text:
# Resistance of a domain wall in the quasiclassical approach

## I Introduction

In ferromagnetic metals not only the charge of the electron but also the spin plays an important role in transport phenomena. A famous example is the observation of the giant magnetoresistance in magnetic multilayers, which can be explained in terms of a spin dependent electronic scattering.

The presence of a domain wall (DW) in a ferromagnet can also change transport properties and this has been observed in a number of experiments. At the first glance, experimental data seems to contradict to each other. In Refs.  it was found that the resistance of ferromagnetic wires and films decreases when increasing the external magnetic field, whereas in Refs.  the resistance at zero magnetic field was found to be smaller than the one measured at high magnetic fields.

In order to give a quantitative description of these experiments not only the DW contribution to the magnetoresistance (MR) should be taken into account but also other mechanisms, as the anisotropic magnetoresistance, which arises due to the spin-orbit scattering , size effects and the Lorentz contribution inside the domains. The main experimental difficulty in determining the DW contribution is to exclude the other effects. For example in Ref. the negative MR observed in Co films was interpreted in terms of DW scattering. However in Ref. it was claimed that the predominant contributions to the observed magnetoresistance of Co films can be explained by a specific micromagnetic structure, which consists of stripe-domains with magnetization out-of-the-film plane. In addition, the films show closure caps at the surfaces with magnetization in plane and parallel to the current. Thus, the resistivity anisotropy might play a fundamental role.

Understanding the details of these experiments is an interesting task. However, before taking into account all material specific characteristics of the experiments one should be able to describe general properties of electron scattering on domain walls. In this paper, we do not try to give an explanation of all these experiments, but solve an idealized model that may capture the most general features of transport in the presence of a DW. We calculate the resistance of a ferromagnetic wire with a DW and restrict ourself to the case when the magnetization of the ferromagnetic structure remains always perpendicular to the current. This assumption simplifies the situation because in this case anisotropic effects do not contribute to the change of the resistance.

The DW contribution to the conductance has been considered in several theoretical works, in which different approaches have been used. For example in Refs.  quantum effects (weak localization) were taken into account. It was shown that a DW contributes to the decoherence of electrons leading to a decrease of the resistance. These effects may be important at very low temperatures when localization effects start playing a noticeable role.

At higher temperatures the weak localization effects are not important and one may try to describe the magnetoresistance in terms of classical motion. In recent works, Refs. , an increase of the resistance due to a DW was predicted on the basis of a Boltzmann equation. However, the collision term describing scattering of conduction electrons on impurities was introduced phenomenologically.

The classical DW resistance was calculated also in Ref. . In that work, it was shown that the DW resistance could be both negative and positive depending on the difference between the momentum relaxation times $`\tau _,`$ for the different spin directions. However, the classical Drude expression for the resistivity was used, in which the relaxation times $`\tau _,`$ were introduced again as phenomenological parameters. In Refs. the resistance of a DW located in a point contact was calculated.

The purpose of this paper is to derive a proper kinetic equation for the distribution function from a microscopic model and to calculate the DW resistance on its basis. We employ a standard approach based on microscopic equations for the quasiclassical Green’s functions in the Keldysh technique. Assuming that the impurity scattering potential $`u_s`$ is spin dependent, we derive the kinetic equation for the matrix (in the Nambu and spin space) distribution function. As a result we come to the kinetic equation for the ditribution function $`f`$ that is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in the spin space. The impurity scattering potential which enters the collision integral is also a matrix and this makes the equation considerably more complicated than the standard one that could be written for a spin independent scattering.

Throughout this article we assume that the magnetization remains always perpendicular to the current. First we solve the derived kinetic equation in two simplest cases: a single domain and two domain structure with an abrupt DW (i.e. the width of the DW equals zero). In the case of a finite DW width we solve the kinetic equation assuming the potentials $`u_{}`$ and $`u_{}`$ do not differ much from each other. Even in this limit, it is hard to obtain analytical formulae for an arbitrary width of the DW. Two different limiting cases naturally arise and this allows us to obtain a solution for the distribution function. The first limit corresponds to a sharp DW (to a small exchange energy $`J`$ ). The second limit corresponds to a smooth DW ( to a large $`J`$ ). We note that only the second limit was analyzed in Refs. . As in Refs.  we obtain that the DW increases the resistance of the system. However our formulae for the contribution of the DW to the resistance differ essentially from those presented in Refs. .

The paper is organized in the following way. In the next section we introduce the model and derive the kinetic equation for the distribution function in a ferromagnetic wire neglecting quantum effects. We start from the microscopic Hamiltonian (2) with different scattering rates at impurities for spin-up and spin down-electrons. In the subsequent sections we calculate the conductance of the system in the diffusive limit. In section III A we consider the case of a sharp DW when $`JD/w^2,`$ where $`D`$ is the diffusion coefficient, $`w`$ is the width of the DW and $`J`$ is the exchange field acting on the electron spin. In section III B we calculate the conductance of a “slowly” varying DW, i. e. we consider the case $`D/w^2J`$. It turns out that in the first case the conductance is always smaller than in the adiabatic case. In the last section we summarize our results.

## II Kinetic Equation

In this section we derive the kinetic equation for the matrix distribution function $`\widehat{f}`$ starting from equations for the quasiclassical Green functions. The function $`\widehat{f}`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in the spin space. We assume that the impurity scattering rate depends on the spin directions but, for simplicity, we neglect such spin-flip processes as the spin-orbit interaction or the scattering by magnetic impurities. So, in our model each impurity scattering vertex is a matrix that does not commute with $`\widehat{f}`$ and therefore the elastic collision integral has a nontrivial form. This fact has been ignored in Refs. , where the collision integral was written phenomenologically.

Using the derived kinetic equation we calculate the conductance of a mesoscopic structure which consists of two reservoirs and a ferromagnetic wire (or film) connecting the reservoirs (see Fig. 1). A domain wall is assumed to be present in the ferromagnet. We consider the diffusive limit, which means that the mean free path is the shortest length (apart from the Fermi wave length) in the problem. We solve the kinetic equation assuming the smallness of the parameter $`\beta `$, defined as

$$\beta =\frac{\sigma _{}\sigma _{}}{\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}}$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _,`$ are conductivities for different spin directions. A precise relation between the conductivities $`\sigma _,`$, as well as the diffusion coefficients $`D_,`$, the corresponding scattering rates will become clear below.

The assumption $`\beta 1`$ is valid for ferromagnets with the exchange energy $`J`$ much smaller than the Fermi energy. We will consider two limiting cases: a) $`J<<D_,/w^2`$ and b) $`J>>D_,/w^2`$, where $`D_,`$ is the diffusion coefficient for electrons with up and down spins, $`w`$ is the width of the DW. The case a) corresponds to a sharp DW. The conductance in this case is smaller than the conductance of the structure without the domain wall. A finite width of the domain wall leads to a positive correction to the conductance. The second case corresponds to a smooth (compared to the magnetic length $`\sqrt{D/J}`$ ) DW. In the limit of a large $`w`$ the conductance of the structure is close to that of a structure without a DW. With decreasing the width of the DW, the conductance of the structure decreases. Our results significantly differ significantly from the results obtained in other works, where either the collision term was oversimplified , or the kinetic equation was not treated in a correct way .

We choose the Hamiltonian of the ferromagnet in a simple standard form

$$H=\underset{s,s^{}}{}𝑑r\{\psi _s^+(r)[^2/2m+eV(r)J𝐧\widehat{\sigma }]\psi _s^{}(r)\}+H_{imp}.$$
(2)
where $`V(r)`$ is a smoothly varying (over the wave length $`\lambda _F`$) electric potential, $`J`$ is the exchange energy, $`𝐧`$ is the unit vector directed along the magnetization orientation. The term $`H_{imp}(r)`$ describes the interaction of electrons with impurities and we assume that it depends on the spin direction. The origin of this dependence can be either the band structure or the intrinsec spin dependence of the impurity scattering potential . If the magnetization is aligned along the z-axis, this interaction can be written as

$$H_{imp}=\underset{i}{}𝑑r\{\psi _{}^+(r)u_{}(rr_i)\psi _{}(r)+\psi _{}^+(r)u_{}(rr_i)\psi _{}(r)\}.$$
(3)
As in Ref., we introduce new operators

$$\psi _{n,s}=\{\begin{array}{c}\psi _s,n=1\\ \psi _{\overline{s}}^+,n=2\end{array}.$$
(4)
In terms of the operators $`\psi _{n,s}`$ and in the case of an arbitrary angle $`\alpha `$ between the magnetization vector and the $`z`$-axis the Hamiltonian (3) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_{imp}\hfill & =& _{i,n,s}dr\psi _{n,s}^+(r)\{\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }_0u_+(rr_i)+(\widehat{\tau }_0\widehat{\sigma }_3\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }_2\mathrm{sin}\alpha )u_{}(rr_i).\}\psi _{n,s}(r)\}\hfill \\ & =& _{i,n,s}𝑑r\psi _{n,s}^+(r)u_+\widehat{\tau }_3\{1+\lambda \stackrel{ˇ}{n}\}\psi _{n,s},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`u_\pm =(u_{}\pm u_{})/2`$, $`\lambda =u_{}/u_+`$ and the matrix $`\stackrel{ˇ}{n}`$ is defined as $`\stackrel{ˇ}{n}=\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }_3\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha \widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }_1]`$.

Introducing the operators $`\psi _{n,s}`$, Eq. (4), leads to an increase of the size of matrix Green functions written below. One has to deal not only with spin space but also with the Nambu one. Actually, this is not necessary if one consideres non-superconducting metals only. However, this extension of the size would become important if the metal wire we consider were in contact with a superconductor. Although we do not consider any superconductivity in the present work, we keep at the moment the Nambu space explicitly having in mind a possible generalization for the superconductivity.

Now we define the Green functions in the Keldysh technique

$$G_{nn^{}}^{ss^{}}(t_i,t_k^{})=(1/i)<T_C(\psi _{n,s}(t_i)\psi _{n^{}s^{}}^+(t_k^{}))>.$$
(6)
where $`T_C`$ means the time ordering along the Keldysh contour $`C`$. In a standard way we define the retarded (advanced) $`G^{R(A)}`$ and Keldysh Green function $`G`$ as well as a matrix $`𝐆`$ composed of the matrices $`G^{R(A)}`$ and $`G`$ (see e. g. Ref.). One can obtain an equation for the matrix $`𝐆`$ in the usual way by summing the ladder diagrams in the cross technique  (we neglect all crossed diagrams). This equation has the form

$$(i_tH𝚺_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐦𝐩}})𝐆=1$$
(7)
where $`H=[(1/2m)^2+V(t)]\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }_0J\widehat{\tau }_3\stackrel{ˇ}{n}`$, and the self-energy term $`𝚺_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐦𝐩}}`$ is given by

$$𝚺_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐦𝐩}}=n_{imp}\stackrel{ˇ}{u}<𝐆>\stackrel{ˇ}{u}.$$
(8)
Here $`\stackrel{ˇ}{u}=u_+(1+\lambda \stackrel{ˇ}{n})`$, $`<𝐆>=\nu 𝑑\xi _p𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi 𝐆`$ and $`n_{imp}`$ is the concentration of impurities. In the quasiclassical approach the density of states $`\nu `$ is written in the main approximation with respect to the parameter $`J/ϵ_F`$, where $`ϵ_F`$ is the Fermi energy. In this case $`\nu `$ is the same for both spin-up and spin-down electrons. Notice that the r.h.s of Eq. (8) is a product of matrices, which in a general case do not commute.

In order to obtain an equation for the quasiclassical Green functions, we follow the standard way (see for example  ): we write the equation conjugate to Eq. (7), multiply both equations by $`\widehat{\tau }_3`$ and subtract from each other. Then, we integrate the final equation over the variable $`\xi _p=v_F(pp_F)`$ and obtain

$$\widehat{\tau }_3_t𝐠+_t𝐠\widehat{\tau }_3+i(eV(t)𝐠𝐠eV(t))+(v_F)𝐠+iJ[\stackrel{ˇ}{n},𝐠]=(1/2\tau )(\stackrel{ˇ}{m}<𝐠>\stackrel{ˇ}{m}𝐠𝐠\stackrel{ˇ}{m}<𝐠>\stackrel{ˇ}{m}).$$
(9)
We have introduced the quasiclassical Green function in the usual way

$$𝐠=(i/\pi )\widehat{\tau }_3𝑑\xi _p𝐆$$
(10)
The matrix $`\stackrel{ˇ}{m}`$ is equal to $`\stackrel{ˇ}{m}=1+\lambda \stackrel{ˇ}{n}`$ and $`\tau ^1=\nu n_{imp}|u_+|^2`$ is the mean momentum relaxation rate. The elements of the matrix $`𝐠`$ are $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}^{R(A)}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$

$$𝐠=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}^R& \stackrel{ˇ}{g}\\ 0& \stackrel{ˇ}{g}^A\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
Eq.(9) is valid in a rather general case. In particular, it can be employed in the case of a superconductor-ferromagnet structure when the superconducting condensate penetrates into the ferromagnet. We use Eq.(9) for a normal case, i.e. for F/S structures when one can neglect the penetration of the condensate into the ferromagnet F or for F/F’ structures. In order to obtain the kinetic equation for the distribution function in the normal case, we represent the Keldysh component in the usual form

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{g}=\stackrel{ˇ}{g}^R\stackrel{ˇ}{f}\stackrel{ˇ}{f}\stackrel{ˇ}{g}^A$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}^{R(A)}=\pm \widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}`$ is a 4$`\times `$4 matrix, whose elements are the components of the distribution function in the Nambu and spin space. This matrix can be represented in the form

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{f}=\widehat{f}_0\widehat{\tau }_0+\widehat{f}_3\widehat{\tau }_3.$$
(13)
The components $`\widehat{f}_0`$ and $`\widehat{f}_3`$ are matrices in spin space. In the absence of spin-dependent interactions they are diagonal and related to the distribution functions for electrons $`n`$ and holes $`p`$ as follows: $`\widehat{f}_0=(1(n_s+p_{\overline{s}}))\widehat{\sigma }_0`$; $`\widehat{f}_3=(n_sp_{\overline{s}})\widehat{\sigma }_0.`$ Taking into account Eqs.(10-13), one can easily get from Eq.(9) the kinetic equation for the matrix distribution function

$$\widehat{\tau }_3(v_F)\stackrel{ˇ}{f}+iJ\widehat{\tau }_3[\stackrel{ˇ}{n},\stackrel{ˇ}{f}]=(1/2\tau )\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{m}^2\stackrel{ˇ}{f}+\stackrel{ˇ}{f}\stackrel{ˇ}{m}^22\stackrel{ˇ}{m}<\stackrel{ˇ}{f}>\stackrel{ˇ}{m}\right].$$
(14)
According to all previous definitions we can write

$$\tau _,=\frac{\tau }{(1\pm \lambda )^2},$$
(15)
and hence define $`\sigma _,`$ and $`D_,`$ without using any phenomenological approach. In our model the conductivities $`\sigma _,`$ are equal to: $`\sigma _,=e^2\nu D_,=e^2\nu D(1\pm \lambda )^2,`$ where $`D=v^2\tau /3`$. Note that in the absence of superconductivity the distribution function has diagonal in the Nambu- space, and therefore one can take the component (1,1) of Eq. (14) and obtain

$$(v_F)\widehat{f}+iJ[\widehat{n},\widehat{f}]=(1/2\tau )\left[\widehat{m}^2\widehat{f}+\widehat{f}\widehat{m}^22\widehat{m}<\widehat{f}>\widehat{m}\right],$$
(16)
where all matrices are now $`2\times 2`$ matrices in the spin space. In particular, $`\widehat{m}=1+\lambda \widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{n}=\widehat{\sigma }_3\mathrm{exp}[i\alpha \widehat{\sigma }_1]`$. Note that the left-hand side of Eq. (16) coincides with the left-hand side of the well known kinetic equation derived for a magnetic material (see for example Ref. , where the kinetic equation is presented for a dynamic case in the absence of scattering by impurities). The solution $`\widehat{f}`$ of this equation coincides with the component (1,1) of the distribution function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{f}`$, which satisfies Eq. (14). Since in this article normal materials (no superconductors) are considered, we will analyze Eq. (16). One can exclude the spatial dependence of the matrices $`\widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{m}`$ performing an unitary transformation defined by

$`\widehat{f}=\widehat{U}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}\widehat{U}^+,\widehat{U}=\widehat{\sigma }_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha /2+i\widehat{\sigma }_1\mathrm{sin}\alpha /2.`$

In this case one obtains an equation for the distribution function $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$

$$(v_F)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}+i(v_F/2)\alpha ^{}(x)[\widehat{\sigma }_1,\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}]+iJ[\widehat{\sigma }_3,\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}]=(1/\tau )\left[\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}<\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}>+\lambda [\widehat{\sigma }_3,\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}<\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}>]+\lambda ^2\left(\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}\widehat{\sigma }_3<\widehat{\stackrel{~}{f}}>\widehat{\sigma }_3\right)\right].$$
(17)
The left-hand side of this equation differs from the one derived in Ref.. In the latter there is an additional term of the form $`(\alpha ^{}(x)/4m)[\widehat{\sigma }_1,(F/x)]_+`$ which, as we have shown, does not appear in the quasiclassical approach. Moreover, due to this term the kinetic equation of Ref.  violates the particle number conservation and therefore leads to wrong results. Notice also, that the collision term ( right-hand side of Eq. (17) ) after the unitary rotation may not be diagonal in spin space. This fact was ignored in Refs. . We will see in the next sections that in the case $`(D/w^2)J`$, it is convenient to work with Eq.(17), while in the opposite case it is easier to solve the kinetic equation in its original form Eq. (16). We assume that the system is diffusive (this implies the condition $`J\tau <<1`$) . In this case one can expand the distribution function $`\widehat{f}`$ in spherical harmonics and consider only the first two of them

$$\widehat{f}=\widehat{s}+\mu \widehat{a},$$
(18)
where $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`v_F`$ and the $`x`$ -axis. Using Eqs. (16) and (18), one obtains two equations for the functions $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$

$`v_F_x\widehat{s}+iJ[\widehat{n},\widehat{a}]`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2\tau )\left(\widehat{m}^2\widehat{a}+\widehat{a}\widehat{m}^2\right)`$ (19)
$`(v_F/3)_x\widehat{a}+iJ[\widehat{n},\widehat{s}]`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2\tau )\left(\widehat{m}^2\widehat{s}+\widehat{s}\widehat{m}^22\widehat{m}\widehat{s}\widehat{m}\right).`$ (20)
In the second equation we have performed an averaging over the angle $`\mu `$ . The boundary conditions at the interfaces with the reservoirs are given by imposing the continuity of the symmetric part $`\widehat{s}(x)`$ of the distribution function (we assume a perfect contact of the F wire with the reservoirs)

$$\widehat{s}(L)=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ}{2T}\widehat{\sigma }_0$$
(21)
and

$$\widehat{s}(0)=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ+eV}{2T}\widehat{\sigma }_0.$$
(22)
Once we determine the distribution function $`\widehat{f}`$, we can calculate the current density using the following expression

$$j=\frac{1}{4}e\nu \frac{v_F}{3}𝑑ϵ\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{a}.$$
(23)
In the next sections we determine the resistance of a domain wall with a finite width. Here on the basis of Eq.(16), the conductance of a F’/F/F’ mesoscopic system is calculated in the simplest cases: a single domain in the ferromagnetic wire and a two-domain structure in the F wire with an abrupt domain wall (i.e., $`w=0,`$ see Fig.1). In this case (the magnetization is parallel or antiparallel to the z-axis), both parts of the distribution function $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ are proportional to $`\widehat{\sigma }_{0,3}`$. Therefore the commutator on the left hand side is equal to zero. From Eq. (19) we find

$$\widehat{a}=\widehat{m}^2v_F_x\widehat{s}.$$
(24)
We substitute this expression into equation (20). Taking into account that the right-hand side is zero, we obtain after integration

$$\widehat{s}=\widehat{s}(0)+\widehat{m}^2\widehat{I}x/D,$$
(25)
The integration constant or, in other words, the “partial current” per unit energy $`I`$ is found from the boundary condition (22)

$$\widehat{I}=\frac{D}{L}\widehat{m}^2F_{}\widehat{\sigma }_0,$$
(26)
where $`\widehat{m}^2=[1+\lambda ^22\lambda \widehat{n}]/(1\lambda ^2)`$ and $`F_{}=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ+eV}{2T}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ}{2T}`$. Substituting this expression into Eq. (23), we find the current and the differential conductance $`G=dI/dV|_{V=0}`$

$$G_{1d}=(2\sigma /L)(1+\lambda ^2)/(1\lambda ^2)^2=G_{}+G_{}$$
(27)
Here $`G_,=\sigma _,/L`$, and $`\sigma =e^2\nu D`$. Thus, the conductance has the usual form. We note that in terms of $`\lambda `$ the conductivities $`\sigma _,`$ are given by $`\sigma _,=\sigma /(1\pm \lambda )^2`$, and hence the coefficient $`\beta `$ defined in Eq. (1) is related to $`\lambda `$ via the relation $`\beta =2\lambda /(1+\lambda ^2)`$.

Let us consider the same system with two domains in the F wire and with an abrupt DW located in the middle of the wire. In this case $`\alpha =0`$ in the interval $`0<x<L/2`$ and $`\alpha =\pi `$ in the interval $`L/2<x<L.`$ Eqs. (19-20) are solved in the same way as for the single domain case. For the symmetric part of the distribution function we obtain

$$\widehat{s}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\sigma }_0\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ+eV}{2T}+\widehat{m}^2(0)\widehat{I}x/D& \hfill 0<x<L/2\\ s(L/2)+\widehat{m}^2(\pi )\widehat{I}(xL/2)/D& \hfill L/2<x<L\end{array},$$
(28)
where $`\widehat{m}^2(0)=\widehat{m}^2|_{\alpha =0}`$ . The integration constant again is found from the boundary condition (22). We get for $`\widehat{I}`$

$$\widehat{I}=\widehat{\sigma }_0DF_{}/(1+\lambda ^2)L$$
(29)
and for the conductance

$$G_{2d}=(2\sigma /L)/(1+\lambda ^2)=4G_{}G_{}/(G_{}+G_{})$$
(30)
This result has been obtained earlier (see Ref.  and references therein). In the next section we calculate $`G`$ for the case when the magnetization (or the vector $`𝐧`$) rotates in the y-z plane over a finite length $`w`$.

## III  Conductance of a domain wall

The problem of calculating the conductance for a system with a finite width of a DW is rather complicated. In order to simplify it, we make an assumption that the scattering times $`\tau _,`$ are close to each other, i.e.

$$\lambda 1.$$
(31)
This condition is met in ferromagnets with an exchange energy $`J`$ smaller than the Fermi energy. We consider again the system shown in Fig. 1. The total length of the ferromagnetic wire is $`L`$. A Bloch-like DW is situated in the region $`(Lw)/2<x<(L+w)/2`$ and separates two domains with opposite magnetizations. Thus, the effective width of the DW is $`w`$. It is not easy to obtain the exact solution of Eqs.(19,20). However one can assume that condition (31) is satisfied and expand the functions $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$ up to terms proportional to $`\lambda ^2`$. We distinguish two cases: a) $`JD/w^2`$, which corresponds to a sharp DW; and b) $`JD/w^2`$.

### A Small exchange energy

If the exchange field is weak ($`JD/w^2`$ ) or the DW wall is very sharp, one can easily solve Eqs. (19,20) for an arbitrary form of the DW. We assume that the DW width exceeds the mean free path but is smaller than the magnetic length $`\xi _J=\sqrt{D/J}`$ . In this case, we expand the solution of Eqs. (19,20) in the small parameters $`Jw^2/D`$ and $`\lambda `$ . In the zero order approximation, we get

$$\widehat{a}_0=l_x\widehat{s}_0$$
(32)
and

$$D_x\widehat{s}_0=\widehat{I}_0;\text{ }\widehat{s}_0=\widehat{\sigma }_0\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ+eV}{2T}+\widehat{I}_0x/D,$$
(33)
where the ‘partial current’ is found from the boundary condition (22) and is equal to

$$\widehat{I}_0=\widehat{\sigma }_0DF_{}/L$$
(34)
In the first approximation we find from Eq.(19)

$$\widehat{a}_1=l_x\widehat{s}_12\lambda \widehat{n}(x)\widehat{a}_0$$
(35)
The solution of Eq. (20) for the symmetric part $`\widehat{s}_1`$ has the form

$$\widehat{s}_1=\widehat{I}_1x/D+2\lambda \widehat{I}_0_0^x𝑑x_1\widehat{n}(x_1)/D$$
(36)
This and next corrections should satisfy zero boundary conditions. Therefore we find for $`\widehat{I}_1`$

$$\widehat{I}_1=2\lambda \widehat{I}_0<\widehat{n}>_L$$
(37)
where $`<(\mathrm{})>_L=1/L_0^L(\mathrm{})𝑑x.`$ As it follows from Eq.(23), the first correction does not contribute to the current. The zero order correction leads to the expression for the conductance given by Eq. (30) if we expand it in the small parameter $`\lambda `$ (the case of an abrupt DW). In order to find a correction to the conductance due to a finite width of the DW, one has to find the second order corrections. One can see from Eq.(23) that only components of $`\widehat{a}_2`$ or $`\widehat{s}_2`$ proportional to $`\widehat{\sigma }_0`$ contribute to the current. Therefore we take the trace in the spin space from Eq.(19) and Eq.(20) and find easily

$$\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{a}_2=(l/D)\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{I}_2$$
(38)
and

$$\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{s}_2=(2\lambda )^2\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{I}_0<\widehat{n}>_L\left[_0^x𝑑x_1\widehat{n}(x_1)<\stackrel{ˇ}{n}>x\right]/D,$$
(39)
where

$$\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{I}_2=(1/2)\mathrm{Tr}_{\widehat{\sigma }}\widehat{I}_0\lambda ^2\left[14<\widehat{n}>_L^2\right].$$
(40)
Using Eqs.(34) and Eqs.(40) we obtain the expression for the conductance which can be represented in the form

$$G=G_{2d}\left[1+(2\lambda )^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}<\widehat{n}>_L^2\right]$$
(41)
This formula determines the conductance of the system under consideration for the case when the precession frequency $`J`$ is smaller than the inverse time of diffusion of an electron through the DW. One can see that in the case of a DW with a finite width the conductance is larger than in the case of a sharp DW (cf. Eq. (30)), but smaller than the conductance in the single domain case (cf. Eq. (27)) . Note that Eq. (41) has been obtained in the limit of small $`\lambda `$. Therefore the conductance $`G_{2d}`$ should be expanded in $`\lambda `$ (see Eq. (30)) and terms of order higher than $`\lambda ^2`$ should be neglected. There is an interesting consequence from the result of Eq. (41). Let us consider the case of two DWs separating three regions of length $`d`$ with homogeneous magnetization. For simplicity we assume that the shapes of the DWs are described by a piece-wise linear function, which is characterized by a wave vector $`𝐐=(w/\pi ,0,0)`$. If one defines the chirality vector as $`\delta 𝐯_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐡}}=𝐧(x)\times 𝐧(x+\delta x)`$, where $`𝐧(x)`$ is the unit vector directed along the local magnetization, two cases should be distinguished: a) the DWs have different chirality. In this case $`\mathrm{Tr}<\widehat{n}>_L^2=(2/L^2)(d^2+16(w^2/\pi ^2))`$. Thus we see that an additional DW will decreases the conductance of the system. b) the chiriality vectors have different signs. In this case $`\mathrm{Tr}<\widehat{n}>_L^2=(2/L^2)d^2`$, and hence the contributions of both DWs to the conductance cancel each other. This result can be generalized easily for an arbitrary number of DWs

Now we calculate the spatial distribution of the electric field in the ferromagnetic wire showed in Fig. 1. The electric potential $`V(x)`$ is given by the expression (see, for example, Ref. )

$$V(x)=(1/4)Tr\widehat{\sigma }_0𝑑ϵ\widehat{s}$$
(42)
According to Eqs. (33) and (39) the electric field $`E(x)=_xV(x)`$ in the ferromagnetic wire is given by

$$E(x)=(V/L)\{1+(2\lambda )^2[<\mathrm{cos}\alpha >_L(<\mathrm{cos}\alpha >_L\mathrm{cos}\alpha )+<\mathrm{sin}\alpha >_L(<\mathrm{sin}\alpha >_L\mathrm{sin}\alpha )]\}.$$
(43)
For example, if we consider the structure of the Bloch wall which has been calculated by Landau and Lifshitz

$$\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\mathrm{tanh}[(xL/2)/w];\text{ }\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\mathrm{cosh}^1[(xL/2)/w]$$
(44)
we obtain

$$E(x)E_0=E_0(2\lambda )^2(\pi w/L)\left\{(\pi w/L)\mathrm{cosh}^1[(xL/2)/w]\right\},$$
(45)
where $`E_0=(V/L).`$ In Fig.2 we plot the dependence $`E(x)`$ given by Eq. (45). One can see that in the region of the DW the electric field decreases; this means an increase in the local conductivity.

In the next section we consider the case of a strong exchange field or of a wide wall, i.e. the case $`w\xi _J`$ .

### B  Large Exchange Energy

Now we consider the case with a large exchange energy or a slow variation of the direction of the magnetization within the DW ($`w\sqrt{D/J}`$). In this case, the problem becomes more complicated because we cannot neglect the commutator on the left hand side in Eqs. (19,20) and cannot find a solution of these equations even for the case of small $`\lambda `$. Therefore we simplify the problem assuming that the shape of the DW is described by a piece-wise linear function (see Fig. 1)

$$\widehat{n}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\sigma }_3& \hfill \mathrm{in}\mathrm{region}\mathrm{I}\\ \widehat{\sigma }_3\mathrm{exp}[i(\pi /w)(x(Lw)/2)\widehat{\sigma }_1]& \hfill \mathrm{within}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{DW}\\ \widehat{\sigma }_3& \hfill \mathrm{in}\mathrm{region}\mathrm{III}.\end{array}$$
(46)
Obviously the results for other shapes of the DW like that given by Eq. (44) will differ from ours only by a numerical factor. We again expand the solution in the small parameter $`\lambda `$, i.e. $`\widehat{a}=\widehat{a}_0+\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2+\mathrm{}`$. The zeroth order terms can be obtained easily as before and they are given by Eqs.(32,33). The first correction $`\widehat{a}_1`$ is given again by Eq. (35) and the first correction for the symmetric part $`\widehat{s}_1`$ obeys the equation

$$D_{xx}^2\widehat{s}_1iJ[\widehat{n}(x),s_1]=2\lambda \widehat{I}_0_x\widehat{n}.$$
(47)
This equation can be solved for the case of $`\widehat{n}(x)`$ given by Eq.(46) with the help of an unitary transformation (a rotation in the spin space). We do not need to find the second order corrections $`\widehat{a}_2`$ and $`\widehat{s}_2`$, since the sought correction to the conductance can be expressed in terms of $`\widehat{s}_1.`$ Indeed, let us write the equation for $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{s}_2`$ which follows from Eq.(20)

$$\mathrm{Tr}\{D_x\widehat{s}_2+(v_F/3)[\lambda ^2\widehat{a}_0+2\lambda \widehat{n}\widehat{a}_1]\widehat{I}_2\}=0,$$
(48)
where $`\widehat{I}_2`$ is the integration constant which is related to $`\widehat{a}_2:`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\sigma }_0\widehat{a}_2=l\widehat{I}_2/D`$. We integrate this equation from $`0`$ to $`L`$ taking into account the boundary conditions at $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$: $`\widehat{s}_2=0.`$ After simple transformations we obtain

$$\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{I}_23\lambda ^2\widehat{I}_0\}/D=2\lambda \mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\sigma }_0\{_0^L𝑑x\widehat{s}_1(x)\widehat{n}(x)\};.$$
(49)
As before, the correction to the conductance is determined by $`\widehat{I}_2.`$ We see that in order to find this correction, one has to solve Eq. (47) for $`\widehat{s}_1.`$ This equation can be solved with the help of the unitary transformation

$$\widehat{s}_1=\widehat{U}\widehat{S}\widehat{U}^+,\widehat{U}=\widehat{\sigma }_0\mathrm{cos}\alpha /2+i\widehat{\sigma }_1\mathrm{sin}\alpha /2\text{ }$$
(50)
This rotation transforms the vector $`\widehat{n}`$ into $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{\sigma }_3.`$ Performing the $`U`$-transformation, we obtain instead of Eq.(49)

$$\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\sigma }_0\{\widehat{I}_23\lambda ^2\widehat{I}_0\}/D=2\lambda _x\alpha \mathrm{Tr}_{\widehat{\sigma }}\widehat{\sigma }_2<\widehat{S}(x)>.$$
(51)
After the $`U`$-transformation Eq.(47) acquires the form (in the region of the DW)

$$_{xx}^2\widehat{S}(Q^2/2)(\widehat{S}\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{S}\widehat{\sigma }_1)+iQ(\widehat{\sigma }_1_x\widehat{S}_x\widehat{S}\widehat{\sigma }_1)iJ[\widehat{N},\widehat{S}]=2\lambda \widehat{\sigma }_2\widehat{I}_0Q/D,$$
(52)
where $`Q=_x\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{\sigma }_3`$. This equation is valid in the region of the DW, whereas in the regions I and III we have to set $`Q=0`$ and to take into account that in the region III $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{\sigma }_3.`$ The matrix $`\widehat{S}`$ should be represented as a sum: $`\widehat{S}=S_1\widehat{\sigma }_1+S_2\widehat{\sigma }_2+S_3\widehat{\sigma }_3.`$ The components $`S_k`$ are given by a linear combination of the eigen-functions of Eq. (52). They obey zero boundary conditions at $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$ and should be matched at $`x=L_1=(Lw)/2`$ and $`x=L_2=(L+w)/2`$. The eigen-values of Eq.(52) ($`S_k\mathrm{exp}(\kappa x))`$ are determined by the equation

$$\kappa ^2(\kappa ^2+Q^2)^2=(\kappa ^2Q^2)/\xi _J^2,$$
(53)
where $`\xi _J^2=2J/D.`$ In a general case a solution of Eq. (52) has a cumbersome form. We represent here the form of a solution for $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\sigma }_2\widehat{S}(x)`$ in the region of the DW which we are interested in:

$$\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\sigma }_2\widehat{S}(x)2\lambda \mathrm{Tr}_{\widehat{\sigma }}\widehat{I}_0(\xi _J^2Q/D)Im[\mathrm{exp}((1+i)(xL_1)/\xi _J\text{ }\sqrt{2})\text{ }+\mathrm{exp}((1+i)(xL_2)/\xi _J\text{ }\sqrt{2})].$$
(54)
We dropped terms of the higher order in the parameter $`Q\xi _J`$ $`\xi _J/w.`$ Using this expression and Eq. (51), we readily get the expression for the current and for the conductance $`G`$

$$G=G_{1d}\left(1\frac{\pi ^2\xi _J^3}{Lw^2}\lambda ^2\right),$$
(55)
where $`G_{1d}`$ is the conductance for a homogenous magnetized wire (see Eq. (27)). Again terms of order higher than $`\lambda ^2`$ should be neglected. Note that $`G_{1d}`$ is always larger than the conductance in the case of a two domain wire $`G_{2d}`$ (see Eq. (30)). Eq. (55) shows that the DW decreases the conductance compared to the conductance $`G_{1d}`$ of a single domain F wire. Our result is sketched in Fig. 3. We see that within our approach a DW with a finite width is always a source of resistance.

## IV Conclusion

Using a simple microscopic model (equal density-of-states but different impurity scattering times $`\tau _,`$ for electrons with spin up and down), we have derived the kinetic equation for the matrix distribution function. The derivation has been performed by a standard method on the basis of microscopic equations for the quasiclassical Green functions in the Keldysh technique. This equation can be applied to the studies of transport in, for example, ferromagnets with a non-homogeneous magnetization.

We have employed this equation to calculate the conductance $`G`$ in a mesoscopic F’/F/F’ structure. We have assumed that the parameter $`\lambda =(\tau _{}\tau _{})/`$ $`2(\tau _{}+\tau _{})`$ is small and the length of the F wire $`L`$ is shorter than the spin energy relaxation length. Two different limits appear which are determined by the product of the exchange energy $`J`$ and the diffusion time $`\tau _w=w^2/D`$ of electrons through the DW. In the limit $`\tau _wJ1`$ and a very thin DW the conductance of the structure (per the unit cross-section area) is equal to $`G_{2d}=4\sigma _{}\sigma _{}(\sigma _{}+\sigma _{})/L`$. The account for a finite width of the DW leads to an increase in the conductance by a normalized amount of the order ($`\lambda w/L)^2.`$ We have also calculated in this limit the spatial distribution of the electric field in the F wire. The electric field has a minimum in the center of the DW which corresponds to an enhanced local conductivity. In the other limit $`\tau _wJ>>1`$ (adiabatic variation of the magnetization in the DW) the conductance coincides in the main approximation with that of a single domain structure $`G_{1d}=(\sigma _{}+\sigma _{})/L`$. The account for rotation of the magnetization in the DW leads to a negative correction to the conductance of the order -$`\lambda ^2(\tau _wJ)^{3/2}(w/L).`$ Our results differ from those published earlier  because in the latter works the collision term was written phenomenologically. In particular the matrix character of the impurity vertex was not taken into account.

We would like to thank SFB 491 for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Recovering an Algebraic Curve Using its Projections From Different Points Applications to Static and Dynamic Computational Vision

## 1 Introduction

Consider an irreducible closed algebraic curve $`X^3`$ (in the sequel we simply write $`^n`$ for $`^n`$). This curve is projected onto several projective planes embedded in $`^3`$ through several center of projections, say $`\{𝐎\}_i,i=1,..,n`$. Each projection mapping, denoted by $`\pi _i:^3\{𝐎_i\}^2`$ is presented as a $`3\times 4`$ matrix, $`𝐌_i`$ defined modulo multiplication by non-zero scalar. Then each point $`𝐏`$ different from $`𝐎_i`$ is mapped by $`\pi _i`$ to $`𝐌_i𝐏`$. Each projection operator $`\pi _i`$, via its matrix, can be regarded as a point in $`^{11}`$. Let $`Y_i=\pi _i(X)`$ be the different projections of the curve $`X`$. In the sequel we always deal with generic configurations, even when not mentionned explicitly.

When we consider the problem of recovering the projections maps from the projected curves, we will show that the recovery is possible only modulo some action of the group of projective transformations of $`^3`$ on the set of projection maps. To define this action we refer to a projection map as a point in $`^{11}`$. Assume that we have $`n`$ projections, consider the following projective variety $`𝕍=\stackrel{n\text{ }times}{\stackrel{}{^{11}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{11}}}`$. Let $`Pr_3`$ be the group of projective transformations of $`^3`$. We define an action of $`\mathrm{Pr}_3`$ on $`𝕍`$ as follows: $`\theta _n:Pr_3Mor(𝕍,𝕍),𝐀((𝐐_1,\mathrm{},𝐐_n)(𝐌_1𝐀^1,\mathrm{},𝐌_n𝐀^1))`$, where each matrix $`𝐌_i`$ is built from the coordinates of $`𝐐_i=[Q_{i,1},\mathrm{},Q_{i,12}]^T`$ as follows:

$$𝐌_i=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}Q_{i,1}& Q_{i,2}& Q_{i,3}& Q_{i,4}\\ Q_{i,5}& Q_{i,6}& Q_{i,7}& Q_{i,8}\\ Q_{i,9}& Q_{i,10}& Q_{i,11}& Q_{i,12}\end{array}\right]$$

The geometric meaning of this action is that if we change the projective basis in $`^3`$, by the transformation $`𝐀`$, we need to change the projection maps in accordance for the projected curves to be invariant.

We first investigate the case of two projections. Given the projected curves $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ as the only data, our first problem is to compute the characteristic matrix (to be defined below) of two projections maps, $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$, up to a finite-fold ambiguity. It is shown that this is equivalent to find a necessary and sufficient conditions on $`X`$ for the action of $`\theta _2`$ to have a finite number of orbits. Then we show that for each orbit we can recover the curve $`X`$ modulo $`Pr_3`$. More precisely each orbit induces a curve embedded in $`^3`$ containing two irreducible components, one of degree $`d(d1)`$ and the other of degree $`d`$. The latter is the curve we are looking for.

Then we turn to another problem. The projections maps $`\pi _i,i=1,..,n`$ are now assumed to be known, in addition to the projected curves $`Y_i`$. We want to recover the curve $`X`$. This can be performed by linear computations using either the dual varieties or the variety of lines intersecting $`X`$. In both case a simple lower bound of the minimal number of projections is simply deduced.

With the variety of lines intersecting $`X`$ another problem is also handled. Consider a set of $`N`$ points in $`^3`$ and let $`X`$ be the curve generated by these points. Each of these points is projected on a different plane by a different projection operator $`\pi _i`$. Those projection operators are known. We want to recover $`X`$ by linear computations. Let $`Z`$ be the curve, of minimal degree, generated by the centers of projections. We give a formula of the number of constraints obtained on $`X`$ as a function of the degree of $`Z`$.

Finally we show how those questions were motivated by some problems related to static and dynamic computational vision. Therefore we conclude by showing how our results can be applied in that context.

Since our computations will occur in $`^3`$, we fix $`[X,Y,Z,T]^T`$, as homogeneous coordinates, and $`T=0`$ as the plane at infinity.

## 2 Projection operators

Let $`\pi `$ be a projection operator from $`^3`$ to an embedded projective plane $`i(^2)`$ through a point $`𝐎`$. This projection can be presented by a $`3\times 4`$ matrix $`𝐌`$. There exists a set of simple, but very useful, properties. The kernel of $`𝐌`$ is exactly the center of projection. The transpose of $`𝐌`$ maps a line in $`i(^2)`$ to the plane it defines with the center of projections, given as point of the dual space $`^3`$. This can easily be deduced by a duality argument and a simple computation.

There exists a matrix $`\widehat{𝐌}`$, being a polynomial function of $`𝐌`$, which maps a point in $`i(^2)`$ to the Plücker coordinates of the line it generates with the center of projections. If the matrix $`𝐌`$ is decomposed as follows:

$$𝐌=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^T\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\\ \mathrm{\Theta }^T\end{array}\right],$$

then for $`𝐩=[x,y,z]^T`$, the line $`𝐋_𝐩=\widehat{𝐌}𝐩`$ is given by the extensor: $`𝐋_𝐩=x\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Theta }+y\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }+z\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $``$ denotes the meet operator in the Grassman-Cayley algebra (see ). By duality, the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝐌}=\widehat{𝐌}^T`$ maps lines in $`^3`$ to lines in $`i(^2)`$.

Consider now two projection operators $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$. Let $`𝐎_1`$ and $`𝐎_2`$ be the center of projections and $`i_1(^2)`$ and $`i_2(^2)`$ the plane of projections. Let $`𝐞_j`$ be the point of intersection of $`i_j(^2)`$ with the line $`\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}`$. Let $`\sigma (𝐞_2)`$ be the pencil of lines in $`i_2(^2)`$ through $`𝐞_2`$. It is easy to define a map from $`i_1(^2)\{𝐞_1\}`$ to $`\sigma (𝐞_2)`$ as follows. Each point $`𝐩`$ is sent to the line given by $`\pi _2(\pi _1^1(𝐩))`$. This map is linear and its matrix is $`𝐅=\stackrel{~}{𝐌}_2\widehat{𝐌}_1`$. Following the standard terminology used in computational vision, we will call the matrix $`𝐅`$ the fundamental matrix of the pair of projections $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ and the points $`𝐞_1`$ and $`𝐞_2`$ will be respectively called the first and the second epipole. The line in the first (second) projection plane passing the first (second) epipole atre called the epipolar lines. Clearly $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=𝐞_2^T𝐅=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

###### Proposition 1

The knowledge of the fundamental matrix $`𝐅`$ of a couple of projections operators allows the recovery of the matrices $`𝐌_1`$ and $`𝐌_2`$ of the projections modulo the action $`\theta _2`$. More precisely the couple $`(𝐌_1,𝐌_2)`$ is equivalent to $`([𝐈,𝐎],[𝐇,𝐞_2])`$, where $`𝐇=\frac{[𝐞_2]}{𝐞_2^2}𝐅`$. The matrix $`[𝐞_2]`$ is defined as being $`\tau (𝐞_2)`$ where $`\tau `$ maps any vector $`𝐱`$ of $`^3`$ to the matrix that represents the cross-product by $`𝐱`$. We have:

$$\tau (𝐱)=[𝐱]=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 𝐱_3& 𝐱_2\\ 𝐱_3& 0& 𝐱_1\\ 𝐱_2& 𝐱_1& 0\end{array}\right],$$

and $`𝐱=[𝐱_1,𝐱_2,𝐱_3]`$.

Proof: We are looking for a matrix $`𝐀Pr_3`$ such that:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝐌_1& =& [𝐈,\mathrm{𝟎}]𝐀^1\\ 𝐌_2& =& [𝐇,𝐞_2]𝐀^1\end{array}$$

Let us write $`𝐁=𝐀^1`$ as follows:

$$𝐁=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}𝛀& \mathrm{}& 𝐮\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 𝐯^T& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right]$$

Let us write $`𝐌_i=[\overline{𝐌}_i,𝐦_i]`$. Then it follows immediately from the definition of $`𝐅`$ that $`𝐅=[𝐞_2]\overline{𝐌}_2\overline{𝐌}_1^1`$. Using the following algebraic identity for any two vectors $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐲`$ in $`^3`$: $`(𝐱^T𝐲)𝐈=\mathrm{𝐱𝐲}^T[𝐱][𝐲]`$, it is easy to prove that it is sufficient to take: $`𝛀=\overline{𝐌}_1`$, $`𝐮=𝐦_1`$, $`𝐯=\frac{1}{𝐞_2^2}\overline{𝐌}_2𝐞_2`$ and $`\lambda =\frac{1}{𝐞_2^2}(𝐞_2^T𝐦_2𝐞_2^T\mathrm{𝐇𝐦}_1)`$.

This shows that in order to characterize a couple of projections modulo the action $`\theta _2`$, we only need to compute the fundamental matrix. In the sequel we show how to recover $`𝐅`$ from two projections of an algebraic curve.

## 3 Two projections with unknown projection operators

In this section we deal with the first problem. A smooth and irreducible curve $`X`$ embedded in $`^3`$ is projected onto two generic planes through two generic points. The projection operators $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are unknown. First we want to recover the fundamental matrix of the couple $`(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ from the projected curve $`Y_1=\pi _1(X)`$ and $`Y_2=\pi _2(X)`$.

### 3.1 Single projection

We shall mention of set of well known facts about generic projection. Let $`X`$ be a smooth irreducible algebraic embedded in $`^3`$ and $`Y`$ its projection on a generic plane through a center of projections, $`𝐎`$.

1. The curve $`Y`$ will always contain singularities. Furthermore for a generic position of the center of projection, the only singularities of $`Y`$ will be nodes.
2. The class of a planar curve is defined to be the degree of its dual curve. Let $`m`$ be the class of $`Y`$. Then $`m`$ is constant for a generic position of the center of projections.
3. If $`d`$ and $`g`$ are the degree and the genus of $`X`$, they are respectively, for a generic position of $`𝐎`$, the degree and the genus of $`Y`$, and the Plücker formula yields:

$$\begin{array}{c}m=d(d1)2(\mathrm{}\text{nodes}),\\ g=\frac{(d1)(d2)}{2}(\mathrm{}\text{nodes}),\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{}\text{nodes}`$ denotes the number of nodes of $`Y`$. Hence the genus, the degree and the class are related by

$$m=2d+2g2.$$

### 3.2 Fundamental matrix construction

We are ready now to investigate the recovery of the fundamental matrix of a couple of projections $`(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ when the only knowledge is made of the projections of a smooth irreducible curve.

As before, let $`X`$ be a smooth irreducible curve embedded in $`^3`$, which cannot be embedded in a plane. The degree of $`X`$ is $`d3`$. Let $`𝐌_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, be the projection matrices. Let $`𝐅`$, $`𝐞_1`$ and $`𝐞_2`$ be defined as before. We will need to consider the two following mappings: $`𝐩\stackrel{\gamma }{}𝐞_1𝐩`$ and $`𝐩\stackrel{\xi }{}\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$, where $``$ is the join operator , which is equivalent to the cross-product in that case. Both maps are defined on the first projection plane.

Let $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ be the projected curves. Assume that they are defined by the polynomials $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$. Let $`Y_1^{}`$ and $`Y_2^{}`$ denote the dual curves, whose polynomials are respectively $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$.

###### Theorem 1

For a generic position of the centers of projections with respect to the curve $`X`$, there exists a non-zero scalar $`\lambda `$, such that for all points $`𝐩`$ in the projection plane, the following equality holds:

$$\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))=\lambda \varphi _1(\gamma (𝐩))$$
(1)
For reasons that will be clear later, we shall call this equation, the generalized Kruppa equation.

Proof: Let $`ϵ_i`$ be the set of epipolar lines tangent to curve in image $`i`$. We start with the following lemma:

###### Lemma 1

The two sets $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ are projectively equivalent. Moreover for each corresponding pair of epipolar lines $`(𝐥,𝐥^{})ϵ_1\times ϵ_2`$, the multiplicities of $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐥^{}`$ as points of $`Y_1^{}`$ and $`Y_2^{}`$ are the same.

Proof: Consider the following three pencils:

* $`\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, the pencil of epipolar planes, that is planes containing the baseline joining the two centers of projection,
* $`\sigma (𝐞_1)^1`$, the pencil of epipolar lines in the first projection plane,
* $`\sigma (𝐞_2)^1`$, the pencil of epipolar lines in the second projection plane.

Thus we have $`ϵ_i\sigma (𝐞_i)`$. Moreover if $`E`$ is the set of planes in $`\sigma (𝐋)`$ tangent to the curve in space, then there exists a one-to-one mapping between $`E`$ and each $`ϵ_i`$ which leaves the multiplicities unchanged. This completes the proof.

This lemma implies that both sides of equation 1 define the same algebraic set, that is the the union of epipolar lines tangent to $`Y_1`$. Since $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, in the generic case, have the same degree (as stated in 3.1), each side can be factorized as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1(\gamma (x,y,z))=\underset{i}{}(\alpha _{1i}x+\alpha _{2i}y+\alpha _{3i}z)^{a_i}\\ \varphi _2(\xi (x,y,z))=\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(\alpha _{1i}x+\alpha _{2i}y+\alpha _{3i}z)^{b_i},\end{array}$$

where $`_ia_i=_jb_j=m`$. By the previous lemme we also have: $`a_i=b_i`$ for all $`i`$.

By eliminating the scalar $`\lambda `$ from the generalized Kruppa equation (1) we obtain a set of bi-homogeneous equations in $`𝐅`$ and $`𝐞_1`$. Hence they define a variety in $`^2\times ^8`$. We turn our attention to the dimensional analysis of this variety. Our concern is to exhibit the conditions for which this variety is discrete. From a practical point of view, this is a step toward the recovery of the original curve.

### 3.3 Dimension analysis

Let $`\{E_i(𝐅,𝐞_1)\}_i`$ be the set of bi-homogeneous equations on $`𝐅`$ and $`𝐞_1`$, extracted from the generalized Kruppa equation (1). Our first concern is to determine whether all solutions of equation (1) are admissible, that is whether they satisfy the usual constraint $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=0`$. Indeed we prove the following statement:

###### Proposition 2

As long as there are at least 2 distinct lines through $`𝐞_1`$ tangent to $`Y_1`$, equation (1) implies that $`\text{rank}𝐅=2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

Proof: The variety defined by $`\varphi _1(\gamma (𝐩))`$ is then a union of at least 2 distinct lines through $`𝐞_1`$. If equation (1) holds, $`\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))`$ must define the same variety.

There are 2 cases to exclude: If $`\text{rank}𝐅=3`$, then the curve defined by $`\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))`$ is projectively equivalent to the curve defined by $`\varphi _2`$, which is $`Y_2^{}`$. In particular, it is irreducible.

If $`\text{rank}𝐅<2`$ or $`\text{rank}𝐅=2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1\mathrm{𝟎}`$, then there is some $`𝐚`$, not a multiple of $`𝐞_1`$, such that $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐚}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Then the variety defined by $`\varphi _2(\xi (𝐩))`$ is a union of lines through $`𝐚`$. In neither case can this variety contain two distinct lines through $`𝐞_1`$, so we must have $`\text{rank}𝐅=2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

As a result, in a generic situation every solution of $`\{E_i(𝐅,𝐞_1)\}_i`$ is admissible. Let $`V`$ be the subvariety of $`^2\times ^8\times ^2`$ defined by the equations $`\{E_i(𝐅,𝐞_1)\}_i`$ together with $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}𝐅=\mathrm{𝟎}^T`$, where $`𝐞_2`$ is the second epipole. We next compute a lower bound on the dimension of $`V`$, after which we will be ready for the calculation itself.

###### Proposition 3

If $`V`$ is non-empty, the dimension of $`V`$ is at least $`7m`$.

Proof: Choose any line $`𝐥`$ in $`^2`$ and restrict $`𝐞_1`$ to the affine piece $`^2𝐥`$. Let $`(x,y)`$ be homogeneous coordinates on $`𝐥`$. If $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the two sides of equation (1) are both unchanged by replacing $`𝐩`$ by $`𝐩+\alpha 𝐞_1`$. So equation (1) will hold for all $`𝐩`$ if it holds for all $`𝐩𝐥`$. Therefore equation (1) is equivalent to the equality of 2 homogeneous polynomials of degree $`m`$ in $`x`$ and $`y`$, which in turn is equivalent to the equality of $`(m+1)`$ coefficients. After eliminating $`\lambda `$, we have $`m`$ algebraic conditions on $`(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)`$ in addition to $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}𝐅=\mathrm{𝟎}^T`$.

The space of all epipolar geometries, that is, solutions to $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}𝐅=\mathrm{𝟎}^T`$, is irreducible of dimension 7. Therefore, $`V`$ is at least $`(7m)`$-dimensional.

For the calculation of the dimension of $`V`$ we introduce some additional notations. Given a triplet $`(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)^2\times ^8\times ^2`$, let $`\{𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1)\}`$ (respectively $`\{𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)\}`$) be the tangency points of the epipolar lines through $`𝐞_1`$ (respectively $`𝐞_2`$) to the first (respectively second) projected curve. Let $`𝐐_\alpha (𝐞_1,𝐞_2)`$ be the 3D points projected onto $`\{𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1)\}`$ and $`\{𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)\}`$. Let $`𝐋`$ be the baseline joining the two centers of projections. We next provide a sufficient condition for $`V`$ to be discrete.

###### Proposition 4

For a generic position of the centers of projection, the variety $`V`$ will be discrete if, for any point $`(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)V`$, the union of $`𝐋`$ and the points $`𝐐_\alpha (𝐞_1,𝐞_2)`$ is not contained in any quadric surface.

Proof: For generic projections, there will be $`m`$ distinct points $`\{𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1)\}`$ and $`\{𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)\}`$, and we can regard $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$, $`𝐪_{2\alpha }`$ locally as smooth functions of $`𝐞_1`$, $`𝐞_2`$.

We let $`W`$ be the affine variety in $`^3\times ^9\times ^3`$ defined by the same equations as $`V`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)`$ be a point of $`W`$ corresponding to a non-isolated point of $`V`$. Then there is a tangent vector $`\vartheta =(𝐯,\mathrm{\Phi },𝐯^{})`$ to $`W`$ at $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ not a multiple of $`𝐅`$.

If $`\chi `$ is a function on $`W`$, $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(\chi )`$ will denote the derivative of $`\chi `$ in the direction defined by $`\vartheta `$ at $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. For

$$\chi _\alpha (𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)=𝐪_{2\alpha }(𝐞_2)^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐪}_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1),$$

the generalized Kruppa equation implies that $`\chi _\alpha `$ vanishes identically on $`W`$, so its derivative must also vanish. This yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(\chi _\alpha )& =(_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{2\alpha }))^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐪}_{1\alpha }\hfill \\ & +𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐪_{1\alpha }+𝐪_{2\alpha }^T𝐅(_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha }))\hfill \\ & =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
We shall prove that $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$ is in the linear span of $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ and $`𝐞_1`$. (This means that when the epipole moves slightly, $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ moves along the epipolar line.) Consider $`\kappa (t)=f(𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1+t𝐯))`$, where $`f`$ is the polynomial defining the image curve $`Y_1`$. Since $`𝐪_{1\alpha }(𝐞_1+t𝐯)Y_1`$, $`\kappa 0`$, so the derivative $`\kappa ^{}(0)=0`$. On the other hand, $`\kappa ^{}(0)=_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(f(𝐪_{1\alpha }))=\text{grad}_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$.

Thus we have $`\text{grad}_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })=0`$. But also $`\text{grad}_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T𝐪_{1\alpha }=0`$ and $`\text{grad}_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)^T𝐞_1=0`$. Since $`\text{grad}_{𝐪_{1\alpha }}(f)𝐎`$ ($`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ is not a singular point of the curve), this shows that $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$, $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$, and $`𝐞_1`$ are linearly dependent. $`𝐪_{1\alpha }`$ and $`𝐞_1`$ are linearly independent, so $`_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })`$ must be in their linear span.

We have that $`𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{𝐅𝐪}_{1\alpha }=0`$, so $`𝐪_{2\alpha }^T𝐅_{\mathrm{\Theta },\vartheta }(𝐪_{1\alpha })=0`$: the third term of equation (2) vanishes. In a similar way, the first term of equation (2) vanishes, leaving

$$𝐪_{2\alpha }^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐪_{1\alpha }=0.$$
(3)
The derivative of $`\chi (𝐞_1,𝐅,𝐞_2)=\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1`$ must also vanish, which yields

$$𝐞_2{}_{}{}^{T}\mathrm{\Phi }𝐞_1=0.$$
(4)
From equality (3), we deduce that for every $`𝐐_\alpha `$, we have

$$𝐐_\alpha ^T𝐌_2^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐌_1𝐐_\alpha =0.$$

From equality (4), we deduce that every point $`𝐏`$ lying on the baseline must satisfy

$$𝐏^T𝐌_2^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐌_1𝐏=0.$$

The fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not a multiple of $`F`$ implies that $`𝐌_2^T\mathrm{\Phi }𝐌_10`$, so together these two last equations mean that the union $`𝐋\{𝐐_\alpha \}`$ lies on a quadric surface. Thus if there is no such quadric surface, every point in $`V`$ must be isolated.

Observe that this result is consistent with the previous proposition, since there always exist a quadric surface containing a given line and six given points. However in general there is no quadric containing a given line and seven given points. Therefore we can conclude with the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2

For a generic position of the centers of projection, the generalized Kruppa equation defines the epipolar geometry up to a finite-fold ambiguity if and only if $`m7`$.

Since different curves in generic position give rise to independent equations, this result means that the sum of the classes of the projected curves must be at least $`7`$ for $`V`$ to be a finite set.

### 3.4 Recovering the curve

Let the projection matrices be $`𝐌_1`$ and $`𝐌_2`$. Hence the two cones defined by the projected curves and the centers of projections are given by: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(𝐏)=f_1(𝐌_1𝐏)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(𝐏)=f_2(𝐌_2𝐏)`$. The reconstruction is defined as the curve whose equations are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0`$. This curve has two irreducible components as the following theorem states.

###### Theorem 3

For a generic position of the centers of projection, namely when no epipolar plane is tangent twice to the curve $`X`$, the curve defined by $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0\}`$ has two irreducible components. One has degree $`d`$ and is the actual solution of the reconstruction. The other one has degree $`d(d1)`$.

Proof: For a line $`𝐋^3`$, we write $`\sigma (𝐋)`$ for the pencil of planes containing $`𝐋`$. For a point $`𝐩^2`$, we write $`\sigma (𝐩)`$ for the pencil of lines through $`𝐩`$. There is a natural isomorphism between $`\sigma (𝐞_i)`$, the epipolar lines in image $`i`$, and $`\sigma (𝐋)`$, the planes containing both centers of projections. Consider the following covers of $`^1`$:

1. $`X\stackrel{\eta }{}\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, taking a point $`xX`$ to the epipolar plane that it defines with the centers of projection.
2. $`Y_1\stackrel{\eta _1}{}\sigma (𝐞_1)\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, taking a point $`yY_1`$ to its epipolar line in the first projection plane.
3. $`Y_2\stackrel{\eta _2}{}\sigma (𝐞_2)\sigma (𝐋)^1`$, taking a point $`yY_2`$ to its epipolar line in the second projection plane.

If $`\rho _i`$ is the projection $`XY_i`$, then $`\eta =\eta _i\rho _i`$. Let $``$ the union set of branch points of $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$. It is clear that the branch points of $`\eta `$ are included in $``$. Let $`S=^1`$, pick $`tS`$, and write $`X_S=\eta ^1(S)`$, $`X_t=\eta ^1(t)`$. Let $`\mu _{X_S}`$ be the monodromy: $`\pi _1(S,t)\text{Perm}(X_t)`$, where $`\text{Perm}(Z)`$ is the group of permutation of a finite set $`Z`$, see . It is well known that the path-connected components of $`X`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the orbits of the action of $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})`$ on $`X_t`$. Since $`X`$ is assumed to be irreducible, it has only one component and $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})`$ acts transitively on $`X_t`$. Then if $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})`$ is generated by transpositions, this will imply that $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})=\text{Perm}(X_t)`$. In order to show that $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})`$ is actually generated by transpositions, consider a loop in $`^1`$ based at $`t`$, say $`l_t`$. If $`l_t`$ does not go round any branch point, then $`l_t`$ is homotopic to the constant path in $`S`$ and then $`\mu _{X_S}([l_t])=1`$. Now in $``$, there are three types of branch points:

1. branch points that come from nodes of $`Y_1`$: these are not branch points of $`\eta `$,
2. branch points that come from nodes of $`Y_2`$: these are not branch points of $`\eta `$,
3. branch points that come from epipolar lines tangent either to $`Y_1`$ or to $`Y_2`$: these are genuine branch points of $`\eta `$.

If the loop $`l_t`$ goes round a point of the first two types, then it is still true that $`\mu _{X_S}([l_t])=1`$. Now suppose that $`l_t`$ goes round a genuine branch point of $`\eta `$, say $`b`$ (and goes round no other points in $``$). By genericity, $`b`$ is a simple two-fold branch point, hence $`\mu _{X_S}([l_t])`$ is a transposition. This shows that $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})`$ is actually generated by transpositions and so $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})=\text{Perm}(X_t)`$.

Now consider $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, the curve defined by $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0\}`$. By Bezout’s Theorem $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has degree $`d^2`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{X}`$. It is projected onto a point $`y_i`$ in $`Y_i`$, such that $`\eta _1(y_1)=\eta _2(y_2)`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{X}Y_1\times _^1Y_2`$; restricting to the inverse image of the set $`S`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{X}_SX_S\times _SX_S`$. We can therefore identify $`\stackrel{~}{X}_t`$ with $`X_t\times X_t`$. The monodromy $`\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}_S}`$ can then be given by $`\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}_S}(x,y)=(\mu _{X_S}(x),\mu _{X_S}(y))`$. Since $`\text{im}(\mu _{X_S})=\text{Perm}(X_t)`$, the action of $`\text{im}(\mu _{\stackrel{~}{X}_S})`$ on $`X_t\times X_t`$ has two orbits, namely $`\{(x,x)\}X_t`$ and $`\{(x,y)|xy\}`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has two irreducible components. One has degree $`d`$ and is $`X`$, the other has degree $`d^2d=d(d1)`$.

This result provides a way to find the right solution for the recovery in a generic configuration, except in the case of conics, where the two components of the reconstruction are both admissible.

## 4 The $`N>>1`$ projections problem with known projection operators

Now we turn our attention to the second problem. $`N>>1`$ projections maps $`\{\pi _i\}_{i=1,\mathrm{},N}`$ given by $`N`$ matrices $`\{𝐌_i\}_{i=1,\mathrm{},N}`$ are known. Therefore $`N`$ projections of an irreducible smooth algebraic curve are also provided. The problem is to recover the original curve by linear computations as much as possible.

### 4.1 Curve presentation in the dual space

Let $`X^{}`$ be the dual variety of $`X`$. Since $`X`$ is supposed not to be a line, the dual variety $`X^{}`$ must be a hypersurface of the dual space . Hence let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be a minimal degree polynomial that represents $`X^{}`$. Our first concern is to determine the degree of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

###### Proposition 5

The degree of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is $`m`$, that is, the common degree of the dual projected curves.

Proof: Since $`X^{}`$ is a hypersurface of $`^3`$, its degree is the number of points where a generic line in $`^3`$ meets $`X^{}`$. By duality it is the number of planes in a generic pencil that are tangent to $`X`$. Hence it is the degree of the dual projected curve. Another way to express the same fact is the observation that the dual projected curve is the intersection of $`X^{}`$ with a generic plane in $`^3`$. Note that this provides a new proof that the degree of the dual projected curve is constant for a generic position of the center of projection.

For the recovery of $`X^{}`$ from multiple projection, we will need to consider the mapping from a line $`𝐥`$ of the projection plane to the plane that it defines with the center of projection. Let $`\mu :𝐥𝐌^T𝐥`$ denote this mapping. There exists a link involving $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\varphi `$, the polynomial of the dual projected curve: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\mu (𝐥))=0`$ whenever $`\varphi (𝐥)=0`$. Since these two polynomials have the same degree (because $`\mu `$ is linear) and $`\varphi `$ is irreducible, there exists a scalar $`\lambda `$ such that

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\mu (𝐥))=\lambda \varphi (𝐥)$$

for all lines $`𝐥^2`$. Eliminating $`\lambda `$, we get $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+2}{m}\right)1`$ linear equations on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Since the number of coefficients in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+3}{m}\right)`$, we can state the following result:

###### Proposition 6

The recovery in the dual space can be done linearly using at least $`k\frac{m^2+6m+11}{3(m+3)}`$ projections.

### 4.2 Curve presentation in the Grasmmannian of lines of $`^3`$

Let $`𝔾(1,3)`$ be the Grassmanian of lines of $`^3`$. Consider the set of lines in $`^3`$ intersecting the curve $`X`$ of degree $`d`$. This defines a subvariety of $`𝔾(1,3)`$ which is the intersection of $`𝔾(1,3)`$ with a hypersurface of degree $`d`$ in $`^5`$, given by a homogeneous polynomial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, defined modulo the $`d`$th graded piece $`I(𝔾(1,3))_d`$ of the ideal of $`𝔾(1,3)`$ and modulo scalars. However picking one representative of this equivalence class is sufficient to recover entirely without any ambiguity the curve $`X`$. In our context, we shall call any representative of this class the Chow polynomial of the curve. We need to compute the class of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`𝔾(1,3)`$, or more precisely in its $`d`$th graded piece, $`S(𝔾(1,3))_d`$, which dimension is $`Nd=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+5}{d}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2+5}{d2}\right)`$.

Let $`f`$ be the polynomial defining the projected curve, $`Y`$. Consider the mapping that associates to a point in the projection plane the line it generates with the center of projection: $`\nu :𝐩\widehat{𝐌}𝐩`$. The polynomial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu (𝐩))`$ vanishes whenever $`f(𝐩)`$ does. Since they have same degree and $`f`$ is irreducible, there exists a scalar $`\lambda `$ such that for every point $`𝐩^2`$, we have:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu (𝐩))=\lambda f(𝐩).$$

This yields $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{d}\right)1`$ linear equations on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Hence a similar statement to that in Proposition 6 can be made:

###### Proposition 7

The recovery in $`𝔾(1,3)`$ can be done linearly using at least $`k\frac{1}{6}\frac{d^3+5d^2+8d+4}{d}`$ projections.

### 4.3 Family of projections operators and finite closed subset of points

Consider now a finite collection of points $`𝐏_i`$ in $`^3`$. Each point is projected by a different projection map. The $`N`$ maps are known and so the projected points.

Let $`X`$ be the smooth irreducible curve generated by the points $`𝐏_i`$ and $`Y`$ be the smooth irreducible curve, of minimal degree, generated by the center of projections.

Each projected point $`𝐩_i`$ yiels one linear equation on the variety of intersecting lines of $`X`$, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi _i^1(𝐩_i))=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Chow polynomial of $`X`$ as before.

Let $`𝐝`$ and $`𝐝^{}`$ be respectively the degree of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. We compute the number of constraints obtained on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the projected points as a function of $`𝐝`$ and $`𝐝^{}`$. In other words, we want to compute the maximal number of constraints that one can extract on a smooth irreducible curve $`X`$ embedded in $`^3`$ from a finite number of lines in the join of $`X`$ with a known curve $`Y`$.

###### Proposition 8

The maximal number of constraints is $`N_d(h^0(𝒪_^5(dd^{}))h^0(𝒪_^5(dd^{}2))+1)`$ <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1As usual, $`h^0(𝒪_^5(k))`$ denotes the dimension of the cohomology group $`H^0(^5,𝒪_^5(k))`$ (see )., where $`N_d=dim(S(𝔾(1,3))_d)`$ is the dimension of the $`d`$-th graded piece of homogeneous coordinate ring of $`𝔾(1,3)`$.

Proof: Each projected point generates a line with the center of projection. Let $`𝐋_1,\mathrm{}.,𝐋_n`$ be these $`n`$ lines joining $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Y`$ be the Chow polynomial of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively. We shall denote by $`Z(\mathrm{\Gamma }_X)`$ and $`Z(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Y)`$ the sets where they vanish. Let $`V=Z(\mathrm{\Gamma }_X)Z(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Y)𝔾(1,3)`$. For $`n>>1`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }H^0(^5,𝒪_^5(d)):\mathrm{\Gamma }(L_i)=0,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}=\hfill \\ \{\mathrm{\Gamma }H^0(^5,𝒪_^5(d)):\mathrm{\Gamma }_V0\}=I_{V,^5}(d).\hfill \end{array}$$

So, we want to compute $`dim(I_{V,^5}(d))`$, or equivalently, $`h^0(V,𝒪_V(d))=h^0(𝒪_^5(d))dim(I_{V,^5}(d))`$. Since $`V`$ is a complete intersection of degree $`(d,d^{},2)`$ in $`^5`$, the dimension of $`I_{V,^5}(d)`$ should be equal to

$$h^0(𝒪_^5(d2))+h^0(𝒪_^5(dd^{}))h^0(𝒪_^5(dd^{}2))+1.$$

As a consequence

$$h^0(V,𝒪_V(d))=N_d\left(h^0(𝒪_^5(dd^{}))h^0(𝒪_^5(dd^{}2))+1\right).$$

## 5 Applications to static and dynamic computational vision

The results obtained above were motivated by some applications to computational vision. We now proceed to show how these results can be applied to this field. We start by a quick survey on linear computational vision. More details can be found in . Some of the terminology was introduced before in section 2.

### 5.1 Foundations of linear computational vision

Projective algebraic geometry provides a natural framework to geometric computer vision. However one has to keep in mind that the geometric entities to be considered are in fact embedded in the physical three-dimensional Euclidean space. Euclidean space is provided with three structures defined by three groups of transformations: the orthogonal group $`Euc_3`$ (which defines the Euclidean structure and which is included into the affine group), $`Aff_3`$ (defining the affine structure and itself included into the projective group), and $`Pr_3`$ (defining the projective structure). We fix $`[X,Y,Z,T]^T`$, as homogeneous coordinates, and $`T=0`$ as the plane at infinity.

### 5.2 A single camera system

Computational vision starts with images captured by cameras. The camera components are the following:

* a plane $``$, called the retinal plane or image plane;
* a point $`𝐎`$, called the optical centre or camera centre, which does not lie on the plane $``$.

The plane $``$ is regarded as a two dimension projective space embedded into $`^3`$. Hence it is also denoted by $`i(^2)`$. The camera is a projection machine: $`\pi :^3\{𝐎\}i(^2),𝐏\overline{\mathrm{𝐎𝐏}}i(^2)`$. The projection $`\pi `$ is determined (up to a scalar) by a $`3\times 4`$ matrix $`𝐌`$ (the image of $`𝐏`$ being $`\lambda \mathrm{𝐌𝐏}`$).

The physical properties of a camera imply that $`𝐌`$ can be decomposed as follows:

$$𝐌=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}f& s& u_0\\ 0& \alpha f& v_0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right][𝐑;𝐭],$$

where $`(f,\alpha ,s,u_0,v_0)`$ are the so-called internal parameters of the camera, whereas the rotation $`𝐑`$ and the translation $`𝐭`$ are the external parameters.

It is easy to see that:

* The camera centre $`𝐎`$ is given by $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐎}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$.
* The matrix $`𝐌^T`$ maps a line in $`i(^2)`$ to the only plane containing both the line and $`𝐎`$.
* There exists a matrix $`\widehat{𝐌}_{6\times 3}()`$, which is a polynomial function of $`𝐌`$, that maps a point $`𝐩i(^2)`$ to the line $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐎𝐩}}`$ (optical ray), represented by its Plücker coordinates in $`^5`$. If the camera matrix is decomposed as follows:

$$𝐌=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }^T\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\\ \mathrm{\Theta }^T\end{array}\right],$$

then for $`𝐩=[x,y,z]^T`$, the optical ray $`𝐋_𝐩=\widehat{𝐌}𝐩`$ is given by the extensor: $`𝐋_𝐩=x\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Theta }+y\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }+z\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $``$ denotes the meet operator in the Grassman-Cayley algebra (see ).
* The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝐌}=\widehat{𝐌}^T`$ maps lines in $`^3`$ to lines in $`i(^2)`$.

Moreover we will need in the sequel to consider the projection of the absolute conic onto the image plane. The absolute conic is simply defined by the following equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X^2+Y^2+Z^2& =& 0\hfill \\ \hfill T& =& 0\hfill \end{array}$$

By definition, the absolute conic is left invariant by Euclidean transformations. Therefore its projection onto the image plane, defined by the matrix $`\omega `$, is a function of the internal parameters only. By Cholesky decomposition $`\omega =\mathrm{𝐋𝐔}`$, where $`𝐋`$ (respectively $`𝐔`$) is lower (respectively upper) triangular matrix. Hence it is easy to see that $`𝐔=\overline{𝐌}^1`$, where $`\overline{𝐌}`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ matrix of the internal parameters of $`𝐌`$.

### 5.3 A system of two cameras

Given two cameras, $`(𝐎_j,i_j(^2))_{j=1,2}`$ are their components where $`i_1(^2)`$ and $`i_2(^2)`$ are two generic projective planes embedded into $`^3`$, and $`𝐎_1`$ and $`𝐎_2`$ are two generic points in $`^3`$ not lying on the above planes. As in 5.2, let $`\pi _j:^3\{𝐎_j\}i_j(^2),𝐏\overline{𝐎_j𝐏}i_j(^2)`$ be the respective projections. The camera matrices are $`𝐌_i,i=1,2`$.

#### 5.3.1 Homography between two images of the same plane

Consider the case where the two cameras are looking at the same plane in space, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let

$$𝐌_i=\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^T\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_i^T\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_i^T\end{array}\right]$$

be the camera matrices, decomposed as above. Let $`𝐏`$ be a point lying on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We shall denote the projections of $`𝐏`$ by $`𝐩_i=[x_i,y_i,z_i]^T𝐌_i𝐏`$, where $``$ means equality modulo multiplication by a non-zero scalar.

The optical ray generated by $`𝐩_1`$ is given by $`𝐋_{𝐩_1}=x_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1+y_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+z_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Hence $`𝐏=𝐋_{𝐩_1}\mathrm{\Delta }=x_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }+y_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta }+z_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Hence $`𝐩_2𝐌_2𝐏`$ is given by the following expression: $`𝐩_2𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩_1`$ where:

$$𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Gamma }_2^T(\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Gamma }_2^T(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta })\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^T(\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2^T(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta })\\ \mathrm{\Theta }_2^T(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^T(\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Delta })& \mathrm{\Theta }_2^T(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Delta })\end{array}\right].$$

This yields the expression of the collineation $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between two images of the same plane.

###### Definition 1

The previous collineation is called the homography between the two images, through the plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

#### 5.3.2 Epipolar geometry

###### Definition 2

Let $`(𝐎_j,i_j(^2),𝐌_j)_{j=1,2}`$ be defined as before. Given a pair $`(𝐩_1,𝐩_2)i_1(^1)\times i_2(^2)`$, we say that it is a pair of corresponding or matching points if there exists $`𝐏^3`$ such that $`𝐩_j=\pi _j(𝐏)`$ for $`j=1,2`$.

Consider a point $`𝐩i_1(^2)`$. Then $`𝐩`$ can be the image of any point lying on the fiber $`\pi _1^1(𝐩)`$. The matching point in the second image must lie on $`\pi _2(\pi _1^1(𝐩))`$, which is, for a generic point $`𝐩`$, a line on the second image. Since $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are both linear, there exists a matrix $`𝐅_{3\times 3}()`$, such that: $`\xi (𝐩)=\pi _2(\pi _1^1(𝐩))=\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$ for all but one point in the first image.

###### Definition 3

The matrix $`𝐅`$ is called the fundamental matrix, where as the line $`𝐥_𝐩=\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$ is called the epipolar line of $`𝐩`$.

Let $`𝐞_1=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}i_1(^2)`$ and $`𝐞_2=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}i_2(^2)`$. Those two points are respectively called the first and the second epipole. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐞}_1=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, since $`\pi _1^1(𝐞_1)=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}`$ and $`\pi _2(\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2})=𝐞_2`$. Observe that by symmetry $`𝐅^T`$ is the fundamental matrix of the reverse couple of images. Hence $`𝐅^T𝐞_2=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Since the only point in the first image that is mapped to zero by $`𝐅`$ is the first epipole, $`𝐅`$ has rank $`2`$.

Now we want to deduce an expression of $`𝐅`$ as a function of the camera matrices. By the previous analysis, it is clear that $`𝐅=\stackrel{~}{𝐌}_2\widehat{𝐌}_1`$. Moreover we have the following properties:

###### Proposition 9

For any plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, not passing through the camera centres, the following equalities hold:

1. $$𝐅[𝐞_2]_\times 𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta },$$

where $`[𝐞_2]_\times `$ is the matrix associated with the cross-product as follows: for any vector $`𝐩`$, $`𝐞_2\times 𝐩=[𝐞_2]_\times 𝐩`$. Hence we have:

$$[𝐞_2]_\times =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\\ 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}& 0& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\\ 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}& 𝐞_{2}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}& 0\end{array}\right].$$

In particular, we have: $`𝐅=[𝐞_2]_\times 𝐇_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`𝐇_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the homography between the two images through the plane at infinity.
2. $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }^T𝐅+𝐅^T𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{𝟎}.`$ (5)

Proof: The first equality is clear according to its geometric meaning. Given a point $`𝐩`$ in the first image, $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐩}`$ is its epipolar line in the second image. The optical ray $`𝐋_𝐩`$ passing trough $`𝐩`$ meets the plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in a point $`𝐐`$, which projection in the second image is $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩`$. Hence the epipolar line must be $`𝐞_2𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩`$. This gives the required equality. The second equality is simply deduced from the first one by a short calculation.

###### Proposition 10

For a generic plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the following equality hold:

$$𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐞_1𝐞_2.$$

Proof: The image of $`𝐞_1`$ by the homography must be the projection on the second image of the point defined as being the intersection of the optical ray generated by $`𝐞_1`$ and the plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Hence $`𝐇_\mathrm{\Delta }𝐞_1=𝐌_2(𝐋_{𝐞_1}\mathrm{\Delta })`$. But $`𝐋_{𝐞_1}=\overline{𝐎_1𝐎_2}`$. Thus the result must be $`𝐌_2𝐎_1`$ (except when the plane is passing through $`𝐎_2`$) that is the second epipole $`𝐞_2`$.

#### 5.3.3 Canonical stratification of the reconstruction

Three-dimension reconstruction can be achieved from a system of two cameras, once the camera matrices are known. However a typical situation is that the camera matrices are unknown. Then we face a double problem: recovering the camera matrices and the actual object. There exists an inherent ambiguity. Consider a pair of camera matrices $`(𝐌_1,𝐌_2)`$. If you change the world coordinate system by a transformation $`𝐕Pr_3`$, the camera matrices are mapped to $`(𝐌_1𝐕^1,𝐌_2𝐕^1)`$. Therefore we define the following equivalence relation:

###### Definition 4

Given a group of transformations $`G`$, two pairs of camera matrices, say $`(𝐌_1,𝐌_2)`$ and $`(𝐍_1,𝐍_2)`$, are said to be equivalent modulo $`G`$ if there exists $`𝐕G`$ such that $`𝐌_1=\mathrm{𝐕𝐍}_1`$ and $`𝐌_2=\mathrm{𝐕𝐍}_2`$.

Any reconstruction algorithm will always yields a reconstruction modulo a certain group of transformations. More presicely there exist three levels of reconstruction according to the information that can be extracted from the two images and from a priori knowledge of the world.

Projective stratum.

When the only available information is the fundamental matrix, then the reconstruction is done modulo $`Pr_3`$. Indeed, from $`𝐅`$, the so-called intrinsic homography $`𝐒=\frac{𝐞_2}{𝐞_2}𝐅`$ is computed and the camera matrices are equivalent to $`([𝐈;\mathrm{𝟎}],[𝐒;𝐞_2])`$.

Affine stratum.

When, in addition to the epipolar geometry, the homography between the two images through the plane at infinity, denoted by $`𝐇_{\mathrm{}}`$, can be computed, the reconstruction can be done modulo the group of affine transformations. Then the two camera matrices are equivalent $`([𝐈;\mathrm{𝟎}],[𝐇_{\mathrm{}};𝐞_2])`$.

Euclidean stratum.

The Euclidean stratum is obtained by the data of the projection of the absolute conic $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto the image planes, which allows the recovery the internal parameters of the cameras. Once the internal parameters of the cameras are known, the relative motion between the cameras expressed by a rotation $`𝐑`$ and a translation $`𝐭`$ can be extracted from the fundamental matrix. However only the direction of $`𝐭`$, not the norm, can be recovered. Then the cameras matrices are equivalent, modulo the group of similarity transformations, to $`(\overline{𝐌}_1[𝐈;\mathrm{𝟎}],\overline{𝐌}_2[𝐑;𝐭])`$, where $`\overline{𝐌}_1`$ and $`\overline{𝐌}_2`$ are the matrices of internal parameters.

Note that the projection of the absolute conic on the image can be computed using some a priori knowledge of the world. Moreover there exist famous equations linking $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$, the two matrices defining the projection of the absolute conic onto the images, when the epipolar geometry is given. This is the so-called Kruppa equation, defined in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 11

The projections of the absolute conic onto two images are related as follows. There exists a scalar $`\lambda `$ such that

$$[𝐞_1]_\times ^T\omega _1^{}[𝐞_1]_\times =\lambda 𝐅^T\omega _2^{}𝐅,$$

where $`[𝐞_1]_\times `$ is the matrix representing the cross-product by $`𝐞_1`$ and $`\omega _i^{}`$ is the adjoint matrix of $`\omega _i`$.

Let $`ϵ_i`$ be the tangents to $`\pi _i(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ through $`𝐞_i`$. Kruppa equation simply states that $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ are projectively isomorphic.

### 5.4 Applications of the previous results to computational vision

The previous results (sections 3 and 4) can be applied to computational vision in different contexts:

1. The recovery of the epipolar geometry from two images of the same smooth irreducible curve. Theorem 1 generalizes Kruppa equation to algeraic curves. Section 3.3 provides with a necessary and sufficient conditions on the degree of the curve for the epipolar geometry to be defined up to finite fold ambiguity. Note that the case of conic sections was first introduced in .
2. The 3D reconstruction of a curve from two images is possible in a generic situation as shown in theorem 3. The case of conic was also treated in . Note that  presents an algorithm for curve reconstruction using a blow-up of the projected curve. This nice result, however, does not provide any information about the relative position of the curve in $`^3`$ with respect to other elements of the scene. On the other hand, our approach based on two images allows reconstructing the curve in the context of the whole scene. Furthermore the problem of curve reconstruction was also considered in  from the point of view of global optimization and bundle ajustement. Our approach, on the contrary, is based on looking at algebraic curves for which the represenation is more compact.
3. The 3D reconstruction of a curve from $`N>>1`$ projection is linear using the dual space or the Grassmannian of lines $`𝔾(1,3)`$, sections 4.1 and 4.2. The formalism of the dual space in the case of conic or quadric was also used in .
4. The trajectory recovery of a moving point viewed by a moving camera whose matrix is known over time is a linear problem when using the variety of intersecting lines of the curve generated by the motion of the point. Moreover this gives rise to the question of counting the number of constraints that can be obtained. This is done in theorem 8. Note that our algorithm for trajectory recovery or triangulation is a complete generalization of .

### 5.5 Experiments and discussion

Now we are in a position to give some experiments of the different applications mentionned above. The algorithms induced by our theoretical analysis involve either solving polynomial systems built from noisy data or estimating high-dimensional parameters that appear linearly in equations built also from noisy data.

The first of these problems is still under very active research. In our best knowledge, one of the most powerful solver is FastGb, introduced by Jean-Charles Faugere . Our experiments involving solving polynomial systems have been conducted using FastGb. However at this stage, we will show only synthetic experiments. Future research will be devoted to the case of real data. The second question is a typical case of heteroscedastic estimation  and will be discussed below.

Recovering Epipolar Geometry from a rational cubic and two conics

We proceed to a synthetic experiment, where the epipolar geometry is computed from a rational cubic and two conics. The curves are randomly chosen, as well as the camera.

Hence the cubic is defined by the following system:

$$\begin{array}{c}226566665956452626ZX1914854993236086169ZT791130248041963297YZ\hfill \\ 1198609868087508022Z^2+893468169675527814XT+285940501848919422T^2\hfill \\ 179632615056970090YT+277960038226472656Y^2=0\hfill \\ 555920076452945312XY+656494420457765614ZX1755155973545148735YZ\hfill \\ 1749154450800074954Z^2+984240461094724954XT61309565864179510YT\hfill \\ 1802588912007356295ZT+291319745776795474T^2=0\hfill \\ 1111840152905890624X^22905335341664005486ZX793850352563738017YZ+\hfill \\ 1286890161434843658Z^2+1713207647519936006XT248798847306328202YT\hfill \\ 2942349361064284313ZT+398814386951585134T^2=0\hfill \end{array}$$

The first and the second conic are respectively defined by:

$$\begin{array}{c}25X+9Y+40Z+61T=0\hfill \\ 40X^278XY+62ZX+11XT+88Y^2+YZ+30YT+81Z^25ZT28T^2\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}4X11Y+10Z+57T=0\hfill \\ 82X^248XY11ZX+38XT7Y^2+58YZ94YT68Z^2+14ZT35T^2=0\hfill \end{array}$$

The camera matrices are given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝐌_1=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}87& 79& 43& 66\\ 53& 61& 23& 37\\ 31& 34& 42& 88\end{array}\right]& 𝐌_2=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}76& 65& 25& 28\\ 61& 60& 9& 29\\ 66& 32& 78& 39\end{array}\right]\end{array}$$

Then we form the Extended Kruppa’s Equations for each curve. From a computational point of view, it is crucial to enforce the constraint that each $`\lambda `$ is different from zero. Mathematically this means that the computation is done in the localization with respect to each $`\lambda `$.

As expected, we get a zero-dimension variety which degree is one. Thus there is a single solution to the epipolar geometry given by the following fundamental matrix:

$$𝐅=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{511443}{13426}& \frac{2669337}{13426}& \frac{998290}{6713}\\ \frac{84845}{2329}& \frac{23737631}{114121}& \frac{14061396}{114121}\\ \frac{1691905}{228242}& \frac{3426650}{114121}& \frac{8707255}{228242}\end{array}\right]$$

Reconstruction of a spatial quartic in $`^3`$

Consider the curve $`X`$, drawn in figure 1, defined by the following equations:

$$\begin{array}{c}F_1(x,y,z,t)=x^2+y^2t^2\\ F_2(x,y,z,t)=xt(z10t)^2\end{array}$$

The curve $`X`$ is smooth and irreducible, and has degree $`4`$ and genus $`1`$. We define two camera matrices:

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝐌_1=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 5\\ 0& 0& 1& 2\\ 0& 1& 0& 10\end{array}\right]& 𝐌_2=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 10\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 10\end{array}\right]\end{array}$$

Then the curve is reconstructed from the two projections. As expected there are two irreducible components. One has degree $`4`$ and is the original curve, while the second has degree $`12`$.

Reconstruction using the Grassmannian

For the next experiment, we consider six images of an electric wire — one of the views is shown in figure 2 and the image curve after segmentation and thinning is shown in figure 3. Hence for each of the images, we extracted a set of points lying on the thread. No fitting is performed in the image space. For each image, the camera matrix is calculated using the calibration pattern. Then we proceeded to compute the Chow polynomial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the curve in space. The curve $`X`$ has degree $`3`$. Once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is computed, a reprojection is easily performed, as shown in figure 4.

The computation of the Chow Polynomial involves an estimation problem. Moreover as mentioned above, the Chow polynomial is not uniquely defined. In order to get a unique solution, we have to add some constraints to the estimation problem which do not distort the geometric meaning of the Chow polynomial. This is simply done by imposing to the Chow polynomial to vanish over $`W_d`$ additional arbitrary points of $`^5`$ which do not lie on $`𝔾(1,3)`$. The number of additional points necessary to get a unique solution is $`W_d=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+5}{d}\right)N_d`$, where $`d`$ is the degree of the Chow polynomial.

As we shall the estimation of the Chow polynomial is a typical case of heteroscedastic estimation. Every 2D measurement $`𝐩`$ is corrupted by additive noise, which we consider as an isotropic Gaussian noise $`𝒩(0,\sigma )`$. The variance is estimated to be about 2 pixels.

For each 2D point $`𝐩`$, we form the optical ray it generates $`𝐋=\widehat{𝐌}𝐩`$. Then the estimation of the Chow polynomial is made using the optical rays $`𝐋`$. In order to avoid the problem of scale, the Plücker coordinates of each line are normalized such that the last coordinate is equal to one. Hence the lines are represented by vectors in a five-dimensional affine space, denoted by $`𝐋_a`$. Hence if $`\theta `$ is a vector containing the coefficient of the Chow polynomial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\theta `$ is solution of the following problem:

$$Z(𝐋_a)^T\theta =0,\text{ for all optical rays},$$

with $`\theta =1`$ and $`Z(𝐋_a)`$ is a vector which coordinates are monomials generated by the coordinates of $`𝐋_a`$. Following , in order to obtain a reliable estimate, the solution $`\theta `$ is computed using a maximum likelihood estimator. This allows to take into account the fact that each $`Z(𝐋_a)`$ has a different covariance matrix, or in other terms that the noise is heteroscedastic. More precisely, each $`Z(𝐋_a)`$ has the following covariance matrix:

$$𝐂_𝐋=𝐉_\varphi 𝐉_n\widehat{𝐌}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma & 0& 0\\ 0& \sigma & 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\widehat{𝐌}^T𝐉_n^T𝐉_\varphi ^T,$$

where $`𝐌`$ is the camera matrix and $`𝐉_n`$ and $`𝐉_\varphi `$ are respectively the Jacobian matrices of the normalization of $`𝐋`$ and of the map sending $`𝐋_a`$ to $`Z(𝐋_a)`$. That is for $`𝐋(t)=[L_1,L_2,L_3,L_4,L_5,L_6]^T`$, we have:

$$𝐉_n=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{1}{L_6}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{L_1}{L_6^2}\\ 0& \frac{1}{L_6}& 0& 0& 0& \frac{L_2}{L_6^2}\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{L_6}& 0& 0& \frac{L_3}{L_6^2}\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{L_6}& 0& \frac{L_4}{L_6^2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{L_6}& \frac{L_5}{L_6^2}\end{array}\right],$$

and $`𝐉_\varphi `$ is similarly computed. Then we use the method presented in  to perform the estimation. It is worth to note that the estimation is reliable because the initial guess of the algorithm was well chosen and because the number of measurements is very large. It is necessary to use a very large number of measurements for two reasons. First the dimension of the parameter space is quite high and secondly the measurments are concentrated on a part of the space (over the Grassmannian $`𝔾(1,3)`$).

Synthetic Trajectory Triangulation

Let $`𝐏^3`$ be a point moving on a cubic, as follows:

$$𝐏(t)=\left[\begin{array}{c}t^3\\ 2t^3+3t^2\\ t^3+t^2+t+1\\ t^3+t^2+t+2\end{array}\right]$$

It is viewed by a moving camera. At each time instant a picture is made, we get a 2D point $`𝐩(t)=[x(t),y(t)]^T=[\frac{𝐦_1^T(t)𝐏(t)}{𝐦_3^T(t)𝐏(t)},\frac{𝐦_2^T(t)𝐏(t)}{𝐦_3^T(t)𝐏(t)}]^T`$, where $`𝐌^T(t)=[𝐦_1(t),𝐦_2(t),𝐦_3(t)]`$ is the transpose of the camera matrix at time $`t`$.

Then we build the set of optical rays generated by the sequence. The Chow polynomial is then computed and given below:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(L_1,\mathrm{},L_6)=72L_2^2L_3+L_1^35L_1L_4L_5\hfill \\ 18L_1L_3L_6+57L_2L_3L_5+48L_2L_4L_543L_1L_2L_4\hfill \\ 10L_1L_3L_5+21L_1L_5L_630L_1L_4L_6108L_2L_3L_6+\hfill \\ 41L_1L_2L_5+69L_1L_2L_626L_1L_2L_336L_2L_4^2\hfill \\ 21L_2L_5^2+3L_3L_5^29L_3^2L_512L_4^2L_5+6L_4L_5^2+\hfill \\ 4L_1^2L_4+20L_2^313L_3^3+8L_4^3L_5^3+108L_2^2L_6\hfill \\ 120L_2^2L_5+27L_3^2L_625L_1^2L_6+57L_2L_3^2+\hfill \\ 84L_2^2L_4+7L_1L_3^2L_1^2L_5+31L_1L_2^2+\hfill \\ 5L_1^2L_3+L_1L_5^211L_1^2L_2+7L_1L_4^2\hfill \end{array}$$

From the Chow polynomial, one can extract direclty the locations of the moving point at each time instant an image was made. This is done by a two steps computation. The first step consists in giving a parametric representation of the optical ray generated by the 2D measurment. During the second step, the pencil of lines passing through a generic point on the optical ray is considered. For this generic point to be of the trajectory, the Chow polynomial must vanish over the pencil. This yields a polynomial system in one variable, whose root gives the location of the 3D moving point. We show in figure 5 the recovered discrete locations of the point in 3D.

Trajectory Triangulation from real images

A point is moving over a conic section. Four static non-synchronized cameras are looking at it. We show on figure 6 one image of one sequence.

The camera matrices are computed using the calibration pattern. Every 2D measurement $`𝐩(t)`$ is corrupted by additive noise, which we consider as an isotropic Gaussian noise $`𝒩(0,\sigma )`$. The variance is estimated to be about 2 pixels.

As before the estimation is done from the set of optical rays generated by the 2D moving point. The estimation is also a case of heteroscedastic estimation, which was handled with the method presented in . The result is stable where starting with a good initial guess. In order to handle more general situation we further stabilize it by incorporating some extra constraints that come from our a-priori knowledge of the form of the solution. The final result is presented in figure 7.