Related
I'm trying to design a data-structure to hold/express a piecewise circular trajectory in the Euclidian plane. The trajectory is constrained to be continuous and have finite curvature everywhere, and therefore the circular arcs meet tangentially.
Storing all the circle centers, radii, and touching points would allow for inspecting the geometry anywhere in O(1) but would require explicit enforcement of the continuity and curvature constraints due to data redundancy. In my view, this would make the code messy.
Storing only the circle touching points (which are waypoints along the curve) along with the curve's initial direction would be sufficient in principle, and avoid data redundancy, but then it would be necessary to do an O(n) calculation to inspect the geometry of arc n, since that arc depends on all the arcs preceding it in the trajectory.
I would like to avoid data redundancy, but I also don't want to make the cost of geometric inspection prohibitive.
Does anyone have any high-level idea/advice to share?
For the most efficient traversal of the trajectory, if I am right you need
the ending curvilinear abscissas of every arc (cumulative),
the radii,
the starting angles,
the coordinates of the centers,
so that for a given s you find the index of the arc, then the azimuth and the coordinates of the point. (Either incrementally for a sequence of points, or by dichotomy for a single point.) That takes five parameters per arc.
Only the cumulative abscissas are global, but you can't do without them for single-point accesses. You can drop the radii and starting angles and retrieve them for any arc from the difference of curvilinear abscissas and the limit angles (see below). This reduces to three parameters.
On the other hand, knowing just the coordinates of the centers and those of the starting and ending points is enough to recover the whole geometry, and this takes two parameters per arc.
The meeting point of two arcs is found on the line through the centers, and if you know one radius, the other follows. And the limit angle is given by the direction of the line. So for an incremental traversal, this non-redundant description can do.
For convenient computation, knowing s and the arc index, consider the vectors from the center to the centers of the adjoining arcs. Rotate them so that the first becomes horizontal. The components of the other will give you the amplitude angle. The fraction (s - Si-1) / (Si - Si-1) of the amplitude gives you the azimuth of the point, to which you apply the counter-rotation.
I'd store items with the data required to get info for any point of that element. For example, an arc needs x, y, initial direction, radius, lenght (or end point, or angle difference or whatever you find easiest).
Because you need continuity (same x,y, same bearing, perhaps same curvature) between two ending points then a node with this properties is needed. Notice these properties are common to arcs and straights (a special arc identified by radius = 0). So you can treat a node the same as an item.
The trajectory should be calculated before any request. So you have all items-data in advance.
The container depends on how you request info.
If the trajectory can be somehow represented in a grid, then you better use a quad-tree.
I guess you must find the item from a x,y or accumulated length input. You will have to iterate through the container to find the element closest to the input data. Sorted data may help.
My choice is a simple vector with the consecutive elements, which happens to be sorted on accumulated trajectory length.
Finding by x,y on a x-sorted container (or a tree) is not so simple, due to some x,y may have perpendiculars to several items, consecutive or not, near or not, and you need to select the nearest one.
Normal marching cubes finds 12 edges per cube, but you can do 3 edges per cube, save the edges inside an array, and then go through the cubes again, referencing the edges from the cubes adjacent rather than calculating them.
The process to reference adjacent cubes isn't clearly discussed on the Internet so anyone using marching cubes would be welcome to help find the details of the solution. do you know an implementation already?
here is a picture showing the 3 edges in yellow that you need for each cube, instead of 12.
EDIT- I just found this solution, although it's just a part of it:
Imagine 3 edges coming from the corner of the cube with lowerest coordinates. Then all other edges just belong to other cubes. If our cube has coordinates (x,y,z), the neiboring cubes have coordinates (x+1,y,z), (x,y+1,z), (x,y,z+1), (x+1,y+1,z), (x+1,y,z+1), (x,y+1,z+1). You can imagine the edge as a vector. Then the corner of the cube have edges (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1). The cube with coordinates (x+1,y,z) have edges (0,1,0) and (0,0,1) that belong to our cube. The cube (x+1,y+1,z) has only one edge (0,0,1) that belongs to our cube. So if you store 4 elements for the cube you can access them like that:
edge1 = cube[x][y][z][0];
edge2 = cube[x][y][z][1];
edge3 = cube[x][y][z][2];
edge4 = cube[x+1][y][z][1];
edge5 = cube[x+1][y][z][2];
edge6 = cube[x][y+1][z][0];
edge7 = cube[x][y+1][z][2];
edge8 = cube[x][y][z+1][0];
edge9 = cube[x][y][z+1][1];
edge10 = cube[x+1][y+1][z][2];
edge11 = cube[x+1][y][z+1][1];
edge12 = cube[x][y+1][z+1][0];
Now which points edge7 connect? The answer is (x,y+1,z) and (x,y+1,z)+(0,0,1)=(x,y+1,z+1).
Now which cubes edge7 connect? It is more harder. We see that coordinate z is changes along the edge this means that neibour cube has the same z coordinate. Now all others coordinates change. Where we have +1, the cube has large coordinate. Where we have +0, the cube has smaller coordinates. So the edge connects cubes (x,y,z) and (x-1,y+1,z). Other 2 cubes that has the same edge are (x,y+1,z) and (x-1,y,z).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=
EDIT2-
So I am doing this, and it isn't so simple. I have a loop which simultaneously calculate 8 points, 12 edges, the interpolation of edges, the bit values and a vertex the values for the edges, all in one loop.
so I am doing a new loop previous to it to calculate as much as possible and place it in arrays to used in the complicated loop.
I can recycle the interpolated values of the intersection points along edges, in an array, although I will have to recalculate all the points again in the complicated loop, because the values of the points I used to decide bit numbers that reference values in the vertex table. That confuses me! I thought that once I have the edge intersection values, I could use those directly to get the triangle tables, without having to calculate the points all over again!
in fact no.
anyway, here is another bit of information with someone that already did it, if only it was readable!
http://www.new-npac.org/projects/sv2all/sv2/vtk/patented/vtkImageMarchingCubes.cxx
scroll to this line: Cubes are responsible for edges on their min faces.
A simple way to reduce edge calculations in the way you are suggesting is to compute cubes one axis aligned plane at a time.
If you kept all of the cubes, with their edges, in memory, it would be easy to compute each edge only once and to find adjacent edges by indexing. However, you usually don't want to keep all the cubes in memory at once because of the space requirements.
A solution to this is to compute one plane of cubes at a time. i.e. an axis aligned cross-section, starting from one side and progressing to the opposite side. You then only need to keep at most two full planes of cubes in memory at a time. As you move through each plane you can reference shared edges in the previous plane and previously computed cubes in the current plane. As you move to the next plane you can deallocate the plane you will no longer need.
Edit: This article discusses doing just what I suggest:
http://alphanew.net/index.php?section=articles&site=marchoptim&lang=eng
Funny, because when I implemented my own MCs I came up with similar solution.
When you start working with MCs you treat them as a distinct cubes but if you want to go for high performance you'll need to create entire mesh as a whole, and creating vertex indices etc. is not so easy here. It gets even more interesting when you want to add smooth per-vertex normals :).
To solve this I created a simple index cache mechanism to store vertex indices for each edge.
Then, for each computed edge I have cube position x,y,z and edge index and I do as follows:
For each axis:
if the edge is on '+' side of axis:
replace edge index with its '-' side sibling
increment cube position along axis
This simple operation gives me the correct cube position, and edge index of 0,1,2. Then I compute a total cache index from x,y,z,edgeIndex values with simple bit rotations.
When I have cache index I check if it's bigger than -1. If it is then there was an already computed vertex at this edge and I can reuse it. If it's -1 I need to create a new vertex and store its index in the cache. This way you'll compute each vertex only once, and you can even add a normal value shared between every triangle containing your vertex.
Yes, I think I do it similar to kolenda. I have a struct with 5 ints: (cube)index and 4 vertexindices (A, B, C, D).
for the most inner loop (x), I have just lastXCache and nextXCache. On the 4 edges pointing in the -x direction, i ask if lastXCache.A != -1 and if so, assign the previously calculated value, etc.
In the +x direction I store calculated vertices in nextXCache. when cube is done: lastXCache = nextXCache;
For y and z direction it needs to be a list (unity term for mutable array), next y is next row (so sizex) and next z is the next plane (so sizex * sizey)
only diadvantage is that this way it has to run cube after cube, so serially. But you can calculate different chunks in parallel.
Another way I thought of that could be more parallel would need 2 passes: 1. calculate 3 edges every cube, when 1 is done -> 2. draw the triangles.
Don't really know what is better, but the way it actually works seems to be fast enough. even better with unity jobs. Create one IJob for 1 chunk/mesh.
Consider a rectangular shaped canvas, containing rectangles of random sizes and positions. To navigate between these rectangles, a user can use four arrows: up, down, left, right.
Are you familiar with any algorithm of navigation that would produce a fairly straightforward user experience?
I came across a few solutions but none of them seemed suitable. I am aware that no solution will be "ideal". However, the kind of algorithm I am looking for is the sort used to navigate between icons on a desktop using only the arrow keys.
[EDIT 21/5/2013: As pointed out by Gene in a comment, my weighting scheme actually does not guarantee that every rectangle will be reachable from every other rectangle -- only that every rectangle will be connected to some other rectangle in each direction.]
A nice way to do this is using maximum weighted bipartite matching.
What we want to do is build a table defining a function f(r, d) that returns the rectangle that the user will be moved to if they are currently at rectangle r and hit direction d (up, down, left or right). We would like this function to have some nice properties, such as:
It must be possible to reach every rectangle from every other rectangle
Pressing left then right or vice versa, or up then down or vice versa, should leave the user in the same place
Pressing e.g. left should take the user to a rectangle to the left (this is a bit more difficult to state precisely, but we can use a scoring system to measure the quality)
For each rectangle, create 4 vertices in a graph: one for each possible key that could be pressed while at that rectangle. For a particular rectangle r, call them rU, rD, rL and rR. For every pair of rectangles r and s, create 4 edges:
(rU, sD)
(rD, sU)
(rL, sR)
(rR, sL)
This graph has 2 connected components: one contains all U and D vertices, and the other contains all L and R vertices. Each component is bipartite, because e.g. no U vertex is ever connected to another U vertex. We could in fact run maximum weighted bipartite matching on each component separately, although it's easier just to talk about running it once on the entire graph after grouping, say, U vertices with L vertices and D vertices with R vertices.
Assign each of these edges a nonnegative weight according to how much sense it makes for that pair of rectangles to be connected by that pair of keys. You are free to choose the form for this scoring function, but it should probably be:
inversely proportional to the distances between the rectangles (you could use the distance between their centres), and
inversely proportional to how far the angle between the centres of the rectangles differs from the desired horizontal or vertical line, and
zero whenever the rectangles are oriented the wrong way (e.g. if for the edge (rU, sD) if the centre of r is actually above the centre of s). Alternatively, you can just delete these zero-weight edges.
This function attempts to satisfy requirement 3 at the top.
[EDIT #2 24/5/2013: Added an example function below.]
Here is C-ish pseudocode for an example function satisfying these properties. It takes the centre points of 2 rectangles and the direction from rectangle 1 (the direction from rectangle 2 is always the opposite of this direction):
const double MAXDISTSQUARED = /* The maximum possible squared distance */;
const double Z = /* A +ve number. Z > 1 => distance more important than angle */
// Return a weight in the range [0, 1], with higher indicating a better fit.
double getWeight(enum direction d, int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2) {
if (d == LEFT && x1 < x2 ||
d == RIGHT && x1 > x2 ||
d == UP && y1 < y2 ||
d == DOWN && y1 > y2) return 0;
// Don't need to take sqrt(); in fact it's probably better not to
double distSquared = (x1 - x2) * (x1 - x2) + (y1 - y2) * (y1 - y2);
double angle = abs(atan2(x1 - x2, y1 - y2)); // 0 => horiz; PI/2 => vert
if (d == UP || d == DOWN) angle = PI / 2 - angle;
return 1 - pow(distSquared / MAXDISTSQUARED, Z) * (2 * angle / PI);
}
Now run maximum weighted bipartite matching. This will attempt to find the set of edges having highest total weight such that every vertex (or at least as many as possible) are adjacent to a selected edge, but no vertex is adjacent to more than one edge. (If we allowed a vertex to be adjacent to more than one edge, it would mean that pressing that key while at that rectangle would take you to more than one destination rectangle, which doesn't make sense.) Each edge in this matching corresponds to a bidirectional pair of keypresses, so that pressing e.g. up and then down will take to back to where you were, automatically satisfying requirement 2 at the top.
The only requirement not automatically satisfied by this approach so far is the important one, number 1: it does not necessarily guarantee that every rectangle will be reachable. If we just use the "raw" quality scores as edge weights, then this can actually occur for certain configurations, e.g. when there is one rectangle in each of the 4 corners of the screen, plus one at the centre, the centre one might be unreachable.
[EDIT 21/5/2013: As Gene says, my claim below that property 1 is satisfied by the new weighting scheme I propose is wrong. In many cases every rectangle will be reachable, but in general, you need to solve the NP-hard Hamiltonian Cycle problem to guarantee this. I'll leave the explanation in as it gets us some of the way there. In any case it can be hacked around by adjusting weights between connected components upward whenever subcycles are detected.]
In order to guarantee that the matching algorithm always returns a matching in which every rectangle is reachable, we need to adjust the edge weights so that it is never possible for a matching to score higher than a matching with more edges. This can be achieved by scaling the scoring function to between 0 and 1, and adding the number of rectangles, n, to each edge's weight. This works because a full matching then has score at least 4n^2 (i.e. even if the quality score is 0, the edge itself has a weight of n and there are 4n of them), while any matching with fewer edges has score at most 4(n-1)(n+1) = 4n^2 - 4, which is strictly less.
It's a truism that to a person with a hammer everything looks like a nail. Shortest path algorithms are an obvious tool here because shortest distance seems intuitive.
However we are designing a UI where logical distance is much more important than physical distance.
So let's try thinking differently.
One constraint is that repeatedly hitting the up (right, down or left) arrow ought to eventually cycle through all the rectangles. Otherwise some unreachable "orphans" are likely. Achieving this with an algorithm based on physical (2d) distance is difficult because the closest item in 2d might be in the wrong direction in the 1d projection corresponding to the arrow pair being used. I.e. hitting the up arrow could easily select a box below the current. Ouch.
So let's adopt an extremely simple solution. Just sort all the rectangles on the x-coordinate of their centroids. Hitting the right and left arrow cycles through rectangles in this order: right to the next highest x and left to the next lowest x. Wrap at the screen edges.
Also do the same with y-coordinates. Using up and down cycles in this order.
The key (pun intended) to success is adding dynamic information to the screen while cycling to show the user the logic of what is occurring. Here is a proposal. Others are possible.
At first vertical (up or down) key, a pale translucent overlay appears over the rectangles. They are shaded pale red or blue in a pattern that alternates by y coordinate of centroid. There are also horizontal hash marks of matching color across the entire window. The only reason for two colors is to provide a visual indicator of correspondence between lines and rectangles. The currently selected rectangle is non-translucent and the hash mark is brighter than all the others. When you continue to hit the up or down key, the highlighted box changes in the centroid y-order as described above. The overlay disappears when no arrow key has been struck for a half second or so.
A very similar overlay appears if a horizontal key is hit, only it's vertical hash marks and x-order.
As a user I'd really like this scheme. But YMMV.
The algorithm and data structures needed to implement this are obvious, trivial, and scale very well. The effort will go into making the overlays look good.
NB Now that I have done all the drawings I realize it would be a good idea to place a correctly colored dot at the centroid of each box to show which of the lines is intersecting it. Some illustrative diagrams follow.
Bare Boxes
Selection with up or down arrow in progress
Selection with left or right arrow in progress
What about building a movement graph as follows:
for any direction, try to go to the nearest rectangle, in the given direction, whose center point is the middle of the current rectangle's side.
try to eliminate loops, e.g. moving 'right' from A should try to yield a different rectangle than moving 'up-right' from A. For example in this drawing, the 'right' from green should be orange, even though pink would be the nearest mid-point
(Thanks to biziclop): if any rectangles aren't reachable in the graph, then re-map one of the adjoining rectangles to get to it, likely the one with the least error. Repeat until all rectangles are reachable (I think that algorithm would terminate...)
Then store the graph and only use that to navigate. You don't want to change the directions in the middle of the session.
This problem can be modeled as a graph problem and algorithm of navigation can be used as a shortest path routing.
Here is the modelling.
Each rectangle is a vertex in the graph. From each vertex (aka rectangle) you have four options - up, down, left, right. So, you can reach four different rectangles, i.e this vertex will have four neighbors and you add these edges to graph.
I am not sure if this is part of the problem -- "multiple rectangles can be reached from a rectangle using a particular action (e.g. up)". If not, the above modelling is good enough. If yes, then add all such vertices as the neighbor for this vertex. Therefore, you may not end up with a 4-regular graph. Otherwise, you will model your problem into a 4-regular graph.
Now, the question is how do you define your "navigation" algorithm. If you do not want to distinguish between your actions, i.e. if up, down, left, and right are all equal, then you can add weight of 1 to all edges.
If you decide to give a particular action more precedence than other, say up is better than the rest, then you can give weight for edges resulted from up movement as 1, and the remaining edges as 2. The idea is by assigning different weights you can distinguish between the edges you will travel.
If you decide that all up edges are not equal, i.e. the up distance between A and B, is shorter than the up distance between C and D, then you can accordingly assign weights to the edges during the graph construction process.
Here is the routing
Now how to find the route -- You can use dijkstra's algorithm to find a shortest path between a given pair of vertices. If you are interested in multiple shortest paths, you can use k-shortest path algorithm to find k shortest paths between a pair of node, and then pick your best path.
Note that the graph you end up with does not have to be a directed graph. If you prefer a directed graph, you can assign directions to the edges when you are constructing them. Otherwise you should be good using an undirected graph, as all you care is to use an edge to reach a vertex from another. Moreover, if rectangle A can be reached using up from rectangle B, then rectangle B can be reached using down from rectangle A. Thus, directions really do not matter, if you do not need them for other reasons. If you do not like the assumption I just made, then you need to construct a directed graph.
Hope this helps.
Given the coordinates of N rectangles (N<=100.000) in the grid L*C (L and C can range from 0 to 1.000.000.000) I want to know what is the maximum number of rectangle overlapping at any point in the grid.
So I figured I would use a sweeping algorithm, for each event (opening or ending of a rectangle) sorted by x value, I add or remove an interval to my structure.
I have to use a tree to maintain the maximum overlapping of the intervals, and be able to add and remove an interval.
I know how to do that when the values of the intervals (start and end) are ranging from 0 to 100.000, but it is impossible here since the dimensions of the plane are from 0 to 1.000.000.000. How can I implement such a tree?
If you know the coordinates of all the rectangles up-front, you can use "coordinate compression".
Since you only have 10^5 rectangles, that means you have at most 2*10^5 different x and y coordinates. You can therefore create a mapping from those coordinates to natural numbers from 1 to 2*10^5 (by simply sorting the coordinates). Then you can just use the normal tree that you already know for the new coordinates.
This would be enough to get the number of rectangles, but if you also need the point where they overlap, you should also maintain a reverse mapping so you can get back to the real coordinates of the rectangles. In the general case, the answer will be a rectangle, not just a single point.
Use an interval tree. Your case is a bit more complicated because you really need a weighted interval tree, where the weight is the number of open rectangles for that interval.
Given a 3d heightmap (from a laser scanner), how do I find the saddle points?
I.e. given something like this:
I am looking for all points where the curvature is positive in one direction and negative in the other.
(These directions should not need to be aligned with the X and Y axis.
I know how to check whether the curvature in X direction has the opposite sign as the curvature in Y direction, but that does not cover all cases. To make matters worse, the resolution in X is different from the resolution in Y)
Ideally I am looking for an algorithm that can tolerate some amount of noise and only mark "significant" saddle points.
I've been exploring a similar problem for a computational topology class and have had some success with the method outlined below.
First you will need a comparison function that will evaluate the height at two input points and will return < or > (not equal) for any input. One way to do this is that if the points are equal height you use some position-based or random index to find the greater point. You can think of this as adding an infinitesimal perturbation to the height.
Now, for each point, you will compare the height at all the surrounding neighbors (there will be 8 neighbors on a 2D rectangular grid). The lower link for a point will be the set of all neighbors for which the height is less than the point.
If all the neighboring values are in the lower link, you are at a local maximum. If none of the points are in the lower link you are at a local minimum. Otherwise, if the lower link is a single connected set, you are at a regular point on a slope. But if the lower link is two unconnected sets, you are at a saddle.
In 2D you can construct a list of the 8 neighboring point in cyclic order around the point you are checking. You assign a value of +/-1 for each neighbor depending on your comparison function. You can then step through that list (remember to compare the two end points) and count how many times the sign changes to determine the number of connected components in the lower link.
Determining which saddles are "important" is a more difficult analysis. You may wish to look at this: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~misha/ReadingSeminar/Papers/Gyulassy08.pdf for some guidance.
-Michael
(From a guess at the maths rather than practical experience)
Fit a quadratic to the surface in a small patch around each candidate point, e.g. with least squares. How big the patch is is one way of controlling noise, and you might gain by weighting points depending on their distance from the candidate point. In matrix notation, you can represent the quadratic as x'Ax + b'x + c, where A is symmetric.
The quadratic will have zero gradient at x = (A^-1)b/2. If this not within the patch, discard it.
If A has both +ve and -ve eigenvalues you have a saddle point at x. Since A is only 2x2 and so has at most two eigenvalues, you can ignore the case when it as a zero eigenvalue and so you couldn't invert it at the previous stage.