Problem
Given an occupancy grid, for example:
...................*
*...............*...
*..*.............*..
...........*........
....................
..*.......X.........
............*.*.*...
....*..........*....
...*........*.......
..............*.....
Where, * represents an occupied block, . represents a free block and X represents a point (or block) of interest, what is the most time-efficient algorithm to find the largest rectangle which includes X, but does not include any obstacles, i.e. any *?
For example, the solution to the provided grid would be:
.....######........*
*....######.....*...
*..*.######......*..
.....######*........
.....######.........
..*..#####X.........
.....######.*.*.*...
....*######....*....
...*.######.*.......
.....######...*.....
My Thoughts
Given we have a known starting point X, I can't help but think there must be a straightforwards solution to "snap" lines to the outer boundaries to create the largest rectangle.
My current thinking is to snap lines to the maximum position offsets (i.e. go to the next row or column until you encounter an obstacle) in a cyclic manner. E.g. you propagate a horizontal line from the point X down until there is a obstacle along that line, then you propagate a vertical line left until you encounter an obstacle, then a horizontal line up and a vertical line right. You repeat this starting at with one of the four moving lines to get four rectangles, and then you select the rectangle with the largest area. However, I do not know if this is optimal, nor the quickest approach.
This problem is a well-known one in Computational Geometry. A simplified version of this problem (without a query point) is briefly described here. The problem with query point can be formulated in the following way:
Let P be a set of n points in a fixed axis-parallel rectangle B in the plane. A P-empty rectangle (or just an empty rectangle for short) is any axis-parallel rectangle that is contained in
B and its interior does not contain any point of P. We consider the problem of preprocessing
P into a data structure so that, given a query point q, we can efficiently find the largest-area
P-empty rectangle containing q.
The paragraph above has been copied from this paper, where authors describe an algorithm and data structure for the set with N points in the plane, which allow to find a maximal empty rectangle for any query point in O(log^4(N)) time. Sorry to say, it's a theoretic paper, which doesn't contain any algorithm implementation details.
A possible approach could be to somehow (implicitly) rule out irrelevant occupied cells: those that are in the "shadow" of others with respect to the starting point:
0 1 X
01234567890123456789 →
0....................
1....................
2...*................
3...........*........
4....................
5..*.......X.........
6............*.......
7....*...............
8....................
9....................
↓ Y
Looking at this picture, you could state that
there are only 3 relevant xmin values for the rectangle: [3,4,5], each having an associated ymin and ymax, respectively [(3,6),(0,6),(0,9)]
there are only 3 relevant xmax values for the rectangle: [10,11,19], each having an associated ymin and ymax, respectively [(0,9),(4,9),(4,5)]
So the problem can be reduced to finding the rectangle with the highest area out of the 3x3 set of unique combinations of xmin and xmax values
If you take into account the preparation part of selecting relevant occupied cells, this has the complexity of O(occ_count), not taking into sorting if this would still be needed and with occ_count being the number of occupied cells.
Finding the best solution (in this case 3x3 combinations) would be O(min(C,R,occ_count)²). The min(C,R) includes that you could choose the 'transpose' the approach in case R<C, (which is actually true in this example) and that that the number of relevant xmins and xmaxs have the number of occupied cells as an upper limit.
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.
I have a problem in which I have to test whether the union of given set of rectangles forms
a rectangle or not. I don't have much experience solving computational geometry problems.
What my approach to the problem was that since I know the coordinates of all the rectangles, I can easily sort the points and then deduce the corner points of the largest rectangle possible. Then I could sweep a line and see if all the points on the line falls inside the rectangle. But, this approach is flawed and this would fail because the union may be in the form of a 'U'.
I would be a great help if you could push me in the right direction.
Your own version does not take into account that the edges of the rectangles can be non-parallel to each other. Therefore, there might not be "largest rectangle possible".
I would try this general approach:
1) Find the convex hull. You can find convex hull calculation algorithms here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_hull_algorithms.
2) Check if the convex hull is a rectangle. You can do this by looping through all the points on convex hull and checking if they all form 180 or 90 degree angles. If they do not, union is not a rectangle.
3) Go through all points on the convex hull. For each point check if the middle point between ThisPoint and NextPoint lies on the edge of any initially given rectangle.
If every middle point does, union is a rectangle.
If it does not, union is not a rectangle.
Complexity would be O(n log h) for finding convex hull, O(h) for the second part and O(h*n) for third part, where h is number of points on the convex hull.
Edit:
If the goal is to check if the resulting object is a filled rectangle, not only edges and corners rectangle then add step (4).
4) Find all line segments that are formed by intersecting or touching rectangles. Note - by definition all of these line segments are segments of edges of given rectangles. If a rectangle does not touch/intersect other rectangles, the line segments are it's edges.
For each line segment check if it's middle point is
On the edge of the convex hull
Inside one of given rectangles
On the edge of two non-overlapping given rectangles.
If at least one of these is true for every line segment, resulting object is a filled rectangle.
You could deduce the he corner points of the largest rectangle possible, and then go over all the rectangle that share the border with the largest possible rectangle, for example the bottom, and make sure that the line is entirely contained in their borders. This will also fail if an empty space in the middle of the rectangle is a problem, however. I think the complexity will be O(n2).
I think you are on the right direction. After you get the coordinates of largest possible rectangle,
If the largest possible rectangle is a valid rectangle, then each side of it must be union of sides of original rectangles. You can scan the original rectangle set, find those rectangles that is a part of the largest side we are looking for (this can be done in O(n) by checking if X==largestRectangle.Top.X if you are looking at top side, etc.), lets call them S.
For each side s in S we can create an interval [from,to]. All we need to check is whether the union of all intervals matches the side of the largest Rectangle. This can be done in O(nlog(n)) by standard algorithms, or on average O(n) by some hash trick (see http://www.careercup.com/question?id=12523672 , see my last comment (of the last comment) there for the O(n) algorithm ).
For example, say we got two 1*1 rectangles in the first quadrant, there left bottom coordinates are (0,0) and (1,0). Largest rectangle is 2*1 with left bottom coordinate (0,0). Since [0,1] Union [1,2] is [0,2], top side and bottom side match the largest rectangle, similar for left and right side.
Now suppose we got an U shape. 3*1 at (0,0), 1*1 at (0,1), 1*1 at (2,1), we got largest rectangle 3*2 at (0,0). Since for the top side we got [0,1] Union [1,3] does not match [0,3], the algorithm will output the union of above rectangles is not a rectangle.
So you can do this in O(n) on average, or O(nlog(n)) at least if you don't want to mess with some complex hash bucket algorithm. Much better than O(n^4)!
Edit: We have a small problem if there exists empty space somewhere in the middle of all rectangles. Let me think about it....
Edit2: An easy way to detect empty space is for each corner of a rectangle which is not a point on the largest rectangle, we go outward a little bit for all four directions (diagonal) and check if we are still in any rectangle. This is O(n^2). (Which ruins my beautiful O(nlog(n))! Can anyone can come up a better idea?
I haven't looked at a similar problem in the past, so there maybe far more efficient ways of doing it. The key problem is that you cannot look at containment of one rectangle in another in isolation since they could be adjacent but still form a rectangle, or one rectangle could be contained within multiple.
You can't just look at the projection of each rectangle on to the edges of the bounding rectangle unless the problem allows you to leave holes in the middle of the rectangle, although that is probably a fast initial check that could be performed before the following exhaustive approach:
Running through the list once, calculating the minimum and maximum x and y coordinates and the area of each rectangle
Create an input list containing your input rectangles ordered by descending size.
Create a work list containing the bounding rectangle initially
While there are rectangles in the work list
Take the largest rectangle in the input list R
Create an empty list for fragments
for each rectangle r in the work list, intersect r with R, splitting r into a rectangular portion contained within R (if any) and zero or more rectangles not within R. If r was split, discard the portion contained within R and add the remaining rectangles to the fragment list.
add the contents of the fragment list to the work list
Assuming your rectangles are aligned to the coordinate axis:
Given two rectangles A, B, you can make a function that subtracts B from A returning a set of sub-rectangles of A (that may be the empty set): Set = subtract_rectangle(A, B)
Then, given a set of rectangles R for which you want to know if their union is a rectangle:
Calculate a maximum rectangle Big that covers all the rectangles as ((min_x,min_y)-(max_x,max_y))
make the set S contain the rectangle Big: S = (Big)
for every rectangle B in R:
S1 = ()
for evey rectangle A in S:
S1 = S1 + subtract_rectangle(A, B)
S = S1
if S is empty then the union of the rectangles is a rectangle.
End, S contains the parts of Big not covered by any rectangle from R
If the rectangles are not aligned to the coordinate axis you can use a similar algorithm but that employs triangles instead of rectangles. The only issues are that subtracting triangles is not so simple to implement and that handling numerical errors can be difficult.
A simple approach just came to mind: If two rectangles share an edge[1], then together they form a rectangle which contains both - either the rectangles are adjacent [][ ] or one contains the other [[] ].
So if the list of rectangles forms a larger rectangle, then all you need it to repeatedly iterate over the rectangles, and "unify" pairs of them into a single larger one. If in one iteration you can unify none, then it is not possible to create any larger rectangle than you already have, with those pieces; otherwise, you will keep "unifying" rectangles until a single is left.
[1] Share, as in they have the same edge; it is not enough for one of them to have an edge included in one of the other's edges.
efficiency
Since efficiency seems to be a problem, you could probably speed it up by creating two indexes of rectangles, one with the larger edge size and another with the smaller edge size.
Then compare the edges with the same size, and if they are the same unify the two rectangles, remove them from the indexes and add the new rectangle to the indexes.
You can probably speed it up by not moving to the next iteration when you unify something, but to proceed to the end of the indexes before reiterating. (Stopping when one iteration does no unifications, or there is only one rectangle left.)
Additionally, the edges of a rectangle resulting from unification are by analysis always equal or larger than the edges of the original rectangles.
So if the indexes are ordered by ascending edge size, the new rectangle will be inserted in either the same position as you are checking or in positions yet to be checked, so each unification will not require an extra iteration cycle. (As the new rectangle will assuredly not unify with any rectangle previously checked in this iteration, since its edges are larger than all edges checked.)
For this to hold, in each step of a particular iteration you need to attempt unification on the next smaller edge from either of the indexes:
If you're in index1=3 and index2=6, you check index1 and advance that index;
If next edge on that index is 5, next iteration step will be in index1=5 and index2=6, so it will check index1 and advance that index;
If next edge on that index is 7, next iteration step will be in index1=7 and index2=6, so it will check index2 and advance that index;
If next edge on that index is 10, next iteration step will be in index1=7 and index2=10, so it will check index1 and advance that index;
etc.
examples
[A ][B ]
[C ][D ]
A can be unified with B, C with D, and then AB with CD. One left, ABCD, thus possible.
[A ][B ]
[C ][D ]
A can be unified with B, C with D, but AB cannot be unified with CD. 2 left, AB and CD, thus not possible.
[A ][B ]
[C ][D [E]]
A can be unified with B, C with D, CD with E, CDE with AB. 1 left, ABCDE, thus possible.
[A ][B ]
[C ][D ][E]
A can be unified with B, C with D, CD with AB, but not E. 2 left, ABCD and E, thus not possible.
pitfall
If a rectangle is contained in another but does not share a border, this approach will not unify them.
A way to address this is, when one hits an iteration that does not unify anything and before concluding that it is not possible to unify the set of rectangles, to get the rectangle with the widest edge and discard from the indexes all others that are contained within this largest rectangle.
This still does not address two situations.
First, consider the situation where with this map:
A B C D
E F G H
we have rectangles ACGE and BDFH. These rectangles share no edge and are not contained, but form a larger rectangle.
Second, consider the situation where with this map:
A B C D
E F G H
I J K L
we have rectangles ABIJ, CDHG and EHLI. They do not share edges, are not contained within each-other, and no two of them can be unified into a single rectangle; but form a rectangle, in total.
With these pitfalls this method is not complete. But it can be used to greatly reduce the complexity of the problem and reduce the number of rectangles to analyse.
Maybe...
Gather up all the x-coordinates in a list, and sort them. From this list, create a sequence of adjacent intervals. Do the same thing for the y-coordinates. Now you've got two lists of intervals. For each pair of intervals (A=[x1,x2] from the x-list, B=[y1,y2] from the y-list), make their product rectangle A x B = (x1,y1)-(x2,y2)
If every single product rectangle is contained in at least one of your initial rectangles, then the union must be a rectangle.
Making this efficient (I think I've offered about an O(n4) algorithm) is a different question entirely.
As jva stated, "Your own version does not take into account that the edges of the rectangles can be non-parallel to each other." This answer also assumes "parallel" rectangles.
If you have a grid as opposed to needing infinite precision, depending on the number and sizes of the rectangles and the granularity of the grid, it might be feasible to brute-force it.
Just take your "largest rectangle possible" and test all its points to see whether each point is in at least one of the smaller rectangles.
I finally was able to find the impressive javascript project (thanks to github search :) !)
https://github.com/evanw/csg.js
Also have a look into my answer here with other interesting projects
General case, thinking in images:
| outer_rect - union(inner rectangles) |
Check that result is zero
I have an image of which this is a small cut-out:
As you can see it are white pixels on a black background. We can draw imaginary lines between these pixels (or better, points). With these lines we can enclose areas.
How can I find the largest convex black area in this image that doesn't contain a white pixel in it?
Here is a small hand-drawn example of what I mean by the largest convex black area:
P.S.: The image is not noise, it represents the primes below 10000000 ordered horizontally.
Trying to find maximum convex area is a difficult task to do. Wouldn't you just be fine with finding rectangles with maximum area? This problem is much easier and can be solved in O(n) - linear time in number of pixels. The algorithm follows.
Say you want to find largest rectangle of free (white) pixels (Sorry, I have images with different colors - white is equivalent to your black, grey is equivalent to your white).
You can do this very efficiently by two pass linear O(n) time algorithm (n being number of pixels):
1) in a first pass, go by columns, from bottom to top, and for each pixel, denote the number of consecutive pixels available up to this one:
repeat, until:
2) in a second pass, go by rows, read current_number. For each number k keep track of the sums of consecutive numbers that were >= k (i.e. potential rectangles of height k). Close the sums (potential rectangles) for k > current_number and look if the sum (~ rectangle area) is greater than the current maximum - if yes, update the maximum. At the end of each line, close all opened potential rectangles (for all k).
This way you will obtain all maximum rectangles. It is not the same as maximum convex area of course, but probably would give you some hints (some heuristics) on where to look for maximum convex areas.
I'll sketch a correct, poly-time algorithm. Undoubtedly there are data-structural improvements to be made, but I believe that a better understanding of this problem in particular will be required to search very large datasets (or, perhaps, an ad-hoc upper bound on the dimensions of the box containing the polygon).
The main loop consists of guessing the lowest point p in the largest convex polygon (breaking ties in favor of the leftmost point) and then computing the largest convex polygon that can be with p and points q such that (q.y > p.y) || (q.y == p.y && q.x > p.x).
The dynamic program relies on the same geometric facts as Graham's scan. Assume without loss of generality that p = (0, 0) and sort the points q in order of the counterclockwise angle they make with the x-axis (compare two points by considering the sign of their dot product). Let the points in sorted order be q1, …, qn. Let q0 = p. For each 0 ≤ i < j ≤ n, we're going to compute the largest convex polygon on points q0, a subset of q1, …, qi - 1, qi, and qj.
The base cases where i = 0 are easy, since the only “polygon” is the zero-area segment q0qj. Inductively, to compute the (i, j) entry, we're going to try, for all 0 ≤ k ≤ i, extending the (k, i) polygon with (i, j). When can we do this? In the first place, the triangle q0qiqj must not contain other points. The other condition is that the angle qkqiqj had better not be a right turn (once again, check the sign of the appropriate dot product).
At the end, return the largest polygon found. Why does this work? It's not hard to prove that convex polygons have the optimal substructure required by the dynamic program and that the program considers exactly those polygons satisfying Graham's characterization of convexity.
You could try treating the pixels as vertices and performing Delaunay triangulation of the pointset. Then you would need to find the largest set of connected triangles that does not create a concave shape and does not have any internal vertices.
If I understand your problem correctly, it's an instance of Connected Component Labeling. You can start for example at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected-component_labeling
I thought of an approach to solve this problem:
Out of the set of all points generate all possible 3-point-subsets. This is a set of all the triangles in your space. From this set remove all triangles that contain another point and you obtain the set of all empty triangles.
For each of the empty triangles you would then grow it to its maximum size. That is, for every point outside the rectangle you would insert it between the two closest points of the polygon and check if there are points within this new triangle. If not, you will remember that point and the area it adds. For every new point you want to add that one that maximizes the added area. When no more point can be added the maximum convex polygon has been constructed. Record the area for each polygon and remember the one with the largest area.
Crucial to the performance of this algorithm is your ability to determine a) whether a point lies within a triangle and b) whether the polygon remains convex after adding a certain point.
I think you can reduce b) to be a problem of a) and then you only need to find the most efficient method to determine whether a point is within a triangle. The reduction of the search space can be achieved as follows: Take a triangle and increase all edges to infinite length in both directions. This separates the area outside the triangle into 6 subregions. Good for us is that only 3 of those subregions can contain points that would adhere to the convexity constraint. Thus for each point that you test you need to determine if its in a convex-expanding subregion, which again is the question of whether it's in a certain triangle.
The whole polygon as it evolves and approaches the shape of a circle will have smaller and smaller regions that still allow convex expansion. A point once in a concave region will not become part of the convex-expanding region again so you can quickly reduce the number of points you'll have to consider for expansion. Additionally while testing points for expansion you can further cut down the list of possible points. If a point is tested false, then it is in the concave subregion of another point and thus all other points in the concave subregion of the tested points need not be considered as they're also in the concave subregion of the inner point. You should be able to cut down to a list of possible points very quickly.
Still you need to do this for every empty triangle of course.
Unfortunately I can't guarantee that by adding always the maximum new region your polygon becomes the maximum polygon possible.