not at the standard of the 50-run idealized experiments. Since the abstract generalizes 'across a suite of robotics benchmarks,' the benchmark results should be reported with variance measures and, where feasible, significance or effect-size statistics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] The reproducibility statement says code will only be provided after acceptance. For an empirical study, this is a significant practical limitation; please provide at least an anonymized artifact in the supplement or a clear public repository link in the main text.
  2. [§2.4 / A.1.3] Section 2.4 says 'we project the mean inside the network wherever possible,' but A.1.3 explains that SAC's squashed Gaussian policy prevents mean projection. Clarify the scope of 'wherever possible' in the main text to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§3.2, Table 2] The notation sτ and Eτ is introduced in the table without formal definition in the main text. Define both symbols explicitly before Table 2, e.g., Eτ for the unscaled body-frame tangent and sτ for the scaled/limited version.
  4. [§3.4 / A.1.2] The recommendation to prefer 'delta actions in the tangent space' should be qualified: the evidence supports scaled delta tangents (sτ), not unscaled ones. The current wording could mislead readers into omitting the scaling step, which the paper itself identifies as essential.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation that bakes in the answer.

full rationale

The paper's main conclusion — that local-frame tangent-vector delta actions are most reliable — is supported by controlled experiments, not by a derivation whose inputs assume the result. Table 2 fixes environment dynamics, observation representation (flattened rotation matrices), network architecture, and reward structure while varying only the action representation. The explanatory hypotheses in Section 3.3 are tested with ablations (e.g., Section A.1.5 on tangent scaling, Section A.1.6 on Q-value multimodality, Section A.1.7 on entropy), rather than being used as premises that logically force the outcome. Self-citations (Schuck et al. 2025; Yuan et al. 2022; Brunke et al. 2022; Teetaert et al. 2025) appear as related work or as references for benchmark environments; they are not used to justify the present results, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is imported from those works. The paper even self-identifies its main transfer limitation: 'One limitation of this paper is its restriction to state-based observations and small networks... this requires empirical evidence,' which reinforces that the claims are empirical rather than definitional. The scaling confound raised by a skeptic — sτ is bounded to α_max while delta quaternion/matrix actions are not explicitly scaled — is a real internal-validity concern about which property drives the improvement, and the paper's own Hypothesis 4 and Section A.1.5 quantify the scaling effect for tangents. However, this is a confound, not circularity: the comparison is not constructed so that the tangent advantage holds by construction, and the paper does not fit a parameter to its own target conclusion. External benchmarks (drone control, RoboSuite, Fetch-derived tasks) further anchor the findings independently of the paper's internal choices.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new theoretical entities or free parameters in a derivation. The central claim is empirical and depends on benchmark designs, hyperparameter choices, and the assumption that results transfer from state-based observation settings to broader use.

free parameters (2)
  • Per-environment hyperparameter configuration (learning rates, entropy coefficients, network widths) = not fully reported
    Each algorithm/environment had hyperparameters tuned via Bayesian optimization (A.6). Comparisons between representations could depend on these choices, and the tuned values are not fully disclosed.
  • Maximum rotation step alpha_max = pi/10 in the idealized and Fetch environments
    This hand-chosen bound limits the policy's reachable rotation magnitude and is central to the recommendation that local tangent increments avoid the cut locus.
axioms (4)
  • standard math SO(3) admits no global, smooth, minimal parameterization
    Used in Section 2.1 to motivate the existence of multiple representations and their trade-offs.
  • domain assumption The environment dynamics in Eq. (3) approximate real orientation control
    The idealized rotation environment moves the agent toward the target with maximum step alpha_max along the shortest path; this is a simplified model of physical orientation control.
  • domain assumption Sampling off-manifold actions and letting the environment project them is a valid training compromise
    Adopted in Section 2.4 to keep log-probability computations tractable; the paper tests this in A.1.1 and finds no benefit from explicit projection, but the strategy is still a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption State-based observations and small networks do not change the action-representation conclusions
    Explicitly flagged as a limitation in Section 5; the authors state this requires empirical evidence, yet the practical recommendations assume transfer.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17171 in / 8651 out tokens · 76401 ms · 2026-08-04T10:10:09.482087+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Many robotic control tasks require policies to act on orientations, yet the geometry of SO(3) makes this nontrivial. Because SO(3) admits no global, smooth, minimal parameterization, common representations such as Euler angles, quaternions, rotation matrices, and Lie algebra coordinates introduce distinct constraints and failure modes. While these trade-offs are well studied for supervised learning, their implications for actions in reinforcement learning remain unclear. We systematically evaluate SO(3) action representations across three standard continuous control algorithms, PPO, SAC, and TD3, under dense and sparse rewards. We compare how representations shape exploration, interact with entropy regularization, and affect training stability through empirical studies and analyze the implications of different projections for obtaining valid rotations from Euclidean network outputs. Across a suite of robotics benchmarks, we quantify the practical impact of these choices and distill simple, implementation-ready guidelines for selecting and using rotation actions. Our results highlight that representation-induced geometry strongly influences exploration and optimization and show that representing actions as tangent vectors in the local frame yields the most reliable results across algorithms. The project webpage and code are available at amacati.github.io/so3_primer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11103 by Angela P. Schoellig, Martin Schuck, Sherif Samy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The agent ro￾tates at max αmax ra￾dians from the current state Rt to the next state Rt+1 towards the de￾sired state Ra. The goal is to rotate into Rg. The action space, our object of interest, is configurable. Actions can describe global desired orientations in any of the aforementioned repre￾sentations or delta rotations. For global actions Ra, the deterministic environment transition dynamics are formula… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 3D distribu￾tion of Euler angles sam￾pled from N (0, 2) and squashed with tanh in the Lie algebra m. While the research community has proposed advanced exploration tech￾niques to improve speed of convergence (Houthooft et al., 2016; Plap￾pert et al., 2018), the most common mechanisms are Gaussian stochastic actions (PPO and SAC) or Gaussian/uniform exploration noise (TD3). Samples from these distributions … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Achieved reward for the trajectory tracking (left) and drone racing competition (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Achieved reward across the RoboSuite benchmark as a fraction of the maximum possible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Achieved reward on ReachOrient (left) and PickAndPlaceOrient (right). Both tangent and matrix action representations converge fast for the reach task, with quaternions second and Euler angles last. On the harder pick and place task, the local tangent space representation significantly outperforms other representations both in performance and convergence speed. task and larger performance gaps between tasks… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Samples from a squashed Gaussian distribution projected onto the manifold using the projections Π outlined in section 2.4. Each action representation has its own characteristic distribution after sampling. Samples are visualized as 3D points in the sphere of the Lie algebra m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Learning curves for PPO (left) and SAC (right) evaluating the effect of projecting action samples onto the manifold for the global quaternion and rotation matrix action representations using dense rewards in the idealized environment. Based on our ablations, we recommend not projecting the action samples of PPO and SAC, and instead relying on the environment for the action projection. Introducing projectio… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of pitch angles sampled from Gaussian distributions with different means and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Learning curves of the scaled and unscaled incremental tangent vector representation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Learning curves of the scaled and unscaled incremental tangent vector representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Learning curves of the scaled and unscaled incremental tangent vector representation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Learned Q-values of SAC’s and TD3’s critics for sparse rewards using the global quater￾nion action representation in the idealized environment. We sample equally-spaced actions dis￾cretely along the geodesic connecting q = π (s) and −q that passes through the goal orientation on the S(3) manifold by applying the Exp of the unit-norm rotation vector τg pointing in the direction of the goal. The Q-function … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Action norms for different entropy levels for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Action norms for different entropy levels for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: shows the results. Rotation matrix representations yield the best performance for global actions. Despite its lower dimensionality, the quaternion representation is less successful. We at￾tribute this to the double-cover as established in section A.1.6. Perhaps surprisingly, tangent incre￾ments in the Lie algebra perform better than quaternions. Euler angles reach approximately the same performance as qua… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: SAC learning curves for dense rewards using global (left) and delta (right) action repre￾sentations in the idealized environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: SAC learning curves for sparse rewards using global (left) and delta (right) action repre￾sentations in the idealized environment. As with PPO, we recommend using the delta tangent space representation with SAC. If global action spaces are required, practitioners should opt for a matrix or quaternion representation, but have to ensure that dense rewards are available to prevent agents from collapsing into… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: TD3 learning curves for dense rewards using global (left) and delta (right) action repre￾sentations in the idealized environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: TD3 learning curves for sparse rewards using global (left) and delta (right) action repre￾sentations in the idealized environment. A.3 IMPLEMENTATIONS Even when the underlying concepts are clear, putting SO(3)-specific operations into code can be difficult. We explicitly outline some of the important operations mentioned in the paper to help practitioners transfer the results. We detail how we rotate arou… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Example rollout of the PickAndPlaceOrient environment. The agent has to pick up the cube and place it into the same position and orientation as the goal frame. The frame located to the right of the robot arm indicates the goal pose. However, to make them compatible with the extended scope of our environments, we made some modifications, which are listed below. The most fundamental change is the extended a… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Revisiting Euler-Angle Regression with Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks

    cs.CV 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5

    Range-constrained Euler angles plus Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks outperform the standard MLP+6D pipeline on rotation regression for articulated systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    Abu-Dakka

    Naseem Alhousani, Hatice Kose, and Fares J. Abu-Dakka. R einforcement L earning for O rientation on the L ie A lgebra. In 2023 31st Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU), pp.\ 1--4, 2023 a

    2023

  3. [3]

    Abu-Dakka

    Naseem Alhousani, Matteo Saveriano, Ibrahim Sevinc, Talha Abdulkuddus, Hatice Kose, and Fares J. Abu-Dakka. G eometric R einforcement L earning for R obotic M anipulation. IEEE Access, 11: 0 111492--111505, 2023 b

    2023

  4. [4]

    H indsight E xperience R eplay

    Marcin Andrychowicz, Filip Wolski, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Rachel Fong, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Josh Tobin, Pieter Abbeel, OpenAI, and Wojciech Zaremba. H indsight E xperience R eplay. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Timothy D. Barfoot. S tate E stimation for R obotics . Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    A.R. Barron. U niversal A pproximation B ounds for S uperpositions of a S igmoidal F unction. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 39 0 (3): 0 930--945, 1993

    1993

  7. [7]

    A lgorithms for H yper- P arameter O ptimization

    James Bergstra, R\' e mi Bardenet, Yoshua Bengio, and Bal\' a zs K\' e gl. A lgorithms for H yper- P arameter O ptimization. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.\ 2546–2554, 2011

    2011

  8. [8]

    Hall, Zhaocong Yuan, Siqi Zhou, Jacopo Panerati, and Angela P

    Lukas Brunke, Melissa Greeff, Adam W. Hall, Zhaocong Yuan, Siqi Zhou, Jacopo Panerati, and Angela P. Schoellig. S afe L earning in R obotics: F rom L earning- B ased C ontrol to S afe R einforcement L earning. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, pp.\ 411--444, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    D eep R egression on M anifolds: A 3 D R otation C ase S tudy

    Romain Brégier. D eep R egression on M anifolds: A 3 D R otation C ase S tudy. In 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pp.\ 166--174, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    A ddressing F unction A pproximation E rror in A ctor- C ritic M ethods

    Scott Fujimoto, Herke van Hoof, and David Meger. A ddressing F unction A pproximation E rror in A ctor- C ritic M ethods. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1587--1596, 10--15 Jul 2018

    2018

  11. [11]

    Ren\' e Geist, Jonas Frey, Mikel Zhobro, Anna Levina, and Georg Martius

    A. Ren\' e Geist, Jonas Frey, Mikel Zhobro, Anna Levina, and Georg Martius. Learning with 3 D rotations: a H itchhiker's guide to SO (3). In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    S oft A ctor- C ritic: O ff- P olicy M aximum E ntropy D eep R einforcement L earning with a S tochastic A ctor

    Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. S oft A ctor- C ritic: O ff- P olicy M aximum E ntropy D eep R einforcement L earning with a S tochastic A ctor. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1861--1870, 10--15 Jul 2018

    2018

  13. [13]

    VIME : V ariational I nformation M aximizing E xploration

    Rein Houthooft, Xi Chen, Yan Duan, John Schulman, Filip De Turck, and Pieter Abbeel. VIME : V ariational I nformation M aximizing E xploration. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'16, pp.\ 1117–1125, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    C hampion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning

    Elia Kaufmann, Leonard Bauersfeld, Antonio Loquercio, Matthias Mueller, Vladlen Koltun, and Davide Scaramuzza. C hampion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 620: 0 982--987, 08 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation

    Oussama Khatib. A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation. IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation, 3 0 (1): 0 43--53, 2003

    2003

  16. [16]

    Lillicrap, Jonathan J

    Timothy P. Lillicrap, Jonathan J. Hunt, Alexander Pritzel, Nicolas Heess, Tom Erez, Yuval Tassa, David Silver, and Daan Wierstra. Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016

    2016

  17. [17]

    L inear and G eometric A lgebra

    Alan Macdonald. L inear and G eometric A lgebra . Alan Macdonald, 2011

    2011

  18. [18]

    Rosen, W

    Valentin Peretroukhin, Matthew Giamou, David M. Rosen, W. Nicholas Greene, Nicholas Roy, and Jonathan Kelly. A S mooth R epresentation of SO(3) for D eep R otation L earning with U ncertainty. In Proceedings of R obotics: S cience and S ystems (RSS'20) , Jul. 12--16 2020

    2020

  19. [19]

    Chen, Xi Chen, Tamim Asfour, Pieter Abbeel, and Marcin Andrychowicz

    Matthias Plappert, Rein Houthooft, Prafulla Dhariwal, Szymon Sidor, Richard Y. Chen, Xi Chen, Tamim Asfour, Pieter Abbeel, and Marcin Andrychowicz. Parameter S pace N oise for E xploration. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  20. [20]

    Sch\"onemann

    Peter H. Sch\"onemann. A G eneralized S olution of the O rthogonal P rocrustes P roblem. Psychometrika, 31: 0 1–10, 1966

    1966

  21. [21]

    R einforcement L earning with L ie G roup O rientations for R obotics

    Martin Schuck, Jan Brudigam, Sandra Hirche, and Angela Schoellig. R einforcement L earning with L ie G roup O rientations for R obotics. In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp.\ 14369--14376, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    P roximal P olicy O ptimization A lgorithms

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. P roximal P olicy O ptimization A lgorithms. ArXiv, abs/1707.06347, 2017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    A micro L ie theory for state estimation in robotics

    Joan Sol \`a , J \'e r \'e mie Deray, and Dinesh Atchuthan. A micro L ie theory for state estimation in robotics. ArXiv, abs/1812.01537, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    A utonomous D rone R acing with D eep R einforcement L earning

    Yunlong Song, Mats Steinweg, Elia Kaufmann, and Davide Scaramuzza. A utonomous D rone R acing with D eep R einforcement L earning. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp.\ 1205–1212, 2021

    2021

  25. [25]

    Schoellig

    Spencer Teetaert, Wenda Zhao, Antonio Loquercio, Siqi Zhou, Lukas Brunke, Martin Schuck, Wolfgang Hönig, Jacopo Panerati, and Angela P. Schoellig. A dvancing R eproducibility, B enchmarks, and E ducation W ith R emote S im2real: R emote S imulation to R eal R obot H ardware. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 32 0 (1): 0 117--123, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    MuJoCo : A physics engine for model-based control

    Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. MuJoCo : A physics engine for model-based control. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp.\ 5026--5033, 2012

    2012

  27. [27]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St \'e fan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St \'e fan J. van der Walt , Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, Eric Jones, Robert Kern, Eric Larson, C J Carey, \.I lhan Polat, Yu Feng, Er...

    2020

  28. [28]

    Hall, Siqi Zhou, Lukas Brunke, Melissa Greeff, Jacopo Panerati, and Angela P

    Zhaocong Yuan, Adam W. Hall, Siqi Zhou, Lukas Brunke, Melissa Greeff, Jacopo Panerati, and Angela P. Schoellig. S afe- C ontrol- G ym: A U nified B enchmark S uite for S afe L earning- B ased C ontrol and R einforcement L earning in R obotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7 0 (4): 0 11142--11149, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    O n the C ontinuity of R otation R epresentations in N eural N etworks

    Yi Zhou, Connelly Barnes, Lu Jingwan, Yang Jimei, and Li Hao. O n the C ontinuity of R otation R epresentations in N eural N etworks. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019

    2019

  30. [31]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command n...

  31. [32]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@first@sw \@firstoftwo \@ifundefined NAT@b*@#2 \@firstoftwo @num @NAT@ctr \@secondoft...

  32. [33]

    Brunke, Lukas and Greeff, Melissa and Hall, Adam W. and Yuan, Zhaocong and Zhou, Siqi and Panerati, Jacopo and Schoellig, Angela P

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 @NAT@ctr @ @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.\@m @bibit...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017