I have a floorplan with lots of d3.js polygon objects on it that represent booths. I am wondering what the best approach is to finding a path between the 2 objects that don't overlap other objects. The use case here is that we have booths and want to show the user how to walk to get from point a to b the most efficient. We can assume path must contain only 90 or 45 degree turns.
we took a shot at using Dijkstra but the scale of it seems to be getting away from us.
The example snapshot of our system:
Our constraints are that this needs to run in the browser. Would be nice if it worked well with d3.js.
Since the layout is a matrix (or nested matrices) this is not a Dijkstra problem, it is simpler than that. The technical name for the problem is a "Manhatten routing". Rather than give a code algorithm, I will show you an example of the optimum route (the blue line) in the following diagram. From this it should be obvious what the algorithm is:
Note that there is a subtle nuance here, and that is that you always want to maximize the number of jogs because even though the overall shape is a matrix, at each corner the person will actually walk diagonally (think of a person cutting diagonally across a four-way intersection). Therefore, simply going north, then west is wrong, because you would only get to cut one corner, but on the route shown you get to cut 5 corners.
This problem is known as finding shortest path between two points with polygonal obstacle, and studied a lot in literature. See here for one example. All algorithms for this is by converting problem to the graph theory problem then running Dijkstra. To doing this:
Each vertex in any polygon is vertex in your graph.
Start point and end points are also vertices in the graph.
Between two vertex there is an edge, if they are visible to each other, to achieve this we can use triangulation algorithms.
Weight of each edge is the distance between its two endpoints in Euclidean space.
Now we are ready to run any shortest path algorithm. The hard part is triangulation, I think triangle library fits for your requirements. Also easier way is searching the web by the keywords that I said in the first line to find implementation. I didn't link to any implementation because I see is better to say it in algorithmic manner to be useful to the future readers.
Related
I'm working on my bachelor thesis (on Computer Science) and right now I'm having a problem about finding shortest path between two points on 3D triangular mesh that is manifold. I already read about MMP, but which computes distance function $d(x)$ between given point and vertex $x$ on mesh.
I got to know that the problem I'm solving is named Geodesics but What I really couldn't find is some good algorithm which uses A* for finding shortest path between two given points on two given vertices.
I 'invented' also algorithm which uses A* by using Euclidian Distance Heuristics and correction after finding new Point on any Edge..
I also have edges saved in half-edge structure.
So my main idea is this:
We will find closest edge by A* algorithm and find on this edge point with minimalizing function $f(x) + g(x)$ where $f$ is our current distance and $g$ is heuristics(euclidean distance)
Everytime we find new edge, we will unfold current mesh and find closest path to our starting point
So now my questions:
Do you know some research paper which talks about this problem ??
Why nobody wrote about algorithm that uses A* ??
What are your opinions about algorithm I proposed ?
Here are some papers and tools related to finding geodesics (or approximations) on a surface mesh:
A Survey of Algorithms for Geodesic Paths and Distances
You Can Find Geodesic Paths in Triangle Meshes by Just Flipping Edges (code)
The Vector Heat Method
(code)
You can find more papers in the survey paper.
I implemented the algorithm you mentionned (MMP) a long time ago and it's quite difficult to get it right and quite time consuming since the number of splits along an edge grows quite fast.
I am no expert in the matter so read with prejudice. Also sorry this is more of a comment than answer...
First You should clarify some things:
the mesh is convex or concave?
are the path always on surface or can fly between faces on the outside (if concave) but never inside?
are the start/end points on edges of faces or can be inside?
Assuming concave, points on edges and only surface paths...
I think the graph A* approach is unusable as there is infinite possible paths between point and any edge of the same face so how you test all of them?
If you really want A* then you can do something similar to raster A*
so resample all your edges to more points
so either n points or use some density like 10 points per average edge length or some detail size.
use graph A* on resampled points (do not handle them as edges anymore)
However this will produce only close to shortest path so in order to improve the accuracy you should recursively resample the edges near used point with higher and higher density until the distance between resampled points get smaller than accuracy.
Another option would be using something similar to CCD (cyclic coordinate descent) so:
create plane that goes through your 2 points and center of your mesh
create path that goes through all intersection of plane and faces between the 2 points (use the shorter on from the 2 options)
iterativelly move intersections back and forward and use greedy approach to get the result
However this might get stuck in local minima... You could use search/fitting approaches instead but those will get very slow with increasing number of faces
I got the feeling you might also do this using RANSAC ...
From my point of view I think the first A* approach is the most promising, you just need linked list of points per each edge and one cost counter per each its point from this you can simply encode even the recursive improvement of accuracy. It can be done even in-place so no reallocation needed in the recursion ... And also the algo is not complicated so you should have no problems implementing it, and the result is guaranteed which is not the case with other approaches I mention... Another pros is that it can be used even if start/endpoint does not belong to edge...
I'm trying to link points in the plane, ie draw a graph, but using only axis-aligned lines. I found the KDTree algorithm
to be quite promising and close to what I need
but it does not make sure the segments are as small as possible.
The result I'm looking for is closer to
I have also read up on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaunay_triangulation
because initially, I thought that would be it;
but it turns out its way off:
- based on circles and triangles
- traces a perimeter
- nodes have multiple connections (>=3)
Can you point me towards an algorithm that already exists?
or can you help me with drafting a new algorithm?
PS: Only 1000-1100 points so efficiency is not super important.
In terms of Goals and Costs, reaching all nodes is the Goal
and the length of all segments is the Cost.
Thanks to MBo, I now know that this is known as 'The Steiner Tree Problem'. This is the subject of a 1992 book (of the same name) demonstrating that it is an NP-hard problem.
This is the Rectilinear variant of that. There are a few approximate algorithms or heuristic algorithms known to (help) solve it.
( HAN, HAN4, LBH, HWAB, HWAD, BEA are listed inside
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0166218X9390010L )
I haven't found anything yet that a "practitioner" might be able to actually use. Still looking.
It seems like a 'good' way forward is:
Compute edges using Delaunay triangulation.
Label each edge with its length or rectilinear distance.
Find the minimum spanning tree (with algorithms such as Borůvka's, Prim's, or Kruskal's).
Add Steiner points restricted to the Hanan grid.
Move edges to the grid.
Still unclear about that last step. How?
I have a game system that can be represented as an undirected, unweighted graph where each vertex has one (relevant) property: a color. The goal of the game in terms of the graph representation is to reduce it down to one vertex in the fewest "steps" possible. In each step, the player can change the color of any one vertex, and all adjacent vertices of the same color are merged with it. (Note that in the example below I just happened to show the user only changing one specific vertex the whole game, but the user can pick any vertex in each step.)
What I am after is a way to compute the fewest amount of steps necessary to "beat" a given graph per the procedure described above, and also provide the specific moves needed to do so. I'm familiar with the basics of path-finding, BFS, and things of that nature, but I'm having a hard time framing this problem in terms of a "fastest path" solution.
I am unable to find this same problem anywhere on Google, or even a graph-theory term that encapsulates the problem. Does anyone have an idea of at least how to get started approaching this problem? Can anyone point me in the right direction?
EDIT Since this problem seems to be really difficult to solve efficiently, perhaps I could change the aim of my question. Could someone describe how I would even set up a brute force, breadth first search for this? (Brute force could possibly be okay, since in practice these graphs will only be 20 vertices at most.) I know how to write a BFS for a normal linked graph data structure... but in this case it seems quite weird since each vertex would have to contain a whole graph within itself, and the next vertices in the search graph would have to be generated based on possible moves to make in the graph within the vertex. How would one setup the data structure and search algorithm to accomplish this?
EDIT 2 This is an old question, but I figured it might help to just state outright what the game was. The game was essentially to be a rip-off of Kami 2 for iOS, except my custom puzzle editor would automatically figure out the quickest possible way to solve your puzzle, instead of having to find the shortest move number by trial and error yourself. I'm not sure if Kami was a completely original game concept, or if there is a whole class of games like it with the same "flood-fill" mechanic that I'm unaware of. If this is a common type of game, perhaps knowing the name of it could allow finding more literature on the algorithm I'm seeking.
EDIT 3 This Stack Overflow question seems like it may have some relevant insights.
Intuitively, the solution seems global. If you take a larger graph, for example, which dot you select first will have an impact on the direct neighbours which will have an impact on their neighbours and so on.
It sounds as if it were of the same breed of problems as the map colouring problem. Not because of the colours but because of the implications of a local selection to the other end of the graph down the road. In the map colouring, you have to decide what colour to draw a country and its neighbouring countries so two countries that touch don't have the same colour. That first set of selections have an impact on whether there is a solution in the subsequent iterations.
Just to show how complex problem is.
Lets check simpler problem where graph is changed with a tree, and only root vertex can change a colour. In that case path to a leaf can be represented as a sequence of colours of vertices on that path. Sequence A of colour changes collapses a leaf if leaf's sequence is subsequence of A.
Problem can be stated that for given set of sequences problem is to find minimal length sequence (S) so that each initial sequence is contained in S. That is called shortest common supersequence problem, and it is NP-complete.
Your problem is for sure more complex than this one :-/
Edit *
This is a comment on question's edit. Check this page for a terms.
Number of minimal possible moves is >= than graph radius. With that it seems good strategy to:
use central vertices for moves,
use moves that reduce graph radius, or at least reduce distance from central vertices to 'large' set of vertices.
I would go with a strategy that keeps track of central vertices and distances of all graph vertices to these central vertices. Step is to check all meaningful moves and choose one that reduce radius or distance to central vertices the most. I think BFS can be used for distance calculation and how move influences them. There are tricky parts, like when central vertices changes after moves. Maybe it is good idea to use not only central vertices but also vertices close to central.
I think the graph term you are looking for is the "valence" of a graph, which is the number of edges that a node is connected to. It looks like you want to change the color based on what node has the highest valence. Then in the resulting graph change the color for the node that has the highest valence, etc. until you have just one node left.
Imagine I am implementing Dijkstra's algorithm at a park. There are points and connections between those points; these specify valid paths the user can walk on (e.g. sidewalks).
Now imagine that the user is on the grass (i.e. not on a path) and wants to navigate to another location. The problem is not in Dijkstra's algorithm (which works fine), the problem is determining at which vertex to begin.
Here is a picture of the problem: (ignore the dotted lines for now)
Black lines show the edges in Dijkstra's algorithm; likewise, purple circles show the vertices. Sidewalks are in gray. The grass is, you guessed it, green. The user is located at the red star, and wants to get to the orange X.
If I naively look for the nearest vertex and use that as my starting point, the user is often directed to a suboptimal path, that involves walking further away from their destination at the start (i.e. the red solid path).
The blue solid path is the optimal path that my algorithm would ideally come up with.
Notes:
Assume no paths cross over other paths.
When navigating to a starting point, the user should never cross over a path (e.g. sidewalk).
In the image above, the first line segment coming out of the star is created dynamically, simply to assist the user. The star is not a vertex in the graph (since the user can be anywhere inside the grass region). The line segment from the star to a vertex is simply being displayed so that the user knows how to get to the first valid vertex in the graph.
How can I implement this efficiently and correctly?
Idea #1: Find the enclosing polygon
If I find the smallest polygon which surrounds my starting point, I can now create new paths for Dijkstra's algorithm from the starting point (which will be added as a new vertex temporarily) to each of the vertices that make up the polygon. In the example above, the polygon has 6 sides, so this would mean creating 6 new paths to each of its vertices (i.e. the blue dotted lines). I would then be able to run Dijkstra's algorithm and it would easily determine that the blue solid line is the optimal path.
The problem with this method is in determining which vertices comprise the smallest polygon that surrounds my point. I cannot create new paths to each vertex in the graph, otherwise I will end up with the red dotted lines as well, which completely defeats the purpose of using Dijkstra's algorithm (I should not be allowed to cross over a sidewalk). Therefore, I must take care to only create paths to the vertices of the enclosing polygon. Is there an algorithm for this?
There is another complication with this solution: imagine the user now starts at the purple lightning bolt. It has no enclosing polygon, yet the algorithm should still work by connecting it to the 3 points at the top right. Again, once it is connected to those, running Dijkstra's is easy.
Update: the reason we want to connect to one of these 3 points and not walk around everything to reach the orange X directly is because we want to minimize the walking done on unpaved paths. (Note: This is only a constraint if you start outside a polygon. We don't care how long you walk on the grass if it is within a polygon).
If this is the correct solution, then please post its algorithm as an answer.
Otherwise, please post a better solution.
You can start off by running Dijkstra from the target to find its distance to all vertices.
Now let's consider the case where you start "inside" the graph on the grass. We want to find all vertices that we can reach via a straight line without crossing any edge. For that we can throw together all the line segments representing the edges and the line segments connecting the start point to every vertex and use a sweep-line algorithm to find whether the start-vertex lines intersect any edge.
Alternatively you can use any offline algorithm for planar point location, those also work with a sweep line. I believe this is in the spirit of the more abstract algorithm proposed in the question in that it reports the polygon that surrounds the point.
Then we just need to find the vertex whose connection line to the start does not intersect any edge and the sum d(vertex, target) + d(vertex, start) is minimum.
The procedure when the vertex is outside the graph is somewhat underspecified, but I guess the exact same idea would work. Just keep in mind that there is the possibility to walk all around the graph to the target if it is on the border, like in your example.
This could probably be implemented in O((n+m) log m) per query. If you run an all-pairs shortest path algorithm as a preprocessing step and use an online point location algorithm, you can get logarithmic query time at the cost of the space necessary to store the information to speed up shortest path queries (quadratic if you just store all distance pairs).
I believe simple planar point location works just like the sweep line approaches, only with persistent BSTs to store all the sweepline states.
I'm not sure why you are a bothering with trying to find a starting vertex when you already have one. The point you (the user) are standing at is another vertex in of itself. So the real question now is to find the distance from your starting point to any other point in the enclosing polygon graph. And once you have that, you can simply run Dijkstra's or another shortest path algorithm method like A*, BFS, etc, to find the shortest path to your goal point.
On that note, I think you are better off implementing A* for this problem because a park involves things like trees, playgrounds, ponds (sometimes), etc. So you will need to use a shortest path algorithm that takes these into consideration, and A* is one algorithm that uses these factors to determine a path of shortest length.
Finding distance from start to graph:
The problem of finding the distance from your new vertex to other vertices can be done by only looking for points with the closest x or y coordinate to your start point. So this algorithm has to find points that form a sort of closure around the start point, i.e. a polygon of minimum area which contains the point. So as #Niklas B suggested, a planar point algorithm (with some modifications) might be able to accomplish this. I was looking at the sweep-line algorithm, but that only works for line segments so that will not work (still worth a shot, with modifications might be able to give the correct answer).
You can also decide to implement this algorithm in stages, so first, find the points with the closest y coordinate to the current point (Both negative and positive y, so have to use absolute value), then among those points, you find the ones with the closest x coordinate to the current point and that should give you the set of points that form the polygon. Then these are the points you use to find the distance from your start to the graph.
I have a detailed 2D polygon (representing a geographic area) that is defined by a very large set of vertices. I'm looking for an algorithm that will simplify and smooth the polygon, (reducing the number of vertices) with the constraint that the area of the resulting polygon must contain all the vertices of the detailed polygon.
For context, here's an example of the edge of one complex polygon:
My research:
I found the Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm which will reduce the number of vertices - but the resulting polygon will not contain all of the original polygon's vertices. See this article Ramer-Douglas-Peucker on Wikipedia
I considered expanding the polygon (I believe this is also known as outward polygon offsetting). I found these questions: Expanding a polygon (convex only) and Inflating a polygon. But I don't think this will substantially reduce the detail of my polygon.
Thanks for any advice you can give me!
Edit
As of 2013, most links below are not functional anymore. However, I've found the cited paper, algorithm included, still available at this (very slow) server.
Here you can find a project dealing exactly with your issues. Although it works primarily with an area "filled" by points, you can set it to work with a "perimeter" type definition as yours.
It uses a k-nearest neighbors approach for calculating the region.
Samples:
Here you can request a copy of the paper.
Seemingly they planned to offer an online service for requesting calculations, but I didn't test it, and probably it isn't running.
HTH!
I think Visvalingam’s algorithm can be adapted for this purpose - by skipping removal of triangles that would reduce the area.
I had a very similar problem : I needed an inflating simplification of polygons.
I did a simple algorithm, by removing concav point (this will increase the polygon size) or removing convex edge (between 2 convex points) and prolongating adjacent edges. In any case, doing one of those 2 possibilities will remove one point on the polygon.
I choosed to removed the point or the edge that leads to smallest area variation. You can repeat this process, until the simplification is ok for you (for example no more than 200 points).
The 2 main difficulties were to obtain fast algorithm (by avoiding to compute vertex/edge removal variation twice and maintaining possibilities sorted) and to avoid inserting self-intersection in the process (not very easy to do and to explain but possible with limited computational complexity).
In fact, after looking more closely it is a similar idea than the one of Visvalingam with adaptation for edge removal.
That's an interesting problem! I never tried anything like this, but here's an idea off the top of my head... apologies if it makes no sense or wouldn't work :)
Calculate a convex hull, that might be way too big / imprecise
Divide the hull into N slices, for example joining each one of the hull's vertices to the center
Calculate the intersection of your object with each slice
Repeat recursively for each intersection (calculating the intersection's hull, etc)
Each level of recursion should give a better approximation.... when you reached a satisfying level, merge all the hulls from that level to get the final polygon.
Does that sound like it could do the job?
To some degree I'm not sure what you are trying to do but it seems you have two very good answers. One is Ramer–Douglas–Peucker (DP) and the other is computing the alpha shape (also called a Concave Hull, non-convex hull, etc.). I found a more recent paper describing alpha shapes and linked it below.
I personally think DP with polygon expansion is the way to go. I'm not sure why you think it won't substantially reduce the number of vertices. With DP you supply a factor and you can make it anything you want to the point where you end up with a triangle no matter what your input. Picking this factor can be hard but in your case I think it's the best method. You should be able to determine the factor based on the size of the largest bit of detail you want to go away. You can do this with direct testing or by calculating it from your source data.
http://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/projektTDB/ht13/project10/Project-10-report.pdf
I've written a simple modification of Douglas-Peucker that might be helpful to anyone having this problem in the future: https://github.com/prakol16/rdp-expansion-only
It's identical to DP except that it pushes a line segment outwards a bit if the points that it would remove are outside the polygon. This guarantees that the resulting simplified polygon contains all the original polygon, but it has almost the same number of line segments as the original DP algorithm and is usually reasonably good at approximating the original shape.