This question is an extension on some computation details of this question.
Suppose one has a set of (potentially overlapping) circles, and one wishes to compute the area this set of circles covers. (For simplicity, one can assume some precomputation steps have been made, such as getting rid of circles included entirely in other circles, as well as that the circles induce one connected component.)
One way to do this is mentioned in Ants Aasma's and Timothy's Shields' answers, being that the area of overlapping circles is just a collection of circle slices and polygons, both of which the area is easy to compute.
The trouble I'm encountering however is the computation of these polygons. The nodes of the polygons (consisting of circle centers and "outer" intersection points) are easy enough to compute:
And at first I thought a simple algorithm of picking a random node and visiting neighbors in clockwise order would be sufficient, but this can result in the following "outer" polygon to be constructed, which is not part of the correct polygons.
So I thought of different approaches. A Breadth First Search to compute minimal cycles, but I think the previous counterexample can easily be modified so that this approach results in the "inner" polygon containing the hole (and which is thus not a correct polygon).
I was thinking of maybe running a Las Vegas style algorithm, taking random points and if said point is in an intersection of circles, try to compute the corresponding polygon. If such a polygon exists, remove circle centers and intersection points composing said polygon. Repeat until no circle centers or intersection points remain.
This would avoid ending up computing the "outer" polygon or the "inner" polygon, but would introduce new problems (outside of the potentially high running time) e.g. more than 2 circles intersecting in a single intersection point could remove said intersection point when computing one polygon, but would be necessary still for the next.
Ultimately, my question is: How to compute such polygons?
PS: As a bonus question for after having computed the polygons, how to know which angle to consider when computing the area of some circle slice, between theta and 2PI - theta?
Once we have the points of the polygons in the right order, computing the area is a not too difficult.
The way to achieve that is by exploiting planar duality. See the Wikipedia article on the doubly connected edge list representation for diagrams, but the gist is, given an oriented edge whose right face is inside a polygon, the next oriented edge in that polygon is the reverse direction of the previous oriented edge with the same head in clockwise order.
Hence we've reduced the problem to finding the oriented edges of the polygonal union and determining the correct order with respect to each head. We actually solve the latter problem first. Each intersection of disks gives rise to a quadrilateral. Let's call the centers C and D and the intersections A and B. Assume without loss of generality that the disk centered at C is not smaller than the disk centered at D. The interior angle formed by A→C←B is less than 180 degrees, so the signed area of that triangle is negative if and only if A→C precedes B→C in clockwise order around C, in turn if and only if B→D precedes A→D in clockwise order around D.
Now we determine which edges are actually polygon boundaries. For a particular disk, we have a bunch of angle intervals around its center from before (each sweeping out the clockwise sector from the first endpoint to the second). What we need amounts to a more complicated version of the common interview question of computing the union of segments. The usual sweep line algorithm that increases the cover count whenever it scans an opening endpoint and decreases the cover count whenever it scans a closing endpoint can be made to work here, with the adjustment that we need to initialize the count not to 0 but to the proper cover count of the starting angle.
There's a way to do all of this with no trigonometry, just subtraction and determinants and comparisons.
Related
I have a 3D mesh consisting of triangle polygons. My mesh can be either oriented left or right:
I'm looking for a method to detect mesh direction: right vs left.
So far I tried to use mesh centroid:
Compare centroid to bounding-box (b-box) center
See if centroid is located left of b-box center
See if centroid is located right of b-box center
But the problem is that the centroid and b-box center don't have a reliable difference in most cases.
I wonder what is a quick algorithm to detect my mesh direction.
Update
An idea proposed by #collapsar is ordering Convex Hull points in clockwise order and investigating the longest edge:
UPDATE
Another approach as suggested by #YvesDaoust is to investigate two specific regions of the mesh:
Count the vertices in two predefined regions of the bounding box. This is a fairly simple O(N) procedure.
Unless your dataset is sorted in some way, you can't be faster than O(N). But if the point density allows it, you can subsample by taking, say, every tenth point while applying the procedure.
You can as well keep your idea of the centroid, but applying it also in a subpart.
The efficiency of an algorithm to solve your problem will depend on the data structures that represent your mesh. You might need to be more specific about them in order to obtain a sufficiently performant procedure.
The algorithms are presented in an informal way. For a more rigorous analysis, math.stackexchange might be a more suitable place to ask (or another contributor is more adept to answer ...).
The algorithms are heuristic by nature. Proposals 1 and 3 will work fine for meshes whose local boundary's curvature is mostly convex locally (skipping a rigorous mathematical definition here). Proposal 2 should be less dependent on the mesh shape (and can be easily tuned to cater for ill-behaved shapes).
Proposal 1 (Convex Hull, 2D)
Let M be the set of mesh points, projected onto a 'suitable' plane as suggested by the graphics you supplied.
Compute the convex hull CH(M) of M.
Order the n points of CH(M) in clockwise order relative to any point inside CH(M) to obtain a point sequence seq(P) = (p_0, ..., p_(n-1)), with p_0 being an arbitrary element of CH(M). Note that this is usually a by-product of the convex hull computation.
Find the longest edge of the convex polygon implied by CH(M).
Specifically, find k, such that the distance d(p_k, p_((k+1) mod n)) is maximal among all d(p_i, p_((i+1) mod n)); 0 <= i < n;
Consider the vector (p_k, p_((k+1) mod n)).
If the y coordinate of its head is greater than that of its tail (ie. its projection onto the line ((0,0), (0,1)) is oriented upwards) then your mesh opens to the left, otherwise to the right.
Step 3 exploits the condition that the mesh boundary be mostly locally convex. Thus the convex hull polygon sides are basically short, with the exception of the side that spans the opening of the mesh.
Proposal 2 (bisector sampling, 2D)
Order the mesh points by their x coordinates int a sequence seq(M).
split seq(M) into 2 halves, let seq_left(M), seq_right(M) denote the partition elements.
Repeat the following steps for both point sets.
3.1. Select randomly 2 points p_0, p_1 from the point set.
3.2. Find the bisector p_01 of the line segment (p_0, p_1).
3.3. Test whether p_01 lies within the mesh.
3.4. Keep a count on failed tests.
Statistically, the mesh point subset that 'contains' the opening will produce more failures for the same given number of tests run on each partition. Alternative test criteria will work as well, eg. recording the average distance d(p_0, p_1) or the average length of (p_0, p_1) portions outside the mesh (both higher on the mesh point subset with the opening). Cut off repetition of step 3 if the difference of test results between both halves is 'sufficiently pronounced'. For ill-behaved shapes, increase the number of repetitions.
Proposal 3 (Convex Hull, 3D)
For the sake of completeness only, as your problem description suggests that the analysis effectively takes place in 2D.
Similar to Proposal 1, the computations can be performed in 3D. The convex hull of the mesh points then implies a convex polyhedron whose faces should be ordered by area. Select the face with the maximum area and compute its outward-pointing normal which indicates the direction of the opening from the perspective of the b-box center.
The computation gets more complicated if there is much variation in the side lengths of minimal bounding box of the mesh points, ie. if there is a plane in which most of the variation of mesh point coordinates occurs. In the graphics you've supplied that would be the plane in which the mesh points are rendered assuming that their coordinates do not vary much along the axis perpendicular to the plane.
The solution is to identify such a plane and project the mesh points onto it, then resort to proposal 1.
At the entrance, two polygons are given (the coordinates of the vertices of these polygons are listed in the order of their traversal; however, the traversal order for different polygon angles can be chosen different). Can one polygon be transformed into another using only parallel translation and proportional scaling?
I have following idea
So, find some common peak for two polygons and make the transfer of one polygon so that these vertices lie on one point then Scaling so that the neighboring point matches the corresponding point of another polygon, but I think it's wrong , at least I can't write it in code
Is there some special formula or theorem for this problem?
I would solve it like this.
Find the necessary parallel transport.
Find the necessary scaling.
See if they are the same polygon now.
So to start take the vertex that it farthest to the left, and if there is a tie, the one that is farthest down. Find that for both polygons. Use parallel transport to put that vertex at the origin for both.
Now take the vertex that is farthest to the right, and if there is a tie, the one that is farthest up. Find that for both polygons. If it is not at the same slope, then they are different. If it is, then scale one so that the points match.
Now see if all of the points match. If not, they are different. Otherwise the answer is yes.
Compute the axis-aligned bounding boxes of the two polygons.
If the aspect ratios do not match, the answer is negative. Otherwise the ratio of corresponding sides is your scaling factor. The translation is obtained by linking the top left corners and the transformation equations are
X = s.(x - xtl) + Xtl
Y = s.(y - ytl) + Ytl
where s is the scaling factor and (xtl, ytl), (Xtl, Ytl) are the corners.
Now choose a vertex of the first polygon, predict the coordinates in the other and find the matching vertex. If you can't, the answer is negative. Otherwise, you can compare the remaining vertices*.
*I assume that the polygons do not have overlapping vertices. If they can have arbitrary self-overlaps, I guess that you have to try matching all vertices, with all cyclic permutations.
Does anyone know a relatively fast algorithm for decomposing a set of polygons into their distinct overlapping and non-overlapping regions, i.e. Given a set of n polygons, find all the distinct regions among them?
For instance, the input would be 4 polygons representing circles as shown below
and the output will be all polygons representing the distinct regions shown in the different colours.
I can write my own implementation using polygon operations but the algorithm will probably be slow and time consuming. I'm wondering if there's any optimised algorithm out there for this sort of problem.
Your problem in called the map overlay problem. It can be solved in O(n*log(n)+k*log(k)) time, where n is the number of segments and k is the number of segment intersections.
First you need to represent your polygons as a doubly connected edge list, different faces corresponding to the interiors of different polygons.
Then use the Bentley–Ottmann algorithm to find all segment intersections and rebuild the edge list. See: Computing the Overlay of Two Subdivisions or Subdivision representation and map overlay.
Finally, walk around each cycle in the edge list and collect faces of that cycle's half-edges. Every set of the faces will represent a distinct overlapping region.
See also: Shapefile Overlay Using a Doubly-Connected Edge List.
I don't think it is SO difficult.
I have answered the similar question on the friendly site and it was checked by a smaller community:
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/20039/detect-closed-shapes-formed-by-points/20247#20247
Let's look for a more common question - let's take curves instead of polygons. And let's allow them to go out of the picture border, but we'll count only for simple polygons that wholly belong to the picture.
find all intersections by checking all pairs of segments, belonging to different curves. Of course, filter them before real check for intersection.
Number all curves 1..n. Set some order of segments in them.
For every point create a sequence of intersections SOI, so: if it starts from the border end, SOI[1] is null. If not, SOI[1]= (number of the first curve it is intersecting with, the sign of the left movement on the intersecting curve). Go on, writing down into SOI every intersection - number of curve if there is some, or 0 if it is the intersection with the border.
Obviously, you are looking only for simple bordered areas, that have no curves inside.
Pieces of curves between two adjacent non-null intersection points we'll call segments.
Having SOI for each curve:
for segment of the curve 1, starting from the first point of the segment, make 2 attempts to draw a polygon of segments. It is 2 because you can go to 2 sides along the first intersecting curve.
For the right attempt, make only left turns, for the left attempt, make only the right turns.
If you arrive at point with no segment in the correct direction, the attempt fails. If you return to the curve 1, it success. You have a closed area.
Remember all successful attempts
Repeat this for all segments of curve 1
Repeat this for all other curves, checking all found areas against the already found ones. Two same adjacent segments is enough to consider areas equal.
How to find the orientation of the intersection.
When segment p(p1,p2) crosses segment q(q1,q2), we can count the vector multiplication of vectors pXq. We are interested in only sign of its Z coordinate - that is out of our plane. If it is +, q crosses p from left to right. If it is -, the q crosses p from right to left.
The Z coordinate of the vector multiplication is counted here as a determinant of matrix:
0 0 1
p2x-p1x p2y-p1y 0
q2x-q1x q2y-q1y 0
(of course, it could be written more simply, but it is a good memorization trick)
Of course, if you'll change all rights for lefts, nothing really changes in the algorithm as a whole.
Given a point and a set of arbitrary 2D entities (circles, polygons, lines, polylines, arcs, etc.), does anyone know of existing strategies to:
Determine if the point is enclosed (bounded) by any combination of entities? I know that it is easy enough to do an 'inside' test on the closed shapes, but this won't always give me what I want - particularly with nested or intersecting shapes.
Find the smallest (closest?) set of lines / entities that form a closed polygon around my point? (think of a flood-fill, but without relying on colour)
I've addressed this problem in a commercial product in the past. You've asked about analytic curves, but I'll address it more generally for curves that are at least twice differentiable. Handle polygons as a set of separate line segments. There is no need to segment the curves, but if you want to you can and adapt the algorithm slightly.
Also, you might want to see my paper Matrix-Based Ellipse Geometry in Graphics Gems V to find the intersections between your ellipses.
Basic idea:
Consider a ray from your test point in the +x direction.
Now consider an ant walking along your ray from the test point.
When the ant hits the first intersection with one of the curves, it makes the sharpest left it can, and leaves an arrow at that intersection indicating the direction it's chosen. (If there is no intersection, then obviously the point isn't bounded.)
If it comes to the end of a curve, it doubles back on itself.
If there are multiple curves intersecting at that point, it chooses the curve that is most to the left.
If one or more of the curves is in fact tangent to the ray at the intersection, higher derivatives can be used decide which curve and direction to choose. (This ant knows calculus.)
Now as the ant strolls along the curves, it always makes the biggest left turn it can as above. If there is tangency between curves at the intersection, use higher derivatives to decide the one that is "most to the left". (Details are left to the ant).
In its travels, the ant may come to the starting intersection with the ray multiple times. But as soon as it finds itself proceeding in the direction of the arrow (the one it left in step 3), it's travels are done and it has traversed a "contour". The problem is reduced to deciding if the point is in that contour.
A "contour" is a topological entity. It's closed ring of "segments" connected at "vertices".
A "segment" is a piece of a curve used by the contour in a particular direction.
A "vertex" is a connection between segments. A vertex is associated with a (x, y) position on the plane, but there may be multiple vertices at the same position, one for each pair of segments in the contour that meet at that point. There is a vertex for each curve endpoint (a spur vertex), or curve-curve intersection encountered by the ant.
A contour (in this context) is not a geometric entity! Don't think of it as a simple closed path on the plane. The ant might go along a segment, get to the end, and go back the way it came--this is called a "spur" and includes two contour segments, one for either direction. Or it might go along one direction of a curve segment, wander around a bit along other curves, and return along the other direction of the segment.
So even if your set of curves has only one line in it from A to B (I'm assuming you don't have infinite lines) and your ray hits it at P, you still have the contour V0(P)-V1(A)-V2(P)-V3(B)-V0 with 4 segments V0-V1, V1-V2, V2-V3, V3-V0. Note that V0 and V2 are distinct vertices, both positioned at P.
Now to test if your point is in the contour.
Find the intersections of your ray (any ray originating at your test point will do) with the contour. We only really want the parity (even or odd) of the number of intersections with the contour. If the parity is odd, the point is bounded by the curves, if it's even it's not.
Because doubly traversed segments contribute nothing to the parity, we can ignore them. This is because there are always an even number of intersections on doubly traversed segments, since they're in the contour twice.
Examples:
Consider this curve set. I use lines so I don't work too hard:
Case 1 - The point is not bounded. The contour's use of the curve segments is indicated by the dotted arrows. The number of ray-contour intersection parity is even.
Case 2 - The point is bounded. The ray-contour intersection parity is odd.
Here's what can go wrong:
You can't find a contour for various numerical reasons. For example, you might miss intersections, e.g. two curves are almost tangent at a curve. You might see it as a single intersection, but when you do the ray intersection parity test you see a single crossing so that the parity flips when it shouldn't.
You might not be able to compute enough derivatives to make the correct turn decisions. In the case of analytic geometry this should never be the case.
Your ray hits a vertex (connections between segments) of your contour. (Note that there can be multiple vertices at a single (x, y) point. Each of these has to be handled separately.)
In this case, you have to decide if the incoming and outgoing segments of the vertex are on the same side of the ray at the vertex. If they're on the same side, the parity is not affected. Otherwise the parity flips. If one of the curves is tangent to the ray at the vertex, you may have to use higher derivatives to decide this.
A line segment is collinear with your test ray. This is actually a special case of 2, but easy to handle: Ignore it.
There are lots of details, but you should be able to handle them. Be sure to use spatial trees to avoid computing unnecessary intersections.
The answer to your second question comes from removing from the contour any doubly traversed segments. This may yield multiple sub-contours. One of them will contain your point.
I need to compute the area of the region of overlap between two triangles in the 2D plane. Oddly, I have written up code for the triangle-circle problem, and that works quite well and robustly, but I have trouble with the triangle-triangle problem.
I already first check to see if one entirely contains the other, or if the other contains the first, as well as obtain all the edge-wise intersection points. These intersection points (up to 6, as in the star of David), combined with the triangle vertices that are contained within the other triangle, are the vertices of the intersection region. These points must form a convex polygon.
The solution I seek is the answer to either of these questions:
Given a set of points known to all lie on the convex hull of the point set, compute the area of the convex hull. Note that they are in random order.
Given a set of half-planes, determine the intersecting area. This is equivalent to describing both triangles as the intersection of three half-planes, and computing the solution as the direct intersection of this description.
I have considered for question 1 simply adding up all areas of all possible triangles, and then dividing by the multiplicity in counting, but that seems dumb, and I'm not sure if it is correct. I feel like there is some kind of sweep-line algorithm that would do the trick. However, the solution must also be relatively numerically robust.
I simply have no idea how to solve question 2, but a general answer would be very useful, and providing code would make my day. This would allow for direct computation of intersection areas of convex polygons instead of having to perform a triangle decomposition on them.
Edit: I am aware of this article which describes the general case for finding the intersection polygon of two convex polygons. It seems rather involved for just triangles, and furthermore, I don't really need the resulting polygon itself. So maybe this question is just asked in laziness at this point.
Question 1: why are the points in a random order? If they are, you have to order them so that connecting consecutive points with straight lines yields a convex polygon. How to order them -- for example, by running a convex hull algorithm (though there are probably also simpler methods). Once you have ordered them, compute the area as described here.
--
Question 2 is simpler. Half-plane is defined by a single line having an implicit equation a*x+b*y+c=0 ; all points (x, y) for which a*x+b*y+c <= 0 (note the inequality) are "behind" the half-plane. Now, you need at least three planes so that the intersection of their negative half-spaces is closed (this is necessary, but not sufficient condition). If the intersection is closed, it will be a convex polygon.
I suggest that you maintain a linked list of vertices. The algorithm is initialized with THREE lines. Compute the three points (in general case) where the lines intersect; these are the starting vertices of your region (triangle). You must also check that each vertex is "behind" the half-plane defined by the line going through the other two vertices; this guarantees that the intersection actually IS a closed region.
These three vertices define also the the three edges of a triangle. When you intersect by a new half-plane, simply check for the intersection between the line defining the half-plane and each of the edges of the current region; in general you will get two intersection points, but you must watch out for degenerate cases where the line goes through a vertex of the region. (You can also end up with an empty set!)
The new intersection vertices define a line that splits the current region in TWO regions. Again, use orientation of the new half-plane to decide which of the two new regions to assign to the new "current region", and which one to discard.
The points in the list defining the edges of the current region will be correctly ordered so you can apply the formula in the above link to compute its area.
If this description is not detailed/understandable, the next-best advice I can give you is that you invest in a book on computational geometry and linear algebra.