I have an unordered set of two dimensional points, being the result of a image segmentation. The points when drawn together in a bitmap are a contigous region.
I'd like to know which points are in it's (region) border. The region might be concave, so this has ruled out Convex Hull to me. It also may have "holes" in it (ie. internal and external borders).
There's a good (> 10k) number of points. I tought about using a (non recursive) floodfill like search, adding the border points to a vector. This would also create me a problem to "separate" internal and external border points, if a internal border exists. Is there a better algorithm?
The problem is more complex than it seems. It is very nicely described in the link below, unfortunately without an algorithm. I hope this helps a little.
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geosensor.net%2Fpapers%2Fgalton06.GISCIENCE.ppt&ei=s4xdUf_BMqT-4QSmrICADw&usg=AFQjCNHKBdBDxQt9G29_l2QW2yd-AxRXXQ&bvm=bv.44770516,d.bGE
Related
I am looking to try and create a flood-fill type algorithm, but one which will break the space into convex regions.
In terms of what my application has in terms of data, all it has is a grid of squares where each square contains connections to the surrounding squares in the cardinal direction. If a square is blocked or invalid in some way, then the square I'm testing won't have a connection in that direction. Screenshot below illustrates what I mean, where black squares are invalid and represent the boundaries of objects:
What I want to do now is try to come up with an algorithm which means I can tag each grid square as belonging to a convex region, ideally with as few areas as possible (i.e. favouring larger convex areas rather than lots of little fragments). Something like the below where each colour represents a different convex region:
Is there a known algorithm for this? I've looked at a few flood-fill algorithms, but none of them seem to be able to form convex shapes like this.
Thanks!
K-means clustering can be used to try to find some interesting partitions.
Feel free to read more details here (https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~schmidtm/Courses/340-F17/L9.pdf)
Someone mentioned in the comments, you application look somehow like a Voronoi diagram.
I observed some applications create a geometric structure apparently by just having a set of touch points. Like this example:
I wonder which algorithms can possibly help me to recreate such geometric structures?
UPDATE
In 3D printing, sometimes a support structure is needed:
The need for support is due to collapse of some 3D object regions, i.e. overhangs, while printing. Support structure is supposed to connect overhangs either to print floor or to 3D object itself. The geometric structure shown in the screenshot above is actually a sample support structure.
I am not a specialist in that matter and I may be missing important issues. So here is what I would naively do.
The triangles having a external normal pointing downward will reveal the overhangs. When projected vertically and merged by common edges, they define polygonal regions of the base plane. You first have to build those projected polygons, find their intersections, and order the intersections by Z. (You might also want to consider the facing polygons to take the surface thickness into account).
Now for every intersection polygon, you draw verticals to the one just below. The projections of the verticals might be sampled from a regular grid or elsehow, to tune the density. You might also consider sampling those pillars from the basement continuously to the upper surface, possibly stopping some of them earlier.
The key ingredient in this procedure is a good polygon intersection algorithm.
I was wondering if anybody could point me to the best algorithm/heuristic which will fit my particular polygon packing problem. I am given a single polygon as a boundary (convex or concave may also contain holes) and a single "fill" polygon (may also be convex or concave, does not contain holes) and I need to fill the boundary polygon with a specified number of fill polygons. (I'm working in 2D).
Many of the polygon packing heuristics I've found assume that the boundary and/or filling polygons will be rectangular and also that the filling polygons will be of different sizes. In my case, the filling polygons may be non-rectangular, but all will be exactly the same.
Maybe this is a particular type of packing problem? If somebody has a definition for this type of polygon packing I'll gladly google away, but so far I've not found anything which is similar enough to be of great use.
Thanks.
The question you ask is very hard. To put this in perspective, the (much) simpler case where you're packing the interior of your bounded polygon with non-overlapping disks is already hard, and disks are the simplest possible "packing shape" (with any other shape you have to consider orientation as well as size and center location).
In fact, I think it's an open problem in computational geometry to determine for an arbitrary integer N and arbitrary bounded polygonal region (in the Euclidean plane), what is the "optimal" (in the sense of covering the greatest percentage of the polygon interior) packing of N inscribed non-overlapping disks, where you are free to choose the radius and center location of each disk. I'm sure the "best" answer is known for certain special polygonal shapes (like rectangles, circles, and triangles), but for arbitrary shapes your best "heuristic" is probably:
Start your shape counter at N.
Add the largest "packing shape" you can fit completely inside the polygonal boundary without overlapping any other packing shapes.
Decrement your shape counter.
If your shape counter is > 0, go to step 2.
I say "probably" because "largest first" isn't always the best way to pack things into a confined space. You can dig into that particular flavor of craziness by reading about the bin packing problem and knapsack problem.
EDIT: Step 2 by itself is hard. A reasonable strategy would be to pick an arbitrary point on the interior of the polygon as the center and "inflate" the disk until it touches either the boundary or another disk (or both), and then "slide" the disk while continuing to inflate it so that it remains inside the boundary without overlapping any other disks until it is "trapped" - with at least 2 points of contact with the boundary and/or other disks. But it isn't easy to formalize this "sliding process". And even if you get the sliding process right, this strategy doesn't guarantee that you'll find the biggest "inscribable disk" - your "locally maximal" disk could be trapped in a "lobe" of the interior which is connected by a narrow "neck" of free space to a larger "lobe" where a larger disk would fit.
Thanks for the replies, my requirements were such that I was able to further simplify the problem by not having to deal with orientation and I then even further simplified by only really worrying about the bounding box of the fill element. With these two simplifications the problem became much easier and I used a stripe like filling algorithm in conjunction with a spatial hash grid (since there were existing elements I was not allowed to fill over).
With this approach I simply divided the fill area into stripes and created a spatial hash grid to register existing elements within the fill area. I created a second spatial hash grid to register the fill area (since my stripes were not guaranteed to be within the bounding area, this made checking if my fill element was in the fill area a little faster since I could just query the grid and if all grids where my fill element were to be placed, were full, I knew the fill element was inside the fill area). After that, I iterated over each stripe and placed a fill element where the hash grids would allow. This is certainly not an optimal solution, but it ended up being all that was required for my particular situation and pretty fast as well. I found the required information about creating a spatial hash grid from here. I got the idea for filling by stripes from this article.
This type of problem is very complex to solve geometrically.
If you can accept a good solution instead of the 100% optimal
solution then you can to solve it with a raster algorithm.
You draw (rasterize) the boundary polygon into one in-memory
image and the fill polygon into another in-memory image.
You can then more easily search for a place where the fill polygon will
fit in the boundary polygon by overlaying the two images with
various (X, Y) offsets for the fill polygon and checking
the pixel values.
When you find a place that the fill polygon fits,
you clear the pixels in the boundary polygon and repeat
until there are no more places where the fill polygon fits.
The keywords to google search for are: rasterization, overlay, algorithm
If your fill polygon is the shape of a jigsaw piece, many algorithms will miss the interlocking alignment. (I don't know what to suggest in that case)
One approach to the general problem that works well when the boundary is much larger than
the fill pieces is to tile an infinite plane with the pieces in the best way you can, and then look for the optimum alignment of the boundary on this plane.
I have polygons that define the contour of counties in the UK. These shapes are very detailed (10k to 20k points each), thus rendering the related computations (is point X in polygon P?) quite computationaly expensive.
Thus, I would like to "subsample" my polygons, to obtain a similar shape but with less points. What are the different techniques to do so?
The trivial one would be to take one every N points (thus subsampling by a factor N), but this feels too "crude". I would rather do some averaging of points, or something of that flavor. Any pointer?
Two solutions spring to mind:
1) since the map of the UK is reasonably squarish, you could choose to render a bitmap with the counties. Assign each a specific colour, and then render the borders with a 1 or 2 pixel thick black line. This means you'll only have to perform the expensive interior/exterior calculation if a sample happens to lie on the border. The larger the bitmap, the less often this will happen.
2) simplify the county outlines. You can use a recursive Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm to recursively simplify the boundaries. Just make sure you cache the results. You may also have to solve this not for entire county boundaries but for shared boundaries only, to ensure no gaps. This might be quite tricky.
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!
Polygon triangulation should help here. You'll still have to check many polygons, but these are triangles now, so they are easier to check and you can use some optimizations to determine only a small subset of polygons to check for a given region or point.
As it seems you have all the algorithms you need for polygons, not only for triangles, you can also merge several triangles that are too small after triangulation or if triangle count gets too high.
I've been searching far and wide on the seven internets, and have come to no avail. The closest to what I need seems to be The cutting stock problem, only in 2D (which is disappointing since Wikipedia doesn't provide any directions on how to solve that one). Another look-alike problem would be UV unwrapping. There are solutions there, but only those that you get from add-ons on various 3D software.
Cutting the long talk short - what I want is this: given a rectangle of known width and height, I have to find out how many shapes (polygons) of known sizes (which may be rotated at will) may I fit inside that rectangle.
For example, I could choose a T-shaped piece and in the same rectangle I could pack it both in an efficient way, resulting in 4 shapes per rectangle
as well as tiling them based on their bounding boxes, case in which I could only fit 3
But of course, this is only an example... and I don't think it would be much use to solving on this particular case. The only approaches I can think of right now are either like backtracking in their complexity or solve only particular cases of this problem. So... any ideas?
Anybody up for a game of Tetris (a subset of your problem)?
This is known as the packing problem. Without knowing what kind of shapes you are likely to face ahead of time, it can be very difficult if not impossible to come up with an algorithm that will give you the best answer. More than likely unless your polygons are "nice" polygons (circles, squares, equilateral triangles, etc.) you will probably have to settle for a heuristic that gives you the approximate best solution most of the time.
One general heuristic (though far from optimal depending on the shape of the input polygon) would be to simplify the problem by drawing a rectangle around the polygon so that the rectangle would be just big enough to cover the polygon. (As an example in the diagram below we draw a red rectangle around a blue polygon.)
Once we have done this, we can then take that rectangle and try to fit as many of that rectangle into the large rectangle as possible. This simplfies the problem into a rectangle packing problem which is easier to solve and wrap your head around. An example of an algorithm for this is at the following link:
An Effective Recursive Partitioning Approach for the Packing of Identical Rectangles in a Rectangle.
Now obviously this heuristic is not optimal when the polygon in question is not close to being the same shape as a rectangle, but it does give you a minimum baseline to work with especially if you don't have much knowledge of what your polygon will look like (or there is high variance in what the polygon will look like). Using this algorithm, it would fill up a large rectangle like so:
Here is the same image without the intermediate rectangles:
For the case of these T-shaped polygons, the heuristic is not the best it could be (in fact it may be almost a worst case scenario for this proposed approximation), but it would work very well for other types of polygons.
consider what the other answer said by placing the t's into a square, but instead of just leaving it as a square set the shapes up in a list. Then use True and False to fill the nested list as the shape i.e. [[True,True,True],[False,True,False]] for your T shape. Then use a function to place the shapes on the grid. To optimize the results, create a tracker which will pay attention to how many false in a new shape overlap with trues that are already on the grid from previous shapes. The function will place the shape in the place with the most overlaps. There will have to be modifications to create higher and higher optimizations, but that is the general premise which you are looking for.