Please forgive me if I do not explain my question clearly in title.
Here may I show you two pictures as my example:
my question is described as follows: I have 2 or more different objects(In the pictures, two objects: circle and cross), each one is placed repeatedly with a fixed row/column distance (In the pictures, the circle has a distance of 4 and cross has a distance of 2) into a grid.
In the first picture, each of the two objects are repeated correctly without any interruptions(here interruption means one object may occupy another one's position), but the arrangement in the first picture is ununiform distributed; on the contrary, in the second picture, the two objects may have interruptions (the circle object occupies cross objects' position) but the picture is uniformly distributed.
My target is to get the placement as uniform as possible (the objects are still placed with fixed distances but may allow some occupations). Is there a potential algorithm for this question? Or are there any similar questions?
I have some immature thinkings on this problem that: 1. occupation may relate to least common multiple; 2. how to define "uniformly distributed" mathematically? Maybe there's no genetic solution but is there a solution for some special cases? (for example, 3 objects with distance of multiple of 2, or multiple of 3?)
Uniformity can be measured as sum of squared inverse distances(or distances to equilibrium distances). Because it has squared relation, any single piece that approaches others will have big fitness penalty in system so that the system will not tolerate too close piece and prefer a better distribution.
If you do not use squared (or higher orders) distance but simple distance, then system starts tolerating even overlapped pieces.
If you want to manually compute uniformity, then compute the standard deviation of distances. You'd say its perfect with 1 distance and 0 deviation but small enough deviation also acceptable.
I tested this only on a problem to fit 106 circles in a square thats 10x the size of circle.
Related
I want to place some points in a rectangle randomly.
Generating random x, y coordinates it's not a good idea, because many times happens that the points are mainly distributed on the same area instead cover the whole rectangle.
I don't need an algorithm incredibly fast or the best cover position, just something that could run in a simple game that generate random (x, y) that cover almost the whole rectangle.
In my particular case I'm trying to generate a simple sky, so the idea is to place almost 40/50 stars in the sky rectangle.
Could someone point me some common algorithm to do that?
There is a number of algorithms to pseudo-randomly fill a 2d plane. One of them is Poisson Disk Sampling which places the samples randomly, but then checks that any two are not too close. The result would look something like this:
You can check some articles describing this algorithm. And even some implementations are available.
The problem though is that the resulting distribution looks nothing like the actual stars in the sky. But it gives a good tool to start with - by controlling the Poisson radius we can create very naturally looking looking patterns. For example in this article they use Perlin Noise to control the radius of the Poisson Disk Sampling:
You would also want to adjust the brightness of the stars, but you can experiment with uniform random values or Perlin noise.
Once I have used a completely different approach for a game. I took real positions of the stars in cartesian system from HYG database by David Nash and transformed them to my viewpoint. With this approach you can even create the exact view that can be seen from where you are on Earth.
I once showed this database to the girl I wanted to date, saying "I want to show you the stars… in cartesian coordinate system".
Upd. It’s been over seven years now and we are still together.
Just some ideas which might make your cover to appear "more uniform". These approaches don't necessarily provide an efficient way to generate a truly uniform cover, but they might be good enough and worth looking at in your case.
First, you can divide the original rectangle in 4 (or 10, or 100 - as long as performance allows you) subrectangles and cover those subrectangles separately with random points. By doing so you will make sure that no subrectangle will be left uncovered. You can generate the same number of points for each subrectangle, but you can also vary the number of points from one subrectangle to another. For example, for each subrectangle you can first generate a random number num_points_in_subrectangle (which can come from a uniform random distribution on some interval [lower, upper]) and then randomly fill the subrectangle with this many points. So all subrectangles will contain random number of points and will probably look less "programmatically generated".
Another thing you can try is to generate random points inside the original rectangle and for each generated point check if there already exists a point within some radius R. If there is such point, you reject the candidate and generate the new one. Again, here you can vary the radius from one point to another by making R a random variable.
Finally, you can combine several approaches. Generate some random number n of points you want in total. First, divide the original rectangle in subrectangles and cover those in such a way that there are n / 3 points in total. Then generate next n / 3 points by selecting the random point inside the original rectangle without any restrictions. After this, generate the last n / 3 points randomly with checks for neighbors within the radius.
Using a uniform drawing of X, Y, if you draw 40 points, the probability of having all points in the same half is about one over a trillion (~0.0000000000009).
I have any number of points on an imaginary 2D surface. I also have a grid on the same surface with points at regular intervals along the X and Y access. My task is to map each point to the nearest grid point.
The code is straight forward enough until there are a shortage of grid points. The code I've been developing finds the closest grid point, displaying an already mapped point if the distance will be shorter for the current point.
I then added a second step that compares each mapped point to another and, if swapping the mapping with another point produces a smaller sum of the total mapped distance of both points, I swap them.
This last step seems important as it reduces the number crossed map lines. (This would be used to map points on a plate to a grid on another plate, with pins connecting the two, and lines that don't cross seem to have a higher chance that the pins would not make contact.)
Questions:
Can anyone comment on my thinking that if the image above were truly optimized, (that is, the mapped points--overall--would have the smallest total distance), then none of the lines were cross?
And has anyone seen any existing algorithms to help with this. I've searched but came up with nothing.
The problem could be approached as a variation of the Assignment Problem, with the "agents" being the grid squares and the points being the "tasks", (or vice versa) with the distance between them being the "cost" for that agent-task combination. You could solve with the Hungarian algorithm.
To handle the fact that there are more grid squares than points, find a bounding box for the possible grid squares you want to consider and add dummy points that have a cost of 0 associated with all grid squares.
The Hungarian algorithm is O(n3), perhaps your approach is already good enough.
See also:
How to find the optimal mapping between two sets?
How to optimize assignment of tasks to agents with these constraints?
If I understand your main concern correctly, minimising total length of line segments, the algorithm you used does not find the best mapping and it is clear in your image. e.g. when two line segments cross each other, simple mathematic says that if you rearrange their endpoints such that they do not cross, it provides a better total sum. You can use this simple approach (rearranging crossed items) to get better approximation to the optimum, you should apply swapping for more somehow many iterations.
In the following picture you can see why crossing has longer length than non crossing (first question) and also why by swapping once there still exists crossing edges (second question and w.r.t. Comments), I just drew one sample, in fact one may need many iterations of swapping to get non crossed result.
This is a heuristic algorithm certainly not optimum but I expect to be very good and efficient and simple to implement.
I'm looking for a general algorithm for creating an evenly spaced grid, and I've been surprised how difficult it is to find!
Is this a well solved problem whose name I don't know?
Or is this an unsolved problem that is best done by self organising map?
More specifically, I'm attempting to make a grid on a 2D Cartesian plane in which the Euclidean distance between each point and 4 bounding lines (or "walls" to make a bounding box) are equal or nearly equal.
For a square number, this is as simple as making a grid with sqrt(n) rows and sqrt(n) columns with equal spacing positioned in the center of the bounding box. For 5 points, the pattern would presumably either be circular or 4 points with a point in the middle.
I didn't find a very good solution, so I've sadly left the problem alone and settled with a quick function that produces the following grid:
There is no simple general solution to this problem. A self-organizing map is probably one of the best choices.
Another way to approach this problem is to imagine the points as particles that repel each others and that are also repelled by the walls. As an initial arrangement, you could already evenly distribute the points up to the next smaller square number - for this you already have a solution. Then randomly add the remaining points.
Iteratively modify the locations to minimize the energy function based on the total force between the particles and walls. The result will of course depend on the force law, i.e. how the force depends on the distance.
To solve this, you can use numerical methods like FEM.
A simplified and less efficient method that is based on the same principle is to first set up an estimated minimal distance, based on the square number case which you can calculate. Then iterate through all points a number of times and for each one calculate the distance to its closest neighbor. If this is smaller than the estimated distance, move your point into the opposite direction by a certain fraction of the difference.
This method will generally not lead to a stable minimum but should find an acceptable solution after a number ot iterations. You will have to experiment with the stepsize and the number of iterations.
To summarize, you have three options:
FEM method: Efficient but difficult to implement
Self organizing map: Slightly less efficient, medium complexity of implementation.
Iteration described in last section: Less efficient but easy to implement.
Unfortunately your problem is still not very clearly specified. You say you want the points to be "equidistant" yet in your example, some pairs of points are far apart (eg top left and bottom right) and the points are all different distances from the walls.
Perhaps you want the points to have equal minimum distance? In which case a simple solution is to draw a cross shape, with one point in the centre and the remainder forming a vertical and horizontal crossed line. The gap between the walls and the points, and the points in the lines can all be equal and this can work with any number of points.
I've an indeterminate number of closed CGPath elements of various shapes and sizes all containing a single concave bezier curve, like the red and blue shapes in the diagram below.
What is the simplest and most efficient method of dividing these shapes into n regions of (roughly) equal size?
What you want is Delaunay triangulation. Here is an example which resembles what you want to do. It uses an as3 library. Here is an iOS port, that should help you:
https://github.com/czgarrett/delaunay-ios
I don't really understand the context of what you want to achieve and what the constraints are. For instance, is there a hard requirement that the subdivided regions are equal size?
Often the solutions to a performance problem is not a faster algorithm but a different approach, usually one or more of the following:
Pre-compute the values, or compute as much as possible offline. Say by using another server API which is able to do the subdivision offline and cache the results for multiple clients. You could serve the post-computed result as a bitmap where each colour indexes into the table of values you want to display. Looking up the value would be a simple matter of indexing the pixel at the touch position.
Simplify or approximate a solution. Would a grid sub-division be accurate enough? At 500 x 6 = 3000 subdivisions, you only have about 51 square points for each region, that's a region of around 7x7 points. At that size the user isn't going to notice if the region is perfectly accurate. You may need to end up aggregating adjacent regions anyway due to touch resolution.
Progressive refinement. You often don't need to compute the entire algorithm up front. Very often algorithms run in discrete (often symmetrical) units, meaning you're often re-using the information from previous steps. You could compute just the first step up front, and then use a background thread to progressively fill in the rest of the detail. You could also defer final calculation until the the touch occurs. A delay of up to a second is still tolerable at that point, or in the worst case you can display an animation while the calculation is in progress.
You could use some hybrid approach, and possibly compute one or two levels using Delaunay triangulation, and then using a simple, fast triangular sub-division for two more levels.
Depending on the required accuracy, and if discreet samples are not required, the final levels could be approximated using a weighted average between the points of the triangle, i.e., if the touch is halfway between two points, pick the average value between them.
I need to evaluate if two sets of 3d points are the same (ignoring translations and rotations) by finding and comparing a proper geometric hash. I did some paper research on geometric hashing techniques, and I found a couple of algorithms, that however tend to be complicated by "vision requirements" (eg. 2d to 3d, occlusions, shadows, etc).
Moreover, I would love that, if the two geometries are slightly different, the hashes are also not very different.
Does anybody know some algorithm that fits my need, and can provide some link for further study?
Thanks
Your first thought may be trying to find the rotation that maps one object to another but this a very very complex topic... and is not actually necessary! You're not asking how to best match the two, you're just asking if they are the same or not.
Characterize your model by a list of all interpoint distances. Sort the list by that distance. Now compare the list for each object. They should be identical, since interpoint distances are not affected by translation or rotation.
Three issues:
1) What if the number of points is large, that's a large list of pairs (N*(N-1)/2). In this case you may elect to keep only the longest ones, or even better, keep the 1 or 2 longest ones for each vertex so that every part of your model has some contribution. Dropping information like this however changes the problem to be probabilistic and not deterministic.
2) This only uses vertices to define the shape, not edges. This may be fine (and in practice will be) but if you expect to have figures with identical vertices but different connecting edges. If so, test for the vertex-similarity first. If that passes, then assign a unique labeling to each vertex by using that sorted distance. The longest edge has two vertices. For each of THOSE vertices, find the vertex with the longest (remaining) edge. Label the first vertex 0 and the next vertex 1. Repeat for other vertices in order, and you'll have assigned tags which are shift and rotation independent. Now you can compare edge topologies exactly (check that for every edge in object 1 between two vertices, there's a corresponding edge between the same two vertices in object 2) Note: this starts getting really complex if you have multiple identical interpoint distances and therefore you need tiebreaker comparisons to make the assignments stable and unique.
3) There's a possibility that two figures have identical edge length populations but they aren't identical.. this is true when one object is the mirror image of the other. This is quite annoying to detect! One way to do it is to use four non-coplanar points (perhaps the ones labeled 0 to 3 from the previous step) and compare the "handedness" of the coordinate system they define. If the handedness doesn't match, the objects are mirror images.
Note the list-of-distances gives you easy rejection of non-identical objects. It also allows you to add "fuzzy" acceptance by allowing a certain amount of error in the orderings. Perhaps taking the root-mean-squared difference between the two lists as a "similarity measure" would work well.
Edit: Looks like your problem is a point cloud with no edges. Then the annoying problem of edge correspondence (#2) doesn't even apply and can be ignored! You still have to be careful of the mirror-image problem #3 though.
There a bunch of SIGGRAPH publications which may prove helpful to you.
e.g. "Global Non-Rigid Alignment of 3-D Scans" by Brown and Rusinkiewicz:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1276404
A general search that can get you started:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=siggraph+point+cloud+registration
spin images are one way to go about it.
Seems like a numerical optimisation problem to me. You want to find the parameters of the transform which transforms one set of points to as close as possible by the other. Define some sort of residual or "energy" which is minimised when the points are coincident, and chuck it at some least-squares optimiser or similar. If it manages to optimise the score to zero (or as near as can be expected given floating point error) then the points are the same.
Googling
least squares rotation translation
turns up quite a few papers building on this technique (e.g "Least-Squares Estimation of Transformation Parameters Between Two Point Patterns").
Update following comment below: If a one-to-one correspondence between the points isn't known (as assumed by the paper above), then you just need to make sure the score being minimised is independent of point ordering. For example, if you treat the points as small masses (finite radius spheres to avoid zero-distance blowup) and set out to minimise the total gravitational energy of the system by optimising the translation & rotation parameters, that should work.
If you want to estimate the rigid
transform between two similar
point clouds you can use the
well-established
Iterative Closest Point method. This method starts with a rough
estimate of the transformation and
then iteratively optimizes for the
transformation, by computing nearest
neighbors and minimizing an
associated cost function. It can be
efficiently implemented (even
realtime) and there are available
implementations available for
matlab, c++... This method has been
extended and has several variants,
including estimating non-rigid
deformations, if you are interested
in extensions you should look at
Computer graphics papers solving
scan registration problem, where
your problem is a crucial step. For
a starting point see the Wikipedia
page on Iterative Closest Point
which has several good external
links. Just a teaser image from a matlab implementation which was designed to match to point clouds:
(source: mathworks.com)
After aligning you could the final
error measure to say how similar the
two point clouds are, but this is
very much an adhoc solution, there
should be better one.
Using shape descriptors one can
compute fingerprints of shapes which
are often invariant under
translations/rotations. In most cases they are defined for meshes, and not point clouds, nevertheless there is a multitude of shape descriptors, so depending on your input and requirements you might find something useful. For this, you would want to look into the field of shape analysis, and probably this 2004 SIGGRAPH course presentation can give a feel of what people do to compute shape descriptors.
This is how I would do it:
Position the sets at the center of mass
Compute the inertia tensor. This gives you three coordinate axes. Rotate to them. [*]
Write down the list of points in a given order (for example, top to bottom, left to right) with your required precision.
Apply any algorithm you'd like for a resulting array.
To compare two sets, unless you need to store the hash results in advance, just apply your favorite comparison algorithm to the sets of points of step 3. This could be, for example, computing a distance between two sets.
I'm not sure if I can recommend you the algorithm for the step 4 since it appears that your requirements are contradictory. Anything called hashing usually has the property that a small change in input results in very different output. Anyway, now I've reduced the problem to an array of numbers, so you should be able to figure things out.
[*] If two or three of your axis coincide select coordinates by some other means, e.g. as the longest distance. But this is extremely rare for random points.
Maybe you should also read up on the RANSAC algorithm. It's commonly used for stitching together panorama images, which seems to be a bit similar to your problem, only in 2 dimensions. Just google for RANSAC, panorama and/or stitching to get a starting point.