Given a list of points forming a polygonal line, and both height and width of a rectangle, how can I find the number and positions of all rectangles needed to cover all the points?
The rectangles should be rotated and may overlap, but must follow the path of the polyline (A rectangle may contain multiple segments of the line, but each rectangle must contain a segment that is contiguous with the previous one.)
Do the intersections on the smallest side of the rectangle, when it is possible, would be much appreciated.
All the solutions I found so far were not clean, here is the result I get:
You should see that it gives a good render in near-flat cases, but overlaps too much in big curbs. One rectangle could clearly be removed if the previous were offset.
Actually, I put a rectangle centered at width/2 along the line and rotate it using convex hull and modified rotating calipers algorithms, and reiterate starting at the intersection point of the previous rectangle and the line.
You may observe that I took inspiration from the minimum oriented rectangle bounding box algorithm, for the orientation, but it doesn't include the cutting aspect, nor the fixed size.
Thanks for your help!
I modified k-means to solve this. It's not fast, it's not optimal, it's not guaranteed, but (IMHO) it's a good start.
There are two important modifications:
1- The distance measure
I used a Chebyshev-distance-inspired measure to see how far points are from each rectangle. To find distance from points to each rectangle, first I transformed all points to a new coordinate system, shifted to center of rectangle and rotated to its direction:
Then I used these transformed points to calculate distance:
d = max(2*abs(X)/w, 2*abs(Y)/h);
It will give equal values for all points that have same distance from each side of rectangle. The result will be less than 1.0 for points that lie inside rectangle. Now we can classify points to their closest rectangle.
2- Strategy for updating cluster centers
Each cluster center is a combination of C, center of rectangle, and a, its rotation angle. At each iteration, new set of points are assigned to a cluster. Here we have to find C and a so that rectangle covers maximum possible number of points. I don’t now if there is an analytical solution for that, but I used a statistical approach. I updated the C using weighted average of points, and used direction of first principal component of points to update a. I used results of proposed distance, powered by 500, as weight of each point in weighted average. It moves rectangle towards points that are located outside of it.
How to Find K
Initiate it with 1 and increase it till all distances from points to their corresponding rectangles become less than 1.0, meaning all points are inside a rectangle.
The results
Iterations 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 of updating cluster centers (rectangles):
Solution for test case 1:
Trying Ks: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 for complete coverage:
Solution for test case 2:
P.M: I used parts of Chalous Road as data. It was fun downloading it from Google Maps. The I used technique described here to sample a set of equally spaced points.
It’s a little late and you’ve probably figured this out. But, I was free today and worked on the constraint reflected in your last edit (continuity of segments). As I said before in the comments, I suggest using a greedy algorithm. It’s composed of two parts:
A search algorithm that looks for furthermost point from an initial point (I used binary search algorithm), so that all points between them lie inside a rectangle of given w and h.
A repeated loop that finds best rectangle at each step and advances the initial point.
The pseudo code of them are like these respectively:
function getBestMBR( P, iFirst, w, h )
nP = length(P);
iStart = iFirst;
iEnd = nP;
while iStart <= iEnd
m = floor((iStart + iEnd) / 2);
MBR = getMBR(P[iFirst->m]);
if (MBR.w < w) & (MBR.h < h) {*}
iStart = m + 1;
iLast = m;
bestMBR = MBR;
else
iEnd = m - 1;
end
end
return bestMBR, iLast;
end
function getRectList( P, w, h )
nP = length(P);
rects = [];
iFirst = 1;
iLast = iFirst;
while iLast < nP
[bestMBR, iLast] = getBestMBR(P, iFirst, w, h);
rects.add(bestMBR.x, bestMBR.y, bestMBR.a];
iFirst = iLast;
end
return rects;
Solution for test case 1:
Solution for test case 2:
Just keep in mind that it’s not meant to find the optimal solution, but finds a sub-optimal one in a reasonable time. It’s greedy after all.
Another point is that you can improve this a little in order to decrease number of rectangles. As you can see in the line marked with (*), I kept resulting rectangle in direction of MBR (Minimum Bounding Rectangle), even though you can cover larger MBRs with rectangles of same w and h if you rotate the rectangle. (1) (2)
Related
Assume we have a 3D grid that spans some 3D space. This grid is made out of cubes, the cubes need not have integer length, they can have any possible floating point length.
Our goal is, given a point and a direction, to check linearly each cube in our path once and exactly once.
So if this was just a regular 3D array and the direction is say in the X direction, starting at position (1,2,0) the algorithm would be:
for(i in number of cubes)
{
grid[1+i][2][0]
}
But of course the origin and the direction are arbitrary and floating point numbers, so it's not as easy as iterating through only one dimension of a 3D array. And the fact the side lengths of the cubes are also arbitrary floats makes it slightly harder as well.
Assume that your cube side lengths are s = (sx, sy, sz), your ray direction is d = (dx, dy, dz), and your starting point is p = (px, py, pz). Then, the ray that you want to traverse is r(t) = p + t * d, where t is an arbitrary positive number.
Let's focus on a single dimension. If you are currently at the lower boundary of a cube, then the step length dt that you need to make on your ray in order to get to the upper boundary of the cube is: dt = s / d. And we can calculate this step length for each of the three dimensions, i.e. dt is also a 3D vector.
Now, the idea is as follows: Find the cell where the ray's starting point lies in and find the parameter values t where the first intersection with the grid occurs per dimension. Then, you can incrementally find the parameter values where you switch from one cube to the next for each dimension. Sort the changes by the respective t value and just iterate.
Some more details:
cell = floor(p - gridLowerBound) / s <-- the / is component-wise division
I will only cover the case where the direction is positive. There are some minor changes if you go in the negative direction but I am sure that you can do these.
Find the first intersections per dimension (nextIntersection is a 3D vector):
nextIntersection = ((cell + (1, 1, 1)) * s - p) / d
And calculate the step length:
dt = s / d
Now, just iterate:
if(nextIntersection.x < nextIntersection.y && nextIntersection.x < nextIntersection.z)
cell.x++
nextIntersection.x += dt.x
else if(nextIntersection.y < nextIntersection.z)
cell.y++
nextIntersection.y += dt.y
else
cell.z++
nextIntersection.z += dt.z
end if
if cell is outside of grid
terminate
I have omitted the case where two or three cells are changed at the same time. The above code will only change one at a time. If you need this, feel free to adapt the code accordingly.
Well if you are working with floats, you can make the equation for the line in direction specifiedd. Which is parameterized by t. Because in between any two floats there is a finite number of points, you can simply check each of these points which cube they are in easily cause you have point (x,y,z) whose components should be in, a respective interval defining a cube.
The issue gets a little bit harder if you consider intervals that are, dense.
The key here is even with floats this is a discrete problem of searching. The fact that the equation of a line between any two points is a discrete set of points means you merely need to check them all to the cube intervals. What's better is there is a symmetry (a line) allowing you to enumerate each point easily with arithmetic expression, one after another for checking.
Also perhaps consider integer case first as it is same but slightly simpler in determining the discrete points as it is a line in Z_2^8?
For example, in a 2D space, with x [0 ; 1] and y [0 ; 1]. For p = 4, intuitively, I will place each point at each corner of the square.
But what can be the general algorithm?
Edit: The algorithm needs modification if dimensions are not orthogonal to eachother
To uniformly place the points as described in your example you could do something like this:
var combinedSize = 0
for each dimension d in d0..dn {
combinedSize += d.length;
}
val listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension = new List
for each d dimension d0..dn {
val percentageOfWholeDimensionSize = d.length/combinedSize
val pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension = percentageOfWholeDimensionSize * numberOfPoints
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[d.index] = d.length/(pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension - 1)
}
Run on your example it gives:
combinedSize = 2
percentageOfWholeDimensionSize = 1 / 2
pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension = 0.5 * 4
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[0] = 1 / (2 - 1)
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[1] = 1 / (2 - 1)
note: The minus 1 deals with the inclusive interval, allowing points at both endpoints of the dimension
2D case
In 2D (n=2) the solution is to place your p points evenly on some circle. If you want also to define the distance d between points then the circle should have radius around:
2*Pi*r = ~p*d
r = ~(p*d)/(2*Pi)
To be more precise you should use circumference of regular p-point polygon instead of circle circumference (I am too lazy to do that). Or you can compute the distance of produced points and scale up/down as needed instead.
So each point p(i) can be defined as:
p(i).x = r*cos((i*2.0*Pi)/p)
p(i).y = r*sin((i*2.0*Pi)/p)
3D case
Just use sphere instead of circle.
ND case
Use ND hypersphere instead of circle.
So your question boils down to place p "equidistant" points to a n-D hypersphere (either surface or volume). As you can see 2D case is simple, but in 3D this starts to be a problem. See:
Make a sphere with equidistant vertices
sphere subdivision triangulation
As you can see there are quite a few approaches to do this (there are much more of them even using Fibonacci sequence generated spiral) which are more or less hard to grasp or implement.
However If you want to generalize this into ND space you need to chose general approach. I would try to do something like this:
Place p uniformly distributed place inside bounding hypersphere
each point should have position,velocity and acceleration vectors. You can also place the points randomly (just ensure none are at the same position)...
For each p compute acceleration
each p should retract any other point (opposite of gravity).
update position
just do a Newton D'Alembert physics simulation in ND. Do not forget to include some dampening of speed so the simulation will stop in time. Bound the position and speed to the sphere so points will not cross it's border nor they would reflect the speed inwards.
loop #2 until max speed of any p crosses some threshold
This will more or less accurately place p points on the circumference of ND hypersphere. So you got minimal distance d between them. If you got some special dependency between n and p then there might be better configurations then this but for arbitrary numbers I think this approach should be safe enough.
Now by modifying #2 rules you can achieve 2 different outcomes. One filling hypersphere surface (by placing massive negative mass into center of surface) and second filling its volume. For these two options also the radius will be different. For one you need to use surface and for the other volume...
Here example of similar simulation used to solve a geometry problem:
How to implement a constraint solver for 2-D geometry?
Here preview of 3D surface case:
The number on top is the max abs speed of particles used to determine the simulations stopped and the white-ish lines are speed vectors. You need to carefully select the acceleration and dampening coefficients so the simulation is fast ...
I'm currently developing an application that will alert users of incoming rain. To do this I want to check certain area around user location for rainfall (different pixel colours for intensity on rainfall radar image). I would like the checked area to be a circle but I don't know how to do this efficiently.
Let's say I want to check radius of 50km. My current idea is to take subset of image with size 100kmx100km (user+50km west, user+50km east, user+50km north, user+50km south) and then check for each pixel in this subset if it's closer to user than 50km.
My question here is, is there a better solution that is used for this type of problems?
If the occurrence of the event you are searching for (rain or anything) is relatively rare, then there's nothing wrong with scanning a square or pixels and then, only after detecting rain in that square, checking whether that rain is within the desired 50km circle. Note that the key point here is that you don't need to check each pixel of the square for being inside the circle (that would be very inefficient), you have to search for your event (rain) first and only when you found it, check whether it falls into the 50km circle. To implement this efficiently you also have to develop some smart strategy for handling multi-pixel "stains" of rain on your image.
However, since you are scanning a raster image, you can easily implement the well-known Bresenham circle algorithm to find the starting and the ending point of the circle for each scan line. That way you can easily limit your scan to the desired 50km radius.
On the second thought, you don't even need the Bresenham algorithm for that. For each row of pixels in your square, calculate the points of intersection of that row with the 50km circle (using the usual schoolbook formula with square root), and then check all pixels that fall between these intersection points. Process all rows in the same fashion and you are done.
P.S. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page I linked does not present Bresenham algorithm at all. It has code for Michener circle algorithm instead. Michener algorithm will also work for circle rasterization purposes, but it is less precise than Bresenham algorithm. If you care for precision, find a true Bresenham on somewhere. It is actually surprisingly diffcult to find on the net: most search hits erroneously present Michener as Bresenham.
There is, you can modify the midpoint circle algorithm to give you an array of for each y, the x coordinate where the circle starts (and ends, that's the same thing because of symmetry). This array is easy to compute, pseudocode below.
Then you can just iterate over exactly the right part, without checking anything.
Pseudo code:
data = new int[radius];
int f = 1 - radius, ddF_x = 1;
int ddF_y = -2 * radius;
int x = 0, y = radius;
while (x < y)
{
if (f >= 0)
{
y--;
ddF_y += 2; f += ddF_y;
}
x++;
ddF_x += 2; f += ddF_x;
data[radius - y] = x; data[radius - x] = y;
}
Maybe you can try something that will speed up your algorithm.
In brute force algorithm you will probably use equation:
(x-p)^2 + (y-q)^2 < r^2
(p,q) - center of the circle, user position
r - radius (50km)
If you want to find all pixels (x,y) that satisfy above condition and check them, your algorithm goes to O(n^2)
Instead of scanning all pixels in this circle I will check only only pixels that are on border of the circle.
In that case, you can use some more clever way to define circle.
x = p+r*cos(a)
y = q*r*sin(a)
a - angle measured in radians [0-2pi]
Now you can sample some angles, for example twenty of them, iterate and find all pairs (x,y) that are border for radius 50km. Now check are they on the rain zone and alert user.
For more safety I recommend you to use multiple radians (smaller than 50km), because your whole rain cloud can be inside circle, and your app will not recognize him. For example use 3 incircles (r = 5km, 15km, 30km) and do same thing. Efficiency of this algorithm only depends on number of angles and number of incircles.
Pseudocode will be:
checkRainDanger()
p,q <- position
radius[] <- array of radii
for c = 1 to length(radius)
a=0
while(a<2*pi)
x = p + radius[c]*cos(a)
y = q + radius[c]*sin(a)
if rainZone(x,y)
return true
else
a+=pi/10
end_while
end_for
return false //no danger
r2=r*r
for x in range(-r, +r):
max_y=sqrt(r2-x*x)
for y in range(-max_y, +max_y):
# x,y is in range - check for rain
I've had this problem for a few years. It was on an informatics contest in my town a while back. I failed to solve it, and my teacher failed to solve it. I haven't met anyone who was able to solve it. Nobody I know knows the right way to give the answer, so I decided to post it here:
Ze problem
Given a rectangle, X by Y, find the minimum amount of circles N with a fixed given radius R, necessary to fully cover every part of the rectangle.
I have thought of ways to solve it, but I have nothing definite. If each circle defines an inner rectangle, then R^2 = Wi^2 + Hi^2, where Wi and Hi are the width and height of the practical area covered by each circle i. At first I thought I should make Wi equal to Wj for any i=j, the same for H. That way, I could simplify the problem by making the width/height ratios equal with the main rectangle (Wi/Hi = X/Y). That way, N=X/Wi. But that solution is surely wrong in case X greatly exceeds Y or vice versa.
The second idea was that Wi=Hi for any given i. That way, squares fill space most efficiently. However if a very narrow strip remains, it's much more optimal to use rectangles to fill it, or better yet - use rectangles for the last row before that too.
Then I realized that none of the ideas are the optimal, since I can always find better ways of doing it. It will always be close to final, but not final.
Edit
In some cases (large rectangle) joining hexagons seem to be a better solution than joining squares.
Further Edit
Here's a comparison of 2 methods: clover vs hexagonal. Hexagonal is, obviously, better, for large surfaces. I do think however that when the rectangle is small enough, rectangular method may be more efficient. It's a hunch. Now, in the picture you see 14 circles on the left, and 13 circles on the right. Though the surface differs much greater (double) than one circle. It's because on the left they overlap less, thus waste less surface.
The questions still remain:
Is the regular hexagon pattern itself optimal? Or certain adjustments should be made in parts of the main rectangle.
Are there reasons not to use regular shapes as "ultimate solution"?
Does this question even have an answer? :)
For X and Y large compared to R, a hexagonal (honeycomb) pattern is near optimal. The distance between the centers of the circles in the X-direction is sqrt(3)*R. The distance between rows in the Y-direction is 3*R/2, so you need roughly X*Y/R^2 * 2*/(3*sqrt(3)) circles.
If you use a square pattern, the horizontal distance is larger (2*R), but the vertical distance is much smaller (R), so you'd need about X*Y/R^2 * 1/2 circles. Since 2/(3*sqrt(3) < 1/2, the hexagonal pattern is the better deal.
Note that this is only an approximation. It is usually possible to jiggle the regular pattern a bit to make something fit where the standard pattern wouldn't. This is especially true if X and Y are small compared to R.
In terms of your specific questions:
The hexagonal pattern is an optimal covering of the entire plane. With X and Y finite, I would think it is often possible to get a better result. The trivial example is when the height is less than the radius. In that case you can move the circles in the one row further apart until the distance between the intersecting points of every pair of circles equals Y.
Having a regular pattern imposes additional restrictions on the solution, and so the optimal solution under those restrictions may not be optimal with those restrictions removed. In general, somewhat irregular patterns may be better (see the page linked to by mbeckish).
The examples on that same page are all specific solutions. The solutions with more circles resemble the hexagonal pattern somewhat. Still, there does not appear to be a closed-form solution.
This site attacks the problem from a slightly different angle: Given n unit circles, what is the largest square they can cover?
As you can see, as the number of circles changes, so does the covering pattern.
For your problem, I believe this implies: different rectangle dimensions and circle sizes will dictate different optimal covering patterns.
The hexagon is better than the diamond. Consider the percent area of the unit circle covered by each:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
include Math
def diamond
# The distance from the center to a corner is the radius.
# On a unit circle, that is 1.
radius = 1
# The edge of the nested diamond is the hypotenuse of a
# right triangle whose legs are both radii.
edge = sqrt(radius ** 2 + radius ** 2)
# The area of the diamond is the square of the edge
edge ** 2
end
def hexagon
# The hexagon is composed of 6 equilateral triangles.
# Since the inner edges go from the center to a hexagon
# corner, their length is the radius (1).
radius = 1
# The base and height of an equilateral triangle whose
# edge is 'radius'.
base = radius
height = sin(PI / 3) * radius
# The area of said triangle
triangle_area = 0.5 * base * height
# The area of the hexagon is 6 such triangles
triangle_area * 6
end
def circle
radius = 1
PI * radius ** 2
end
puts "diamond == #{sprintf "%2.2f", (100 * diamond / circle)}%"
puts "hexagon == #{sprintf "%2.2f", (100 * hexagon / circle)}%"
And
$ ./geometrons.rb
diamond == 63.66%
hexagon == 82.70%
Further, regular hexagons are highest-vertex polygon that form a regular tessellation of the plane.
According my calculations the right answer is:
D=2*R; X >= 2*D, Y >= 2*D,
N = ceil(X/D) + ceil(Y/D) + 2*ceil(X/D)*ceil(Y/D)
In particular case if the remainder for X/D and Y/D equal to 0, then
N = (X + Y + X*Y/R)/D
Case 1: R = 1, X = 2, Y = 2, then N = 4
Case 2: R = 1, X = 4, Y = 6, then N = 17
Case 3: R = 1, X = 5, Y = 7, then N = 31
Hope it helps.
When the circles are disposed as a clover with four leafs with a fifth circle in the middle, a circle will cover an area equal to R * 2 * R. In this arrangement, the question becomes: how many circles that cover an area of R * 2 * R will cover an area of W * H?, or N * R * 2 * R = W * H. So N = W * H / R * 2 * R.
I know there are lots of posts about collision detection generally for sprites moving about a 2D plane, but my question is slightly different.
I'm inserting circles into a 2D plane. The circles have variable radii. I'm trying to optimize my method of finding a random position within the plane where I can insert a new circle without it colliding with any other circles already on the plane. Right now I'm using a very "un-optimized" approach that simply generates a random point within the plane and then checks it against all the other circles on the plane.
Are there ways to optimize this? For this particular app, the bounds of the plane can only hold 20-25 circles at a time and typically there are between 5-10 present. As you would expect, when the number of circles approaches the max that can fit, you have to test many points before finding one that works. It gets very slow.
Note: safeDistance is the radius of the circle I want to add to the plane.
Here's the code:
- (CGPoint)getSafePosition:(float)safeDistance {
// Point must be far enough from edges
// Point must be far enough from other sprites
CGPoint thePoint;
BOOL pointIsSafe = NO;
int sd = ceil(safeDistance);
while(!pointIsSafe) {
self.pointsTested++; // DEBUG
// generate a random point inside the plane boundaries to test
thePoint = CGPointMake((arc4random() % ((int)self.manager.gameView.frame.size.width - sd*2)) + sd,
(arc4random() % ((int)self.manager.gameView.frame.size.height - sd*2)) + sd);
if(self.manager.gameView.sprites.count > 0) {
for(BasicSprite *theSprite in self.manager.gameView.sprites) {
// get distance between test point and the sprite position
float distance = [BasicSprite distanceBetweenPoints:thePoint b:theSprite.position];
// check if distance is less than the sum of the min safe distances of the two entities
if(distance < (safeDistance + [theSprite minSafeDistance])) {
// point not safe
pointIsSafe = NO;
break;
}
// if we get here, the point did not collide with the last tested point
pointIsSafe = YES;
}
}
else {
pointIsSafe = YES;
}
}
return thePoint;
}
Subdivide your window into w by h blocks. You'll be maintaining a w by h array, dist. dist[x][y] contains the size of the largest circle that can be centred at (x, y). (You can use pixels as blocks, although we'll be updating the entire array with each circle placed, so you may want to choose larger blocks for improved speed, at the cost of slightly reduced packing densities.)
Initialisation
Initially, set all dist[x][y] to min(x, y, w - x, h - y). This encodes the limits given by the bounding box that is the window.
Update procedure
Every time you add a circle to the window, say one positioned at (a, b) with radius r, you need to update all elements of dist.
The update required for each position (x, y) is:
dist[x][y] = min(dist[x][y], sqrt((x - a)^2 + (y - b)^2) - r);
(Obviously, ^2 here means squaring, not XOR.) Basically, we are saying: "Set dist[x][y] to the minimum distance to the circle just placed, unless the situation is already worse than that." dist values for points inside the circle just placed will be negative, but that doesn't matter.
Finding the next location
Then, when you want to insert the next circle of radius q, just scan through dist looking for a location with dist value >= q. (If you want to randomly choose such a location, find the complete list of valid locations and then randomly choose one.)
Honestly, with only 20-25 circles, you're not going to get much of a speed boost by using a fancier algorithm or data structure (e.g. a quadtree or a kd-tree). Everything is fast for small n.
Are you absolutely sure this is the bottleneck in your application? Have you profiled? If yes, then the way you're going to speed this up is through microoptimization, not through advanced algorithms. Are you making lots of iterations through the while loop because most of the plane is unsafe?
You could split your plane in lots of little rectangles (slightly quadtree-related) and save which rectangles are hit by at least one of the circles.
When you look for a insertion-point, you'll just have to look for some "empty" ones (which doesn't need any random jumps and is possible in constant time).
The number and constellation of rectangles can be computed by the radius.
Just an outline, since this solution is fairly involved.
If you want to guarantee you always find a place to put a circle if it's possible, you can do the following. Consider each existing circle C. We will try to find a location where we can place the new circle so that it is touching C. For each circle D (other than C) that is sufficiently close to C, there will be a range of angles where placing a new circle at one of those angles around C will make it intersect with D. Some geometry will give you that range. Similarly, for each of the four boundaries that are close enough to C, there will be a range of angles where placing a new circle at one of those angles will make it intersect with the boundary. If all these intervals cover all 360 degrees around C, then you cannot place a circle adjacent to C, and you will have to try the next circle, until there are no more candidates for C. If you find a place to put the new circle, you can move it some random distance away from C so that all your new circles do not have to be adjacent to an existing circle if that is not necessary.