Riemannian Optimization for Distance-Geometric Inverse Kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solving the inverse kinematics problem is a fundamental challenge in motion planning, control, and calibration for articulated robots. Kinematic models for these robots are typically parameterized by joint angles, generating a complicated mapping between the robot configuration and the end-effector pose. Alternatively, the kinematic model and task constraints can be represented using invariant distances between points attached to the robot. In this article, we formalize the equivalence of distance-based inverse kinematics and the distance geometry problem for a large class of articulated robots and task constraints. Unlike previous approaches, we use the connection between distance geometry and low-rank matrix completion to find inverse kinematics solutions by completing a partial Euclidean distance matrix through local optimization. Furthermore, we parameterize the space of Euclidean distance matrices with the Riemannian manifold of fixed-rank Gram matrices, allowing us to leverage a variety of mature Riemannian optimization methods. Finally, we show that bound smoothing can be used to generate informed initializations without significant computational overhead, improving convergence. We demonstrate that our inverse kinematics solver achieves higher success rates than traditional techniques and substantially outperforms them on problems that involve many workspace constraints.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".