I have two sets of 3D points (original and reconstructed) and correspondence information about pairs - which point from one set represents the second one. I need to find 3D translation and scaling factor which transforms reconstruct set so the sum of square distances would be least (rotation would be nice too, but points are rotated similarly, so this is not main priority and might be omitted in sake of simplicity and speed). And so my question is - is this solved and available somewhere on the Internet? Personally, I would use least square method, but I don't have much time (and although I'm somewhat good at math, I don't use it often, so it would be better for me to avoid it), so I would like to use other's solution if it exists. I prefer solution in C++, for example using OpenCV, but algorithm alone is good enough.
If there is no such solution, I will calculate it by myself, I don't want to bother you so much.
SOLUTION: (from your answers)
For me it's Kabsch alhorithm;
Base info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabsch_algorithm
General solution: http://nghiaho.com/?page_id=671
STILL NOT SOLVED:
I also need scale. Scale values from SVD are not understandable for me; when I need scale about 1-4 for all axises (estimated by me), SVD scale is about [2000, 200, 20], which is not helping at all.
Since you are already using Kabsch algorithm, just have a look at Umeyama's paper which extends it to get scale. All you need to do is to get the standard deviation of your points and calculate scale as:
(1/sigma^2)*trace(D*S)
where D is the diagonal matrix in SVD decomposition in the rotation estimation and S is either identity matrix or [1 1 -1] diagonal matrix, depending on the sign of determinant of UV (which Kabsch uses to correct reflections into proper rotations). So if you have [2000, 200, 20], multiply the last element by +-1 (depending on the sign of determinant of UV), sum them and divide by the standard deviation of your points to get scale.
You can recycle the following code, which is using the Eigen library:
typedef Eigen::Matrix<double, 3, 1, Eigen::DontAlign> Vector3d_U; // microsoft's 32-bit compiler can't put Eigen::Vector3d inside a std::vector. for other compilers or for 64-bit, feel free to replace this by Eigen::Vector3d
/**
* #brief rigidly aligns two sets of poses
*
* This calculates such a relative pose <tt>R, t</tt>, such that:
*
* #code
* _TyVector v_pose = R * r_vertices[i] + t;
* double f_error = (r_tar_vertices[i] - v_pose).squaredNorm();
* #endcode
*
* The sum of squared errors in <tt>f_error</tt> for each <tt>i</tt> is minimized.
*
* #param[in] r_vertices is a set of vertices to be aligned
* #param[in] r_tar_vertices is a set of vertices to align to
*
* #return Returns a relative pose that rigidly aligns the two given sets of poses.
*
* #note This requires the two sets of poses to have the corresponding vertices stored under the same index.
*/
static std::pair<Eigen::Matrix3d, Eigen::Vector3d> t_Align_Points(
const std::vector<Vector3d_U> &r_vertices, const std::vector<Vector3d_U> &r_tar_vertices)
{
_ASSERTE(r_tar_vertices.size() == r_vertices.size());
const size_t n = r_vertices.size();
Eigen::Vector3d v_center_tar3 = Eigen::Vector3d::Zero(), v_center3 = Eigen::Vector3d::Zero();
for(size_t i = 0; i < n; ++ i) {
v_center_tar3 += r_tar_vertices[i];
v_center3 += r_vertices[i];
}
v_center_tar3 /= double(n);
v_center3 /= double(n);
// calculate centers of positions, potentially extend to 3D
double f_sd2_tar = 0, f_sd2 = 0; // only one of those is really needed
Eigen::Matrix3d t_cov = Eigen::Matrix3d::Zero();
for(size_t i = 0; i < n; ++ i) {
Eigen::Vector3d v_vert_i_tar = r_tar_vertices[i] - v_center_tar3;
Eigen::Vector3d v_vert_i = r_vertices[i] - v_center3;
// get both vertices
f_sd2 += v_vert_i.squaredNorm();
f_sd2_tar += v_vert_i_tar.squaredNorm();
// accumulate squared standard deviation (only one of those is really needed)
t_cov.noalias() += v_vert_i * v_vert_i_tar.transpose();
// accumulate covariance
}
// calculate the covariance matrix
Eigen::JacobiSVD<Eigen::Matrix3d> svd(t_cov, Eigen::ComputeFullU | Eigen::ComputeFullV);
// calculate the SVD
Eigen::Matrix3d R = svd.matrixV() * svd.matrixU().transpose();
// compute the rotation
double f_det = R.determinant();
Eigen::Vector3d e(1, 1, (f_det < 0)? -1 : 1);
// calculate determinant of V*U^T to disambiguate rotation sign
if(f_det < 0)
R.noalias() = svd.matrixV() * e.asDiagonal() * svd.matrixU().transpose();
// recompute the rotation part if the determinant was negative
R = Eigen::Quaterniond(R).normalized().toRotationMatrix();
// renormalize the rotation (not needed but gives slightly more orthogonal transformations)
double f_scale = svd.singularValues().dot(e) / f_sd2_tar;
double f_inv_scale = svd.singularValues().dot(e) / f_sd2; // only one of those is needed
// calculate the scale
R *= f_inv_scale;
// apply scale
Eigen::Vector3d t = v_center_tar3 - (R * v_center3); // R needs to contain scale here, otherwise the translation is wrong
// want to align center with ground truth
return std::make_pair(R, t); // or put it in a single 4x4 matrix if you like
}
For 3D points the problem is known as the Absolute Orientation problem. A c++ implementation is available from Eigen http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/dox/group__Geometry__Module.html#gab3f5a82a24490b936f8694cf8fef8e60 and paper http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs273/refs/umeyama.pdf
you can use it via opencv by converting the matrices to eigen with cv::cv2eigen() calls.
Start with translation of both sets of points. So that their centroid coincides with the origin of the coordinate system. Translation vector is just the difference between these centroids.
Now we have two sets of coordinates represented as matrices P and Q. One set of points may be obtained from other one by applying some linear operator (which performs both scaling and rotation). This operator is represented by 3x3 matrix X:
P * X = Q
To find proper scale/rotation we just need to solve this matrix equation, find X, then decompose it into several matrices, each representing some scaling or rotation.
A simple (but probably not numerically stable) way to solve it is to multiply both parts of the equation to the transposed matrix P (to get rid of non-square matrices), then multiply both parts of the equation to the inverted PT * P:
PT * P * X = PT * Q
X = (PT * P)-1 * PT * Q
Applying Singular value decomposition to matrix X gives two rotation matrices and a matrix with scale factors:
X = U * S * V
Here S is a diagonal matrix with scale factors (one scale for each coordinate), U and V are rotation matrices, one properly rotates the points so that they may be scaled along the coordinate axes, other one rotates them once more to align their orientation to second set of points.
Example (2D points are used for simplicity):
P = 1 2 Q = 7.5391 4.3455
2 3 12.9796 5.8897
-2 1 -4.5847 5.3159
-1 -6 -15.9340 -15.5511
After solving the equation:
X = 3.3417 -1.2573
2.0987 2.8014
After SVD decomposition:
U = -0.7317 -0.6816
-0.6816 0.7317
S = 4 0
0 3
V = -0.9689 -0.2474
-0.2474 0.9689
Here SVD has properly reconstructed all manipulations I performed on matrix P to get matrix Q: rotate by the angle 0.75, scale X axis by 4, scale Y axis by 3, rotate by the angle -0.25.
If sets of points are scaled uniformly (scale factor is equal by each axis), this procedure may be significantly simplified.
Just use Kabsch algorithm to get translation/rotation values. Then perform these translation and rotation (centroids should coincide with the origin of the coordinate system). Then for each pair of points (and for each coordinate) estimate Linear regression. Linear regression coefficient is exactly the scale factor.
A good explanation Finding optimal rotation and translation between corresponding 3D points
The code is in matlab but it's trivial to convert to opengl using the cv::SVD function
You might want to try ICP (Iterative closest point).
Given two sets of 3d points, it will tell you the transformation (rotation + translation) to go from the first set to the second one.
If you're interested in a c++ lightweight implementation, try libicp.
Good luck!
The general transformation, as well the scale can be retrieved via Procrustes Analysis. It works by superimposing the objects on top of each other and tries to estimate the transformation from that setting. It has been used in the context of ICP, many times. In fact, your preference, Kabash algorithm is a special case of this.
Moreover, Horn's alignment algorithm (based on quaternions) also finds a very good solution, while being quite efficient. A Matlab implementation is also available.
Scale can be inferred without SVD, if your points are uniformly scaled in all directions (I could not make sense of SVD-s scale matrix either). Here is how I solved the same problem:
Measure distances of each point to other points in the point cloud to get a 2d table of distances, where entry at (i,j) is norm(point_i-point_j). Do the same thing for the other point cloud, so you get two tables -- one for original and the other for reconstructed points.
Divide all values in one table by the corresponding values in the other table. Because the points correspond to each other, the distances do too. Ideally, the resulting table has all values being equal to each other, and this is the scale.
The median value of the divisions should be pretty close to the scale you are looking for. The mean value is also close, but I chose median just to exclude outliers.
Now you can use the scale value to scale all the reconstructed points and then proceed to estimating the rotation.
Tip: If there are too many points in the point clouds to find distances between all of them, then a smaller subset of distances will work, too, as long as it is the same subset for both point clouds. Ideally, just one distance pair would work if there is no measurement noise, e.g when one point cloud is directly derived from the other by just rotating it.
you can also use ScaleRatio ICP proposed by BaoweiLin
The code can be found in github
Related
For example, in a 2D space, with x [0 ; 1] and y [0 ; 1]. For p = 4, intuitively, I will place each point at each corner of the square.
But what can be the general algorithm?
Edit: The algorithm needs modification if dimensions are not orthogonal to eachother
To uniformly place the points as described in your example you could do something like this:
var combinedSize = 0
for each dimension d in d0..dn {
combinedSize += d.length;
}
val listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension = new List
for each d dimension d0..dn {
val percentageOfWholeDimensionSize = d.length/combinedSize
val pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension = percentageOfWholeDimensionSize * numberOfPoints
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[d.index] = d.length/(pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension - 1)
}
Run on your example it gives:
combinedSize = 2
percentageOfWholeDimensionSize = 1 / 2
pointsToPlaceAlongThisDimension = 0.5 * 4
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[0] = 1 / (2 - 1)
listOfDistancesBetweenPointsAlongEachDimension[1] = 1 / (2 - 1)
note: The minus 1 deals with the inclusive interval, allowing points at both endpoints of the dimension
2D case
In 2D (n=2) the solution is to place your p points evenly on some circle. If you want also to define the distance d between points then the circle should have radius around:
2*Pi*r = ~p*d
r = ~(p*d)/(2*Pi)
To be more precise you should use circumference of regular p-point polygon instead of circle circumference (I am too lazy to do that). Or you can compute the distance of produced points and scale up/down as needed instead.
So each point p(i) can be defined as:
p(i).x = r*cos((i*2.0*Pi)/p)
p(i).y = r*sin((i*2.0*Pi)/p)
3D case
Just use sphere instead of circle.
ND case
Use ND hypersphere instead of circle.
So your question boils down to place p "equidistant" points to a n-D hypersphere (either surface or volume). As you can see 2D case is simple, but in 3D this starts to be a problem. See:
Make a sphere with equidistant vertices
sphere subdivision triangulation
As you can see there are quite a few approaches to do this (there are much more of them even using Fibonacci sequence generated spiral) which are more or less hard to grasp or implement.
However If you want to generalize this into ND space you need to chose general approach. I would try to do something like this:
Place p uniformly distributed place inside bounding hypersphere
each point should have position,velocity and acceleration vectors. You can also place the points randomly (just ensure none are at the same position)...
For each p compute acceleration
each p should retract any other point (opposite of gravity).
update position
just do a Newton D'Alembert physics simulation in ND. Do not forget to include some dampening of speed so the simulation will stop in time. Bound the position and speed to the sphere so points will not cross it's border nor they would reflect the speed inwards.
loop #2 until max speed of any p crosses some threshold
This will more or less accurately place p points on the circumference of ND hypersphere. So you got minimal distance d between them. If you got some special dependency between n and p then there might be better configurations then this but for arbitrary numbers I think this approach should be safe enough.
Now by modifying #2 rules you can achieve 2 different outcomes. One filling hypersphere surface (by placing massive negative mass into center of surface) and second filling its volume. For these two options also the radius will be different. For one you need to use surface and for the other volume...
Here example of similar simulation used to solve a geometry problem:
How to implement a constraint solver for 2-D geometry?
Here preview of 3D surface case:
The number on top is the max abs speed of particles used to determine the simulations stopped and the white-ish lines are speed vectors. You need to carefully select the acceleration and dampening coefficients so the simulation is fast ...
Given a bunch of arbitrary vectors (stored in a matrix A) and a radius r, I'd like to find all integer-valued linear combinations of those vectors which land inside a sphere of radius r. The necessary coordinates I would then store in a Matrix V. So, for instance, if the linear combination
K=[0; 1; 0]
lands inside my sphere, i.e. something like
if norm(A*K) <= r then
V(:,1)=K
end
etc.
The vectors in A are sure to be the simplest possible basis for the given lattice and the largest vector will have length 1. Not sure if that restricts the vectors in any useful way but I suspect it might. - They won't have as similar directions as a less ideal basis would have.
I tried a few approaches already but none of them seem particularly satisfying. I can't seem to find a nice pattern to traverse the lattice.
My current approach involves starting in the middle (i.e. with the linear combination of all 0s) and go through the necessary coordinates one by one. It involves storing a bunch of extra vectors to keep track of, so I can go through all the octants (in the 3D case) of the coordinates and find them one by one. This implementation seems awfully complex and not very flexible (in particular it doesn't seem to be easily generalizable to arbitrary numbers of dimension - although that isn't strictly necessary for the current purpose, it'd be a nice-to-have)
Is there a nice* way to find all the required points?
(*Ideally both efficient and elegant**. If REALLY necessary, it wouldn't matter THAT much to have a few extra points outside the sphere but preferably not that many more. I definitely do need all the vectors inside the sphere. - if it makes a large difference, I'm most interested in the 3D case.
**I'm pretty sure my current implementation is neither.)
Similar questions I found:
Find all points in sphere of radius r around arbitrary coordinate - this is actually a much more general case than what I'm looking for. I am only dealing with periodic lattices and my sphere is always centered at 0, coinciding with one point on the lattice.
But I don't have a list of points but rather a matrix of vectors with which I can generate all the points.
How to efficiently enumerate all points of sphere in n-dimensional grid - the case for a completely regular hypercubic lattice and the Manhattan-distance. I'm looking for completely arbitary lattices and euclidean distance (or, for efficiency purposes, obviously the square of that).
Offhand, without proving any assertions, I think that 1) if the set of vectors is not of maximal rank then the number of solutions is infinite; 2) if the set is of maximal rank, then the image of the linear transformation generated by the vectors is a subspace (e.g., plane) of the target space, which intersects the sphere in a lower-dimensional sphere; 3) it follows that you can reduce the problem to a 1-1 linear transformation (kxk matrix on a k-dimensional space); 4) since the matrix is invertible, you can "pull back" the sphere to an ellipsoid in the space containing the lattice points, and as a bonus you get a nice geometric description of the ellipsoid (principal axis theorem); 5) your problem now becomes exactly one of determining the lattice points inside the ellipsoid.
The latter problem is related to an old problem (counting the lattice points inside an ellipse) which was considered by Gauss, who derived a good approximation. Determining the lattice points inside an ellipse(oid) is probably not such a tidy problem, but it probably can be reduced one dimension at a time (the cross-section of an ellipsoid and a plane is another ellipsoid).
I found a method that makes me a lot happier for now. There may still be possible improvements, so if you have a better method, or find an error in this code, definitely please share. Though here is what I have for now: (all written in SciLab)
Step 1: Figure out the maximal ranges as defined by a bounding n-parallelotope aligned with the axes of the lattice vectors. Thanks for ElKamina's vague suggestion as well as this reply to another of my questions over on math.se by chappers: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1230160/49989
function I=findMaxComponents(A,r) //given a matrix A of lattice basis vectors
//and a sphere radius r,
//find the corners of the bounding parallelotope
//built from the lattice, and store it in I.
[dims,vecs]=size(A); //figure out how many vectors there are in A (and, unnecessarily, how long they are)
U=eye(vecs,vecs); //builds matching unit matrix
iATA=pinv(A'*A); //finds the (pseudo-)inverse of A^T A
iAT=pinv(A'); //finds the (pseudo-)inverse of A^T
I=[]; //initializes I as an empty vector
for i=1:vecs //for each lattice vector,
t=r*(iATA*U(:,i))/norm(iAT*U(:,i)) //find the maximum component such that
//it fits in the bounding n-parallelotope
//of a (n-1)-sphere of radius r
I=[I,t(i)]; //and append it to I
end
I=[-I;I]; //also append the minima (by symmetry, the negative maxima)
endfunction
In my question I only asked for a general basis, i.e, for n dimensions, a set of n arbitrary but linearly independent vectors. The above code, by virtue of using the pseudo-inverse, works for matrices of arbitrary shapes and, similarly, Scilab's "A'" returns the conjugate transpose rather than just the transpose of A so it equally should work for complex matrices.
In the last step I put the corresponding minimal components.
For one such A as an example, this gives me the following in Scilab's console:
A =
0.9701425 - 0.2425356 0.
0.2425356 0.4850713 0.7276069
0.2425356 0.7276069 - 0.2425356
r=3;
I=findMaxComponents(A,r)
I =
- 2.9494438 - 3.4186986 - 4.0826424
2.9494438 3.4186986 4.0826424
I=int(I)
I =
- 2. - 3. - 4.
2. 3. 4.
The values found by findMaxComponents are the largest possible coefficients of each lattice vector such that a linear combination with that coefficient exists which still land on the sphere. Since I'm looking for the largest such combinations with integer coefficients, I can safely drop the part after the decimal point to get the maximal plausible integer ranges. So for the given matrix A, I'll have to go from -2 to 2 in the first component, from -3 to 3 in the second and from -4 to 4 in the third and I'm sure to land on all the points inside the sphere (plus superfluous extra points, but importantly definitely every valid point inside) Next up:
Step 2: using the above information, generate all the candidate combinations.
function K=findAllCombinations(I) //takes a matrix of the form produced by
//findMaxComponents() and returns a matrix
//which lists all the integer linear combinations
//in the respective ranges.
v=I(1,:); //starting from the minimal vector
K=[];
next=1; //keeps track of what component to advance next
changed=%F; //keeps track of whether to add the vector to the output
while or(v~=I(2,:)) //as long as not all components of v match all components of the maximum vector
if v <= I(2,:) then //if each current component is smaller than each largest possible component
if ~changed then
K=[K;v]; //store the vector and
end
v(next)=v(next)+1; //advance the component by 1
next=1; //also reset next to 1
changed=%F;
else
v(1:next)=I(1,1:next); //reset all components smaller than or equal to the current one and
next=next+1; //advance the next larger component next time
changed=%T;
end
end
K=[K;I(2,:)]'; //while loop ends a single iteration early so add the maximal vector too
//also transpose K to fit better with the other functions
endfunction
So now that I have that, all that remains is to check whether a given combination actually does lie inside or outside the sphere. All I gotta do for that is:
Step 3: Filter the combinations to find the actually valid lattice points
function points=generatePoints(A,K,r)
possiblePoints=A*K; //explicitly generates all the possible points
points=[];
for i=possiblePoints
if i'*i<=r*r then //filter those that are too far from the origin
points=[points i];
end
end
endfunction
And I get all the combinations that actually do fit inside the sphere of radius r.
For the above example, the output is rather long: Of originally 315 possible points for a sphere of radius 3 I get 163 remaining points.
The first 4 are: (each column is one)
- 0.2425356 0.2425356 1.2126781 - 0.9701425
- 2.4253563 - 2.6678919 - 2.4253563 - 2.4253563
1.6977494 0. 0.2425356 0.4850713
so the remainder of the work is optimization. Presumably some of those loops could be made faster and especially as the number of dimensions goes up, I have to generate an awful lot of points which I have to discard, so maybe there is a better way than taking the bounding n-parallelotope of the n-1-sphere as a starting point.
Let us just represent K as X.
The problem can be represented as:
(a11x1 + a12x2..)^2 + (a21x1 + a22x2..)^2 ... < r^2
(x1,x2,...) will not form a sphere.
This can be done with recursion on dimension--pick a lattice hyperplane direction and index all such hyperplanes that intersect the r-radius ball. The ball intersection of each such hyperplane itself is a ball, in one lower dimension. Repeat. Here's the calling function code in Octave:
function lat_points(lat_bas_mx,rr)
% **globals for hyperplane lattice point recursive function**
clear global; % this seems necessary/important between runs of this function
global MLB;
global NN_hat;
global NN_len;
global INP; % matrix of interior points, each point(vector) a column vector
global ctr; % integer counter, for keeping track of lattice point vectors added
% in the pre-allocated INP matrix; will finish iteration with actual # of points found
ctr = 0; % counts number of ball-interior lattice points found
MLB = lat_bas_mx;
ndim = size(MLB)(1);
% **create hyperplane normal vectors for recursion step**
% given full-rank lattice basis matrix MLB (each vector in lattice basis a column),
% form set of normal vectors between successive, nested lattice hyperplanes;
% store them as columnar unit normal vectors in NN_hat matrix and their lengths in NN_len vector
NN_hat = [];
for jj=1:ndim-1
tmp_mx = MLB(:,jj+1:ndim);
tmp_mx = [NN_hat(:,1:jj-1),tmp_mx];
NN_hat(:,jj) = null(tmp_mx'); % null space of transpose = orthogonal to columns
tmp_len = norm(NN_hat(:,jj));
NN_hat(:,jj) = NN_hat(:,jj)/tmp_len;
NN_len(jj) = dot(MLB(:,jj),NN_hat(:,jj));
if (NN_len(jj)<0) % NN_hat(:,jj) and MLB(:,jj) must have positive dot product
% for cutting hyperplane indexing to work correctly
NN_hat(:,jj) = -NN_hat(:,jj);
NN_len(jj) = -NN_len(jj);
endif
endfor
NN_len(ndim) = norm(MLB(:,ndim));
NN_hat(:,ndim) = MLB(:,ndim)/NN_len(ndim); % the lowest recursion level normal
% is just the last lattice basis vector
% **estimate number of interior lattice points, and pre-allocate memory for INP**
vol_ppl = prod(NN_len); % the volume of the ndim dimensional lattice paralellepiped
% is just the product of the NN_len's (they amount to the nested altitudes
% of hyperplane "paralellepipeds")
vol_bll = exp( (ndim/2)*log(pi) + ndim*log(rr) - gammaln(ndim/2+1) ); % volume of ndim ball, radius rr
est_num_pts = ceil(vol_bll/vol_ppl); % estimated number of lattice points in the ball
err_fac = 1.1; % error factor for memory pre-allocation--assume max of err_fac*est_num_pts columns required in INP
INP = zeros(ndim,ceil(err_fac*est_num_pts));
% **call the (recursive) function**
% for output, global variable INP (matrix of interior points)
% stores each valid lattice point (as a column vector)
clp = zeros(ndim,1); % confirmed lattice point (start at origin)
bpt = zeros(ndim,1); % point at center of ball (initially, at origin)
rd = 1; % initial recursion depth must always be 1
hyp_fun(clp,bpt,rr,ndim,rd);
printf("%i lattice points found\n",ctr);
INP = INP(:,1:ctr); % trim excess zeros from pre-allocation (if any)
endfunction
Regarding the NN_len(jj)*NN_hat(:,jj) vectors--they can be viewed as successive (nested) altitudes in the ndim-dimensional "parallelepiped" formed by the vectors in the lattice basis, MLB. The volume of the lattice basis parallelepiped is just prod(NN_len)--for a quick estimate of the number of interior lattice points, divide the volume of the ndim-ball of radius rr by prod(NN_len). Here's the recursive function code:
function hyp_fun(clp,bpt,rr,ndim,rd)
%{
clp = the lattice point we're entering this lattice hyperplane with
bpt = location of center of ball in this hyperplane
rr = radius of ball
rd = recrusion depth--from 1 to ndim
%}
global MLB;
global NN_hat;
global NN_len;
global INP;
global ctr;
% hyperplane intersection detection step
nml_hat = NN_hat(:,rd);
nh_comp = dot(clp-bpt,nml_hat);
ix_hi = floor((rr-nh_comp)/NN_len(rd));
ix_lo = ceil((-rr-nh_comp)/NN_len(rd));
if (ix_hi<ix_lo)
return % no hyperplane intersections detected w/ ball;
% get out of this recursion level
endif
hp_ix = [ix_lo:ix_hi]; % indices are created wrt the received reference point
hp_ln = length(hp_ix);
% loop through detected hyperplanes (updated)
if (rd<ndim)
bpt_new_mx = bpt*ones(1,hp_ln) + NN_len(rd)*nml_hat*hp_ix; % an ndim by length(hp_ix) matrix
clp_new_mx = clp*ones(1,hp_ln) + MLB(:,rd)*hp_ix; % an ndim by length(hp_ix) matrix
dd_vec = nh_comp + NN_len(rd)*hp_ix; % a length(hp_ix) row vector
rr_new_vec = sqrt(rr^2-dd_vec.^2);
for jj=1:hp_ln
hyp_fun(clp_new_mx(:,jj),bpt_new_mx(:,jj),rr_new_vec(jj),ndim,rd+1);
endfor
else % rd=ndim--so at deepest level of recursion; record the points on the given 1-dim
% "lattice line" that are inside the ball
INP(:,ctr+1:ctr+hp_ln) = clp + MLB(:,rd)*hp_ix;
ctr += hp_ln;
return
endif
endfunction
This has some Octave-y/Matlab-y things in it, but most should be easily understandable; M(:,jj) references column jj of matrix M; the tic ' means take transpose; [A B] concatenates matrices A and B; A=[] declares an empty matrix.
Updated / better optimized from original answer:
"vectorized" the code in the recursive function, to avoid most "for" loops (those slowed it down a factor of ~10; the code now is a bit more difficult to understand though)
pre-allocated memory for the INP matrix-of-interior points (this speeded it up by another order of magnitude; before that, Octave was having to resize the INP matrix for every call to the innermost recursion level--for large matrices/arrays that can really slow things down)
Because this routine was part of a project, I also coded it in Python. From informal testing, the Python version is another 2-3 times faster than this (Octave) version.
For reference, here is the old, much slower code in the original posting of this answer:
% (OLD slower code, using for loops, and constantly resizing
% the INP matrix) loop through detected hyperplanes
if (rd<ndim)
for jj=1:length(hp_ix)
bpt_new = bpt + hp_ix(jj)*NN_len(rd)*nml_hat;
clp_new = clp + hp_ix(jj)*MLB(:,rd);
dd = nh_comp + hp_ix(jj)*NN_len(rd);
rr_new = sqrt(rr^2-dd^2);
hyp_fun(clp_new,bpt_new,rr_new,ndim,rd+1);
endfor
else % rd=ndim--so at deepest level of recursion; record the points on the given 1-dim
% "lattice line" that are inside the ball
for jj=1:length(hp_ix)
clp_new = clp + hp_ix(jj)*MLB(:,rd);
INP = [INP clp_new];
endfor
return
endif
I'm trying to deduct the 2D-transformation parameters from the result.
Given is a large number of samples in an unknown X-Y-coordinate system as well as their respective counterparts in WGS84 (longitude, latitude). Since the area is small, we can assume the target system to be flat, too.
Sadly I don't know which order of scale, rotate, translate was used, and I'm not even sure if there were 1 or 2 translations.
I tried to create a lengthy equation system, but that ended up too complex for me to handle. Basic geometry also failed me, as the order of transformations is unknown and I would have to check every possible combination order.
Is there a systematic approach to this problem?
Figuring out the scaling factor is easy, just choose any two points and find the distance between them in your X-Y space and your WGS84 space and the ratio of them is your scaling factor.
The rotations and translations is a little trickier, but not nearly as difficult when you learn that the result of applying any number of rotations or translations (in 2 dimensions only!) can be reduced to a single rotation about some unknown point by some unknown angle.
Suddenly you have N points to determine 3 unknowns, the axis of rotation (x and y coordinate) and the angle of rotation.
Calculating the rotation looks like this:
Pr = R*(Pxy - Paxis_xy) + Paxis_xy
Pr is your rotated point in X-Y space which then needs to be converted to WGS84 space (if the axes of your coordinate systems are different).
R is the familiar rotation matrix depending on your rotation angle.
Pxy is your unrotated point in X-Y space.
Paxis_xy is the axis of rotation in X-Y space.
To actually find the 3 unknowns, you need to un-scale your WGS84 points (or equivalently scale your X-Y points) by the scaling factor you found and shift your points so that the two coordinate systems have the same origin.
First, finding the angle of rotation: take two corresponding pairs of points P1, P1' and P2, P2' and write out
P1' = R(P1-A) + A
P2' = R(P2-A) + A
where I swapped A = Paxis_xy for brevity. Subtracting the two equations gives:
P2'-P1' = R(P2-P1)
B = R * C
Bx = cos(a) * Cx - sin(a) * Cy
By = cos(a) * Cx + sin(a) * Cy
By + Bx = 2 * cos(a) * Cx
(By + Bx) / (2 * Cx) = cos(a)
...
(By - Bx) / (2 * Cy) = sin(a)
a = atan2(sin(a), cos(a)) <-- to get the right quadrant
And you have your angle, you can also do a quick check that cos(a) * cos(a) + sin(a) * sin(a) == 1 to make sure either you got all the calculations correct or that your system really is an orientation-preserving isometry (consists only of translations and rotations).
Now that we know a we know R and so to find A we do:
P1` = R(P1-A) + A
P1' - R*P1 = (I-R)A
A = (inverse(I-R)) * (P1' - R*P1)
where the inversion of a 2x2 matrix is easy.
EDIT: There is an error in the above, or more specifically one case that needs to be treated separately.
There is one combination of translations and rotations that does not reduce to a single rotation and that is a single translation. You can think of it in terms of fixed points (how many points are unchanged after the operation).
A translation has no fixed points (all points are changed) and a rotation has 1 fixed point (the axis doesn't change). It turns out that two rotations leave 1 fixed point and a translation and a rotation leaves 1 fixed point, which (with a little proof that says the number of fixed points tells you the operation performed) is the reason that arbitrary combinations of these result in a single rotation.
What this means for you is that if your angle comes out as 0 then using the method above will give you A = 0 as well, which is likely incorrect. In this case you have to do A = P1' - P1.
If I understood the question correctly, you have n points (X1,Y1),...,(Xn,Yn), the corresponding points, say, (x1,y1),...,(xn,yn) in another coordinate system, and the former are supposedly obtained from the latter by rotation, scaling and translation.
Note that this data does not determine the fixed point of rotation / scaling, or the order in which the operations "should" be applied. On the other hand, if you know these beforehand or choose them arbitrarily, you will find a rotation, translation and scaling factor that transform the data as supposed to.
For example, you can pick an any point, say, p0 = [X1, Y1]T (column vector) as the fixed point of rotation & scaling and subtract its coordinates from those of two other points to get p2 = [X2-X1, Y2-Y1]T, and p3 = [X3-X1, Y3-Y1]T. Also take the column vectors q2 = [x2-x1, y2-y1]T, q3 = [x3-x1, y3-y1]T. Now [p2 p3] = A*[q2 q3], where A is an unknwon 2x2 matrix representing the roto-scaling. You can solve it (unless you were unlucky and chose degenerate points) as A = [p2 p3] * [q2 q3]-1 where -1 denotes matrix inverse (of the 2x2 matrix [q2 q3]). Now, if the transformation between the coordinate systems really is a roto-scaling-translation, all the points should satisfy Pk = A * (Qk-q0) + p0, where Pk = [Xk, Yk]T, Qk = [xk, yk]T, q0=[x1, y1]T, and k=1,..,n.
If you want, you can quite easily determine the scaling and rotation parameter from the components of A or combine b = -A * q0 + p0 to get Pk = A*Qk + b.
The above method does not react well to noise or choosing degenerate points. If necessary, this can be fixed by applying, e.g., Principal Component Analysis, which is also just a few lines of code if MATLAB or some other linear algebra tools are available.
I'm working on a data mining algorithm where i want to pick a random direction from a particular point in the feature space.
If I pick a random number for each of the n dimensions from [-1,1] and then normalize the vector to a length of 1 will I get an even distribution across all possible directions?
I'm speaking only theoretically here since computer generated random numbers are not actually random.
One simple trick is to select each dimension from a gaussian distribution, then normalize:
from random import gauss
def make_rand_vector(dims):
vec = [gauss(0, 1) for i in range(dims)]
mag = sum(x**2 for x in vec) ** .5
return [x/mag for x in vec]
For example, if you want a 7-dimensional random vector, select 7 random values (from a Gaussian distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation 1). Then, compute the magnitude of the resulting vector using the Pythagorean formula (square each value, add the squares, and take the square root of the result). Finally, divide each value by the magnitude to obtain a normalized random vector.
If your number of dimensions is large then this has the strong benefit of always working immediately, while generating random vectors until you find one which happens to have magnitude less than one will cause your computer to simply hang at more than a dozen dimensions or so, because the probability of any of them qualifying becomes vanishingly small.
You will not get a uniformly distributed ensemble of angles with the algorithm you described. The angles will be biased toward the corners of your n-dimensional hypercube.
This can be fixed by eliminating any points with distance greater than 1 from the origin. Then you're dealing with a spherical rather than a cubical (n-dimensional) volume, and your set of angles should then be uniformly distributed over the sample space.
Pseudocode:
Let n be the number of dimensions, K the desired number of vectors:
vec_count=0
while vec_count < K
generate n uniformly distributed values a[0..n-1] over [-1, 1]
r_squared = sum over i=0,n-1 of a[i]^2
if 0 < r_squared <= 1.0
b[i] = a[i]/sqrt(r_squared) ; normalize to length of 1
add vector b[0..n-1] to output list
vec_count = vec_count + 1
else
reject this sample
end while
There is a boost implementation of the algorithm that samples from normal distributions: random::uniform_on_sphere
I had the exact same question when also developing a ML algorithm.
I got to the same conclusion as Jim Lewis after drawing samples for the 2-d case and plotting the resulting distribution of the angle.
Furthermore, if you try to derive the density distribution for the direction in 2d when you draw at random from [-1,1] for the x- and y-axis ,you will see that:
f_X(x) = 1/(4*cos²(x)) if 0 < x < 45⁰
and
f_X(x) = 1/(4*sin²(x)) if x > 45⁰
where x is the angle, and f_X is the probability density distribution.
I have written about this here:
https://aerodatablog.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/random-hyperplanes/
#define SCL1 (M_SQRT2/2)
#define SCL2 (M_SQRT2*2)
// unitrand in [-1,1].
double u = SCL1 * unitrand();
double v = SCL1 * unitrand();
double w = SCL2 * sqrt(1.0 - u*u - v*v);
double x = w * u;
double y = w * v;
double z = 1.0 - 2.0 * (u*u + v*v);
I'm trying to figure out if I have points that make for example a square:
* *
* *
and let's say I know the center of this square.
I want a formula that will make it for eample twice its size but from the center
* *
* *
* *
* *
Therefore the new shape is twice as large and from the center of the polygon. It has to work for any shape not just squares.
I'm looking more for the theory behind it more than the implementation.
If you know the center point cp and a point v in the polygon you would like to scale by scale, then:
v2 = v - cp; // get a vector to v relative to the centerpoint
v2_scaled = v2 * scale; // scale the cp-relative-vector
v1_scaled = v2_scaled + cp; // translate the scaled vector back
This translate-scale-translate pattern can be performed on vectors of any dimension.
If you want the shape twice as large, scale the distance of the coordinates to be sqrt(2) times further from the center.
In other words, let's say your point is at (x, y) and the center is (xcent, ycent). Your new point should be at
(xcent + sqrt(2)*(x - xcent), ycent + sqrt(2)*(y - ycent))
This will scale the distances from the new 'origin', (xcent, ycent) in such a way that the area doubles. (Because sqrt(2)*sqrt(2) == 2).
I'm not sure there's a clean way to do this for all types of objects. For relatively simple ones, you should be able to find the "center" as the average of all the X and Y values of the individual points. To double the size, you find the length and angle of a vector from the center to the point. Double the length of the vector, and retain the same angle to get the new point.
Edit: of course, "twice the size" is open to several interpretations (e.g., doubling the perimeter vs. doubling the area) These would change the multiplier used above, but the basic algorithm would remain essentially the same.
To do what you want you need to perform three operations: translate the square so that its centroid coincides with the origin of the coordinate system, scale the resulting square, translate it back.