Robotics

Kinematics

Kinematic map, Jacobian, inverse kinematics

as optimization problem, motion profiles,
trajectory interpolation, multiple simultaneous
tasks, special task variables,
configuration/operational/null space,
singularities

Marc Toussaint
U Stuttgart
• Two “types of robotics”:
1) Mobile robotics – is all about localization & mapping
2) Manipulation – is all about interacting with the world
[0) Kinematic/Dynamic Motion Control: same as 2) without ever making it to
interaction..]

• Typical manipulation robots (and animals) are kinematic trees

Their pose/state is described by all joint angles

2/61
Basic motion generation problem
• Move all joints in a coordinated way so that the endeffector makes a
desired movement

01-kinematics: ./x.exe -mode 2/3/4

3/61
Outline

• Basic 3D geometry and notation

• Kinematics: φ : q 7→ y
• Inverse Kinematics: y ∗ 7→ q ∗ = minq ||y ∗ − φ(q)|| + ||∆q||W
• Basic motion heuristics: Motion profiles

• Additional things to know

– Many simultaneous task variables
– Singularities, null space,

4/61
Basic 3D geometry & notation

5/61
Pose (position & orientation)

• A pose is described by a translation p ∈ R3 and a rotation R ∈ SO(3)

– R is an orthonormal matrix (orthogonal vectors stay orthogonal, unit
vectors stay unit)
– R-1 = R>
– columns and rows are orthogonal unit vectors
– det(R) = 1
R R12 R13 
 
 11
– R=  R21

R22 R23 


R31 R32 R33
6/61
Frame and coordinate transforms

• Let (o, e1:3 ) be the world frame, (o0 , e01:3 ) be the body’s frame.
The new basis vectors are the columns in R, that is,
e01 = R11 e1 + R21 e2 + R31 e3 , etc,
• x = coordinates in world frame (o, e1:3 )
x0 = coordinates in body frame (o0 , e01:3 )
p = coordinates of o0 in world frame (o, e1:3 )

x = p + Rx0
7/61
Rotations
• Rotations can alternatively be represented as
– Euler angles – NEVER DO THIS!
– Rotation vector
– Quaternion – default in code
• See the “geometry notes” for formulas to convert, concatenate & apply
to vectors

8/61
Homogeneous transformations
• xA = coordinates of a point in frame A
xB = coordinates of a point in frame B

• Translation and rotation: xA = t + RxB

• Homogeneous transform T ∈ R4×4 :

 
R t
TA
B = 
 
0 1
 

B B
     
R t x  Rx + t
xA = TA
B xB = 
    =  
0 1 1 1
     

in homogeneous coordinates, we append a 1 to all coordinate vectors

9/61
Is TA
B forward or backward?
• TA
B describes the translation and rotation of frame B relative to A
That is, it describes the forward FRAME transformation (from A to B)

• TA
B describes the coordinate transformation from xB to xA

That is, it describes the backward COORDINATE transformation

• Confused? Vectors (and frames) transform covariant, coordinates

contra-variant. See “geometry notes” or Wikipedia for more details, if
you like.

10/61
Composition of transforms

TW
C = TW
A TA
B TB
C
xW = TW
A TA
B TB
C xC 11/61
Kinematics

12/61
Kinematics

B eff

joint B'
transf.
A
relative
C'

A'
C eff.
offset

link
transf.
W

• A kinematic structure is a graph (usually tree or chain)

of rigid links and joints

TW
eff (q) = TW
A TA
A0 (q) TA0
B TB
B 0 (q) TB 0
C TC
C 0 (q) TC 0
eff
13/61
Joint types
• Joint transformations: TA
A0 (q) depends on q ∈ Rn

revolute joint: joint angle q ∈ R determines rotation about x-axis:

 
1


0 0 0

0 cos(q) − sin(q) 0
 

TA
A0 (q) = 



0 sin(q) cos(q) 0
 

 
 
0 0 0 1
 

prismatic joint: offset q ∈ R determines translation along x-axis:

 
1


0 0 q

0 1 0 0
 

TA
A0 (q) = 



0 0 1 0
 

 
 
0 0 0 1
 

others: screw (1dof), cylindrical (2dof), spherical (3dof), universal

(2dof)
14/61
15/61
Kinematic Map

• For any joint angle vector q ∈ Rn we can compute TW
eff (q)

by forward chaining of transformations

TW
eff (q) gives us the pose of the endeffector in the world frame

16/61
Kinematic Map

• For any joint angle vector q ∈ Rn we can compute TW
eff (q)

by forward chaining of transformations

TW
eff (q) gives us the pose of the endeffector in the world frame

• The two most important examples for a kinematic map φ are

1) A point v on the endeffector transformed to world coordinates:

φpos
eff,v (q) = TW
eff (q) v ∈ R3

2) A direction v ∈ R3 attached to the endeffector transformed to world:

φvec
eff,v (q) = RW
eff (q) v ∈ R3

Where RA
B is the rotation in TA
B . 16/61

Kinematic Map
• In general, a kinematic map is any (differentiable) mapping

φ : q 7→ y

that maps to some arbitrary feature y ∈ Rd of the pose q ∈ Rn

17/61
Jacobian
• When we change the joint angles, δq, how does the effector position
change, δy?

∂
• Given the kinematic map y = φ(q) and its Jacobian J(q) = ∂q φ(q), we
have:
δy = J(q) δq


∂φ1 (q) ∂φ1 (q) ∂φ1 (q) 
 ∂q1

∂q2 ... ∂qn  
 ∂φ2 (q) ∂φ2 (q) ∂φ2 (q) 

∂ ...

 
 ∂q1 ∂q2 ∂qn 
∈ Rd×n

J(q) = φ(q) = 
.. ..


∂q
 
 


 . . 


 ∂φd (q) ∂φd (q) ∂φd (q) 
 

∂q1 ∂q2 ... ∂qn

18/61
Jacobian for a rotational joint

eff

axis

point
i-th joint

• The i-th joint is located at pi = tW
i (q) and has rotation axis

 
1
 
ai = RW
i (q) 0

 
 
0
 

• We consider an infinitesimal variation δqi ∈ R of the ith joint and see

how an endeffector position peff = φpos
eff,v (q) and attached vector
vec
aeff = φeff,v (q) change.

19/61
 Jacobian for a rotational joint

eff
Consider a variation δqi
axis → the whole sub-tree rotates
point
i-th joint
δpeff = [ai × (peff − pi )] δqi
δaeff = [ai × aeff ] δqi

⇒ Position Jacobian:
 

⇒ Vector Jacobian:
[a1 × (peff − p1 )]
[a2 × (peff − p2 )]

[an × (peff − pn )]

 
 
   
 
 

[a1 × aeff ]
[a2 × aeff ]

[an × aeff ]
   
   
..
.

   
pos
 
3×n vec
 
Jeff,v (q) = ∈R Jeff,v (q) = ∈ R3×n
   
   
   

..
.
   
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 

20/61
Jacobian
• To compute the Jacobian of some endeffector position or vector, we
only need to know the position and rotation axis of each joint.

• The two kinematic maps φpos and φvec are the most important two
examples – more complex geometric features can be computed from
these, as we will see later.

21/61
Inverse Kinematics

22/61
Inverse Kinematics problem
• Generally, the aim is to find a robot configuration q such that φ(q) = y ∗
• Iff φ is invertible
q ∗ = φ-1 (y ∗ )

• But in general, φ will not be invertible:

1) The pre-image φ-1 (y ∗ ) = may be empty: No configuration can

generate the desired y ∗

2) The pre-image φ-1 (y ∗ ) may be large: many configurations can

generate the desired y ∗

23/61
Inverse Kinematics as optimization problem
• We formalize the inverse kinematics problem as an optimization
problem
q ∗ = argmin ||φ(q) − y ∗ ||2C + ||q − q0 ||2W
q

• The 1st term ensures that we find a configuration even if y ∗ is not

exactly reachable
The 2nd term disambiguates the configurations if there are many
φ-1 (y ∗ )

24/61
Inverse Kinematics as optimization problem

q ∗ = argmin ||φ(q) − y ∗ ||2C + ||q − q0 ||2W

q

• The formulation of IK as an optimization problem is very powerful and

has many nice properties
• We will be able to take the limit C → ∞, enforcing exact φ(q) = y ∗ if
possible
• Non-zero C -1 and W corresponds to a regularization that ensures
numeric stability
• Classical concepts can be derived as special cases:
– Null-space motion
– regularization; singularity robutness
– multiple tasks
– hierarchical tasks

25/61
Solving Inverse Kinematics
• The obvious choice of optimization method for this problem is
Gauss-Newton, using the Jacobian of φ
• We first describe just one step of this, which leads to the classical
equations for inverse kinematics using the local Jacobian...

26/61
Solution using the local linearization
• When using the local linearization of φ at q0 ,

φ(q) ≈ y0 + J (q − q0 ) , y0 = φ(q0 )

• We can derive the optimum as

f (q) = ||φ(q) − y ∗ ||2C + ||q − q0 ||2W

= ||y0 − y ∗ + J (q − q0 )||2C + ||q − q0 ||2W
∂
f (q) = 0> = 2(y0 − y ∗ + J (q − q0 ))>CJ + 2(q − q0 )T W
∂q
J>C (y ∗ − y0 ) = (J>CJ + W ) (q − q0 )

q ∗ = q0 + J ] (y ∗ − y0 )

with J ] = (J>CJ + W )-1 J>C = W -1 J>(JW -1 J> + C -1 )-1 (Woodbury identity)

– For C → ∞ and W = I, J ] = J>(JJ>)-1 is called pseudo-inverse

– W generalizes the metric in q-space
– C regularizes this pseudo-inverse (see later section on singularities) 27/61
“Small step” application
• This approximate solution to IK makes sense
– if the local linearization of φ at q0 is “good”
– if q0 and q ∗ are close
• This equation is therefore typically used to iteratively compute small
steps in configuration space

∗
qt+1 = qt + J ] (yt+1 − φ(qt ))

∗
where the target yt+1 moves smoothly with t

28/61
Example: Iterating IK to follow a trajectory
• Assume initial posture q0 . We want to reach a desired endeff position
y ∗ in T steps:

Input: initial state q0 , desired y ∗ , methods φpos and J pos

Output: trajectory q0:T
1: Set y0 = φpos (q0 ) // starting endeff position
2: for t = 1 : T do
3: y ← φpos (qt-1 ) // current endeff position
4: J ← J pos (qt-1 ) // current endeff Jacobian
5: ŷ ← y0 + (t/T )(y ∗ − y0 ) // interpolated endeff target
6: qt = qt-1 + J ] (ŷ − y) // new joint positions
7: Command qt to all robot motors and compute all TW
i (qt )
8: end for

01-kinematics: ./x.exe -mode 2/3

29/61
Example: Iterating IK to follow a trajectory
• Assume initial posture q0 . We want to reach a desired endeff position
y ∗ in T steps:

Input: initial state q0 , desired y ∗ , methods φpos and J pos

Output: trajectory q0:T
1: Set y0 = φpos (q0 ) // starting endeff position
2: for t = 1 : T do
3: y ← φpos (qt-1 ) // current endeff position
4: J ← J pos (qt-1 ) // current endeff Jacobian
5: ŷ ← y0 + (t/T )(y ∗ − y0 ) // interpolated endeff target
6: qt = qt-1 + J ] (ŷ − y) // new joint positions
7: Command qt to all robot motors and compute all TW
i (qt )
8: end for

01-kinematics: ./x.exe -mode 2/3

• Why does this not follow the interpolated trajectory ŷ0:T exactly?
– What happens if T = 1 and y ∗ is far?

29/61
Two additional notes
• What if we linearize at some arbitrary q 0 instead of q0 ?

φ(q) ≈ y 0 + J (q − q 0 ) , y 0 = φ(q 0 )
q ∗ = argmin ||φ(q) − y ∗ ||2C + ||q − q 0 + (q 0 − q0 )||2W
q

= q 0 + J ] (y ∗ − y 0 ) + (I − J ] J) h , h = q0 − q 0 (1)

Note that h corresponds to the classical concept of null space motion

• What if we want to find the exact (local) optimum? E.g. what if we want
to compute a big step (where q ∗ will be remote from q) and we cannot
not rely only on the local linearization approximation?
– Iterate equation (1) (optionally with a step size < 1 to ensure
convergence) by setting the point y 0 of linearization to the current q ∗
– This is equivalent to the Gauss-Newton algorithm

30/61
Where are we?
• We’ve derived a basic motion generation principle in robotics from
– an understanding of robot geometry & kinematics
– a basic notion of optimality

31/61
Where are we?
• We’ve derived a basic motion generation principle in robotics from
– an understanding of robot geometry & kinematics
– a basic notion of optimality

• In the remainder:
A. Heuristic motion profiles for simple trajectory generation
B. Extension to multiple task variables
C. Discussion of classical concepts
– Singularity and singularity-robustness
– Nullspace, task/operational space, joint space
– “inverse kinematics” ↔ “motion rate control”

31/61
Heuristic motion profiles

32/61
Heuristic motion profiles
• Assume initially x = 0, ẋ = 0. After 1 second you want x = 1, ẋ = 0.
How do you move from x = 0 to x = 1 in one second?

The sine profile xt = x0 + 12 [1 − cos(πt/T )](xT − x0 ) is a compromise

for low max-acceleration and max-velocity
Taken from http://www.20sim.com/webhelp/toolboxes/mechatronics_toolbox/
motion_profile_wizard/motionprofiles.htm
33/61
Motion profiles
• Generally, let’s define a motion profile as a mapping

MP : [0, 1] 7→ [0, 1]

with MP(0) = 0 and MP(1) = 1 such that the interpolation is given as

xt = x0 + MP(t/T ) (xT − x0 )

• For example

MPramp (s) = s
1
MPsin (s) = [1 − cos(πs)]
2

34/61
Joint space interpolation

1) Optimize a desired final configuration qT :

Given a desired final task value yT , optimize a final joint state qT to minimize
the function
f (qT ) = ||qT − q0 ||2W/T + ||yT − φ(qT )||2C

– The metric T1 W is consistent with T cost terms with step metric W .

– In this optimization, qT will end up remote from q0 . So we need to iterate
Gauss-Newton, as described on slide 30.

2) Compute q0:T as interpolation between q0 and qT :

Given the initial configuration q0 and the final qT , interpolate on a straight line
with a some motion profile. E.g.,

qt = q0 + MP(t/T ) (qT − q0 )

35/61
Task space interpolation

1) Compute y0:T as interpolation between y0 and yT :

Given a initial task value y0 and a desired final task value yT , interpolate on a
straight line with a some motion profile. E.g,

yt = y0 + MP(t/T ) (yT − y0 )

2) Project y0:T to q0:T using inverse kinematics:

Given the task trajectory y0:T , compute a corresponding joint trajectory q0:T
using inverse kinematics

qt+1 = qt + J ] (yt+1 − φ(qt ))

(As steps are small, we should be ok with just using this local linearization.)

36/61
peg-in-a-hole demo

37/61
Multiple tasks

38/61
Multiple tasks

39/61
Multiple tasks

RightHand
position
LeftHand
position

40/61
Multiple tasks
• Assume we have m simultaneous tasks; for each task i we have:
– a kinematic mapping yi = φi (q) ∈ Rdi
– a current value yi,t = φi (qt )
– a desired value yi∗
– a precision %i (implying a task cost metric Ci = %i I)

41/61
Multiple tasks
• Assume we have m simultaneous tasks; for each task i we have:
– a kinematic mapping yi = φi (q) ∈ Rdi
– a current value yi,t = φi (qt )
– a desired value yi∗
– a precision %i (implying a task cost metric Ci = %i I)

• Each task contributes a term to the objective function

q ∗ = argmin ||q − q0 ||2W + %1 ||φ1 (q) − y1∗ ||2 + %2 ||φ2 (q) − y2∗ ||2 + · · ·
q

41/61
Multiple tasks
• Assume we have m simultaneous tasks; for each task i we have:
– a kinematic mapping yi = φi (q) ∈ Rdi
– a current value yi,t = φi (qt )
– a desired value yi∗
– a precision %i (implying a task cost metric Ci = %i I)

• Each task contributes a term to the objective function

q ∗ = argmin ||q − q0 ||2W + %1 ||φ1 (q) − y1∗ ||2 + %2 ||φ2 (q) − y2∗ ||2 + · · ·
q

which we can also write as

q ∗ = argmin ||q − q0 ||2W + ||Φ(q)||2

q
√
% (φ (q) − y1∗ )
 

√ 1 1


%2 (φ2 (q) − y2∗ )

  P
 
di
where Φ(q) := 



 ∈R i

 .. 

.
 

41/61
Multiple tasks
• We can “pack” together all tasks in one “big task” Φ.

Example: We want to control the 3D position of the left hand and of the right
hand. Both are “packed” to one 6-dimensional task vector which becomes zero
if both tasks are fulfilled.

• The big Φ is scaled/normalized in a way that

– the desired value is always zero
– the cost metric is I

∂Φ(q0 )
• Using the local linearization of Φ at q0 , J = ∂q , the optimum is

q ∗ = argmin ||q − q0 ||2W + ||Φ(q)||2

q

≈ q0 − (J>J + W )-1 J> Φ(q0 ) = q0 − J # Φ(q0 )

42/61
Multiple tasks

• We learnt how to “puppeteer a robot”

• We can handle many task variables
(but specifying their precisions %i be-
comes cumbersome...)

RightHand • In the remainder:

position
LeftHand
A. Classical limit of “hierarchical IK” and
position
nullspace motion
B. What are interesting task variables?

43/61
Hierarchical IK & nullspace motion
• In the classical view, tasks should be executed exactly, which means taking the
limit %i → ∞ in some prespecified hierarchical order.
• We can rewrite the solution in a way that allows for such a hierarchical limit:
• One task plus “nullspace motion”:

f (q) = ||q − a||2W + %1 ||J1 q − y1 ||2

∝ ||q − â||2W
c

c = W + %1 J>
W 1 J1 ,
c -1 (W a + %1 J>
â = W # #
1 y1 ) = J1 y1 + (I − J1 J1 )a

J1# = (W/%1 + J> -1 >

1 J1 ) J1

• Two tasks plus nullspace motion:

f (q) = ||q − a||2W + %1 ||J1 q − y1 ||2 + %2 ||J2 q − y2 ||2

= ||q − â||2W
c + ||J1 q + Φ1 ||
2

q ∗ = J1# y1 + (I − J1# J1 )[J2# y2 + (I − J2# J2 )a]

J2# = (W/%2 + J> -1 >
2 J2 ) J2 ,
c /%1 + J>
J1# = (W -1 >
1 J1 ) J1

• etc... 44/61
Hierarchical IK & nullspace motion
• The previous slide did nothing but rewrite the nice solution
q ∗ = −J # Φ(q0 ) (for the “big” Φ) in a strange hierarchical way that
allows to “see” nullspace projection

• The benefit of this hierarchical way to write the solution is that one can
take the hierarchical limit %i → ∞ and retrieve classical hierarchical IK

• The drawbacks are:

– It is somewhat ugly
– In practise, I would recommend regularization in any case (for numeric
stability). Regularization corresponds to NOT taking the full limit %i → ∞.
Then the hierarchical way to write the solution is unnecessary. (However,
it points to a “hierarchical regularization”, which might be numerically more
robust for very small regularization?)
– The general solution allows for arbitrary blending of tasks

45/61
What are interesting task variables?

The following slides will define 10 different types of task variables.

This is meant as a reference and to give an idea of possibilities...

46/61
Position
Position of some point attached to link i
dimension d=3
parameters link index i, point offset v
kin. map φpos
iv (q) = TW
i v
pos
Jacobian Jiv (q)·k = [k ≺ i] ak × (φpos
iv (q) − pk )

Notation:
– ak , pk are axis and position of joint k
– [k ≺ i] indicates whether joint k is between root and link i
– J·k is the kth column of J

47/61
Vector
Vector attached to link i
dimension d=3
parameters link index i, attached vector v
kin. map φvec
iv (q) = RW
i v
vec
Jacobian Jiv (q) = Ai × φvec
iv (q)

Notation:
– Ai is a matrix with columns (Ai )·k = [k ≺ i] ak containing the joint axes or
zeros
– the short notation “A × p” means that each column in A takes the
cross-product with p.

48/61
Relative position
Position of a point on link i relative to point on link j
dimension d=3
parameters link indices i, j, point offset v in i and w in j
kin. map φpos -1 pos pos
iv|jw (q) = Rj (φiv − φjw )
pos pos pos
Jacobian Jiv|jw (q) = Rj-1 [Jiv − Jjw − Aj × (φpos pos
iv − φjw )]

Derivation:
For y = Rp the derivative w.r.t. a rotation around axis a is
y 0 = Rp0 + R0 p = Rp0 + a × Rp. For y = R-1 p the derivative is
y 0 = R-1 p0 − R-1 (R0 )R-1 p = R-1 (p0 − a × p). (For details see
http://ipvs.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/mlr/marc/notes/3d-geometry.pdf)

49/61
Relative vector
Vector attached to link i relative to link j
dimension d=3
parameters link indices i, j, attached vector v in i
kin. map φvec -1 vec
iv|j (q) = Rj φiv
vec
Jacobian Jiv|j (q) = Rj-1 [Jiv
vec
− Aj × φvec
iv ]

50/61
Alignment
Alignment of a vector attached to link i with a reference v ∗
dimension d=1
parameters link index i, attached vector v, world reference v ∗
align
kin. map φiv (q) = v ∗> φvec
iv
align
Jacobian Jiv (q) = v ∗> Jiv
vec

Note: φalign = 1 ↔ align φalign = −1 ↔ anti-align φalign = 0 ↔ orthog.

51/61
Relative Alignment
Alignment a vector attached to link i with vector attached to j
dimension d=1
parameters link indices i, j, attached vectors v, w
align > vec
kin. map φiv|jw (q) = (φvec
jw ) φiv
align > vec vec> vec
Jacobian Jiv|jw (q) = (φvec
jw ) Jiv + φiv Jjw

52/61
Joint limits
Penetration of joint limits
dimension d=1
parameters joint limits qlow , qhi , margin m
1
Pn + +
kin. map φlimits (q) = m i=1 [m − qi + qlow ] + [m + qi − qhi ]
1 1
Jacobian Jlimits (q)1,i = − m [m−qi +qlow > 0]+ m [m+qi −qhi > 0]

[x]+ = x > 0?x : 0 [· · · ]: indicator function

53/61
Collision limits
Penetration of collision limits
dimension d=1
parameters margin m
1
PK
kin. map φcol (q) = m k=1 [m − |pak − pbk |]+
1
PK
Jacobian Jcol (q) = m k=1 [m − |pak − pbk | > 0]
pa −pb
(−Jppos pos > k
a + J b )
p
k
|pa −pb |
k k k k

A collision detection engine returns a set {(a, b, pa , pb )K

k=1 } of potential
collisions between link ak and bk , with nearest points pak on a and pbk on b.

54/61
Center of gravity
Center of gravity of the whole kinematic structure
dimension d=3
parameters (none)
φcog (q) = massi φpos
P
kin. map i ici
pos
J cog (q) =
P
Jacobian i massi Jic i

ci denotes the center-of-mass of link i (in its own frame)

55/61
Homing
The joint angles themselves
dimension d=n
parameters (none)
kin. map φqitself (q) = q
Jacobian Jqitself (q) = In

Example: Set the target y ∗ = 0 and the precision % very low → this task
describes posture comfortness in terms of deviation from the joints’ zero
position. In the classical view, it induces “nullspace motion”.

56/61
Task variables – conclusions

• There is much space for creativity in defin-

ing task variables! Many are extensions of
φpos and φvec and the Jacobians combine
the basic Jacobians.

• What the right task variables are to de-

sign/describe motion is a very hard prob-
lem! In what task space do humans con-
trol their motion? Possible to learn from
nearest data (“task space retrieval”) or perhaps via
distance
LeftHand Reinforcement Learning.
position

• In practice: Robot motion design (includ-

ing grasping) may require cumbersome
hand-tuning of such task variables.

57/61
Discussion of classical concepts

– Singularity and singularity-robustness

– Nullspace, task/operational space, joint space
– “inverse kinematics” ↔ “motion rate control”

58/61
Singularity
• In general: A matrix J singular ⇐⇒ rank(J) < d
– rows of J are linearly dependent
– dimension of image is < d
– δy = Jδq ⇒ dimensions of δy limited
– Intuition: arm fully stretched

59/61
Singularity
• In general: A matrix J singular ⇐⇒ rank(J) < d
– rows of J are linearly dependent
– dimension of image is < d
– δy = Jδq ⇒ dimensions of δy limited
– Intuition: arm fully stretched

• Implications:
det(JJ>) = 0
→ pseudo-inverse J>(JJ>)-1 is ill-defined!
→ inverse kinematics δq = J>(JJ>)-1 δy computes “infinite” steps!

• Singularity robust pseudo inverse J>(JJ> + I)-1

The term I is called regularization
• Recall our general solution (for W = I)
J ] = J>(JJ> + C -1 )-1
is already singularity robust 59/61
Null/task/operational/joint/configuration spaces
• The space of all q ∈ Rn is called joint/configuration space
The space of all y ∈ Rd is called task/operational space
Usually d < n, which is called redundancy

60/61
Null/task/operational/joint/configuration spaces
• The space of all q ∈ Rn is called joint/configuration space
The space of all y ∈ Rd is called task/operational space
Usually d < n, which is called redundancy

• For a desired endeffector state y ∗ there exists a whole manifold

(assuming φ is smooth) of joint configurations q:

nullspace(y ∗ ) = {q | φ(q) = y ∗ }

• We found earlier that

q ∗ = argmin ||q − a||2W + %||Jq − y ∗ ||2

q
# ∗
= J y + (I − J # J)a , J # = (W/% + J>J)-1 J>

In the limit % → ∞ it is guaranteed that Jq = y ∗ (we are exacty on the

manifold). The term a introduces additional “nullspace motion”. 60/61
Inverse Kinematics and Motion Rate Control
Some clarification of concepts:

• The notion “kinematics” describes the mapping φ : q 7→ y, which

usually is a many-to-one function.
• The notion “inverse kinematics” in the strict sense describes some
mapping g : y 7→ q such that φ(g(y)) = y, which usually is non-unique
or ill-defined.
• In practice, one often refers to δq = J ] δy as inverse kinematics.

• When iterating δq = J ] δy in a control cycle with time step τ (typically

τ ≈ 1 − 10 msec), then ẏ = δy/τ and q̇ = δq/τ and q̇ = J ] ẏ. Therefore
the control cycle effectively controls the endeffector velocity—this is
why it is called motion rate control.

61/61