Generate a random point within a rectangle (uniformly)
This suppose to be a simple problem.
However, in RANDOM_DATA homepage I found the following note:
However, we will not achieve uniform distribution in the simple case
of a rectangle of nonequal sides [0,A] x [0,B], if we naively scale
the random values (u1,u2) to (A*u1,B*u2). In that case, the expected
point density of a wide, short region will differ from that of a
narrow tall region. The absence of uniformity is most obvious if the
points are plotted.
I found it quite of strange... I can't figure out why such scaling will affect the uniformity.
What am I missing?
Edit:
Thank you Patrick87 and missingno. I was searching for a theoretical reason for the statement. I now understand that the reason is not theoretical, but practical - the granularity of floating-point values.
If I'll generate two uniform floating-points between 0 and 1 (which is an issue by itself due to the nature of floating-point value representation. Look here for an algorithm) - the granularity will be limited.
Suppose that there are X different values between 0 and 1. By scaling (u1,u2) to (u1,2*u2) we'll have X different values in the range [0,u1] and X different values in the range [0,2*u2]. For area uniformity we should have twice as many different values in [0,2*u2] than in [0,u1].
Given that, Allow me to change my question:
How should I generate a random point within a rectangle (with uniform distribution by area)?
That statement is incorrect, direct product of two independent uniform measures is a uniform measure. This can be shown as follows:
A probability for a random point to hit a rectangle with sides a and b is equal to probability for the first coordinate to hit the segment with the length a and the second coordinate to hit the segment with the length b. (We are talking about projections of a rectangle to axes).
First probability is a / A, the second one is b / B.
As these variables are independent, the probabilities multiply, so the resulting probability is ab / AB, so we have a uniform 2D distribution as the probability is proportional to the area of the rectangle. This formula is symmetric with respect to a and b, so the observation in the quote is wrong about narrow and wide rectangles.
How should I generate a random point within a rectangle (with uniform distribution by area)?
This should work:
// given A, B, dimensions of rectangle
// given g, granularity of shorter side
if A > B then
bm := g
am := floor(g * A / B)
else then
am := g
bm := floor(g * B / A)
for i := 1 to n do
av := A * RandomInt(0..am) / am
bv := B * RandomInt(0..bm) / bm
print (av, bb)
EDIT: A simpler alternative would be to simply scale random floating point values by the same factor, choose points at random, and throw away points that fall outside your rectangle. However, you don't know how many trials you'd need before you got N points in the rectangle...
Ascii art:
Take a 3x3 rectangle:
***
***
***
And spread one of the sides by 3x:
*..*..*..*
*..*..*..*
*..*..*..*
You can kind of see here that the points are more densely packed vertically than they are horizontaly. What you actually want instead is uniform distribution by area
The most straightforward way to handle this is through rejection sampling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_sampling
// Given dimensions of the rectangle A, B where A <= B
boolean flag = true
while (flag) do:
double a = NextRandomDouble(0,B)
double b = NextRandomDouble(0,B)
if (a <= A)
return(a, b)
else
next
You essentially generate uniform numbers from a square that fits the original rectangle (of length B, in this example). If the number falls in the rectangle, keep the pair. If it does not, throw it away and try again!
Related
Assume we have a 3D grid that spans some 3D space. This grid is made out of cubes, the cubes need not have integer length, they can have any possible floating point length.
Our goal is, given a point and a direction, to check linearly each cube in our path once and exactly once.
So if this was just a regular 3D array and the direction is say in the X direction, starting at position (1,2,0) the algorithm would be:
for(i in number of cubes)
{
grid[1+i][2][0]
}
But of course the origin and the direction are arbitrary and floating point numbers, so it's not as easy as iterating through only one dimension of a 3D array. And the fact the side lengths of the cubes are also arbitrary floats makes it slightly harder as well.
Assume that your cube side lengths are s = (sx, sy, sz), your ray direction is d = (dx, dy, dz), and your starting point is p = (px, py, pz). Then, the ray that you want to traverse is r(t) = p + t * d, where t is an arbitrary positive number.
Let's focus on a single dimension. If you are currently at the lower boundary of a cube, then the step length dt that you need to make on your ray in order to get to the upper boundary of the cube is: dt = s / d. And we can calculate this step length for each of the three dimensions, i.e. dt is also a 3D vector.
Now, the idea is as follows: Find the cell where the ray's starting point lies in and find the parameter values t where the first intersection with the grid occurs per dimension. Then, you can incrementally find the parameter values where you switch from one cube to the next for each dimension. Sort the changes by the respective t value and just iterate.
Some more details:
cell = floor(p - gridLowerBound) / s <-- the / is component-wise division
I will only cover the case where the direction is positive. There are some minor changes if you go in the negative direction but I am sure that you can do these.
Find the first intersections per dimension (nextIntersection is a 3D vector):
nextIntersection = ((cell + (1, 1, 1)) * s - p) / d
And calculate the step length:
dt = s / d
Now, just iterate:
if(nextIntersection.x < nextIntersection.y && nextIntersection.x < nextIntersection.z)
cell.x++
nextIntersection.x += dt.x
else if(nextIntersection.y < nextIntersection.z)
cell.y++
nextIntersection.y += dt.y
else
cell.z++
nextIntersection.z += dt.z
end if
if cell is outside of grid
terminate
I have omitted the case where two or three cells are changed at the same time. The above code will only change one at a time. If you need this, feel free to adapt the code accordingly.
Well if you are working with floats, you can make the equation for the line in direction specifiedd. Which is parameterized by t. Because in between any two floats there is a finite number of points, you can simply check each of these points which cube they are in easily cause you have point (x,y,z) whose components should be in, a respective interval defining a cube.
The issue gets a little bit harder if you consider intervals that are, dense.
The key here is even with floats this is a discrete problem of searching. The fact that the equation of a line between any two points is a discrete set of points means you merely need to check them all to the cube intervals. What's better is there is a symmetry (a line) allowing you to enumerate each point easily with arithmetic expression, one after another for checking.
Also perhaps consider integer case first as it is same but slightly simpler in determining the discrete points as it is a line in Z_2^8?
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 have two sets of points A and B.
I want to find all points in B that are within a certain range r to A, where a point b in B is said to be within range r to A if there is at least one point a in A whose (Euclidean) distance to b is equal or smaller to r.
Each of the both sets of points is a coherent set of points. They are generated from the voxel locations of two non overlapping objects.
In 1D this problem fairly easy: all points of B within [min(A)-r max(A)+r]
But I am in 3D.
What is the best way to do this?
I currently repetitively search for every point in A all points in B that within range using some knn algorithm (ie. matlab's rangesearch) and then unite all those sets. But I got a feeling that there should be a better way to do this. I'd prefer a high level/vectorized solution in matlab, but pseudo code is fine too :)
I also thought of writing all the points to images and using image dilation on object A with a radius of r. But that sounds like quite an overhead.
You can use a k-d tree to store all points of A.
Iterate points b of B, and for each point - find the nearest point in A (let it be a) in the k-d tree. The point b should be included in the result if and only if the distance d(a,b) is smaller then r.
Complexity will be O(|B| * log(|A|) + |A|*log(|A|))
I archived further speedup by enhancing #amit's solution by first filtering out points of B that are definitely too far away from all points in A, because they are too far away even in a single dimension (kinda following the 1D solution mentioned in the question).
Doing so limits the complexity to O(|B|+min(|B|,(2r/res)^3) * log(|A|) + |A|*log(|A|)) where res is the minimum distance between two points and thus reduces run time in the test case to 5s (from 10s, and even more in other cases).
example code in matlab:
r=5;
A=randn(10,3);
B=randn(200,3)+5;
roughframe=[min(A,[],1)-r;max(A,[],1)+r];
sortedout=any(bsxfun(#lt,B,roughframe(1,:)),2)|any(bsxfun(#gt,B,roughframe(2,:)),2);
B=B(~sortedout,:);
[~,dist]=knnsearch(A,B);
B=B(dist<=r,:);
bsxfun() is your friend here. So, say you have 10 points in set A and 3 points in set B. You want to have them arrange so that the singleton dimension is at the row / columns. I will randomly generate them for demonstration
A = rand(10, 1, 3); % 10 points in x, y, z, singleton in rows
B = rand(1, 3, 3); % 3 points in x, y, z, singleton in cols
Then, distances among all the points can be calculated in two steps
dd = bsxfun(#(x,y) (x - y).^2, A, B); % differences of x, y, z in squares
d = sqrt(sum(dd, 3)); % this completes sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
Now, you have an array of the distance among points in A and B. So, for exampl, the distance between point 3 in A and point 2 in B should be in d(3, 2). Hope this helps.
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
I'm using procedural techniques to generate graphics for a game I am writing.
To generate some woods I would like to scatter trees randomly within a regular hexagonal area centred at <0,0>.
What is the best way to generate these points in a uniform way?
If you can find a good rectangular bounding box for your hexagon, the easiest way to generate uniformly random points is by rejection sampling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_sampling)
That is, find a rectangle that entirely contains your hexagon, and then generate uniformly random points within the rectangle (this is easy, just independently generate random values for each coordinate in the right range). Check if the random point falls within the hexagon. If yes, keep it. If no, draw another point.
So long as you can find a good bounding box (the area of the rectangle should not be more than a constant factor larger than the area of the hexagon it encloses), this will be extremely fast.
A possibly simple way is the following:
F ____ B
/\ /\
A /__\/__\ E
\ /\ /
\/__\/
D C
Consider the parallelograms ADCO (center is O) and AOBF.
Any point in this can be written as a linear combination of two vectors AO and AF.
An point P in those two parallelograms satisfies
P = x* AO + y * AF or xAO + yAD.
where 0 <= x < 1 and 0 <= y <= 1 (we discount the edges shared with BECO).
Similarly any point Q in the parallelogram BECO can be written as the linear combination of vectors BO and BE such that
Q = xBO + yBE where 0 <=x <=1 and 0 <=y <= 1.
Thus to select a random point
we select
A with probability 2/3 and B with probability 1/3.
If you selected A, select x in [0,1) (note, half-open interval [0,1)) and y in [-1,1] and choose point P = xAO+yAF if y > 0 else choose P = x*AO + |y|*AD.
If you selected B, select x in [0,1] and y in [0,1] and choose point Q = xBO + yBE.
So it will take three random number calls to select one point, which might be good enough, depending on your situation.
If it's a regular hexagon, the simplest method that comes to mind is to divide it into three rhombuses. That way (a) they have the same area, and (b) you can pick a random point in any one rhombus with two random variables from 0 to 1. Here is a Python code that works.
from math import sqrt
from random import randrange, random
from matplotlib import pyplot
vectors = [(-1.,0),(.5,sqrt(3.)/2.),(.5,-sqrt(3.)/2.)]
def randinunithex():
x = randrange(3);
(v1,v2) = (vectors[x], vectors[(x+1)%3])
(x,y) = (random(),random())
return (x*v1[0]+y*v2[0],x*v1[1]+y*v2[1])
for n in xrange(500):
v = randinunithex()
pyplot.plot([v[0]],[v[1]],'ro')
pyplot.show()
A couple of people in the discussion raised the question of uniformly sampling a discrete version of the hexagon. The most natural discretization is with a triangular lattice, and there is a version of the above solution that still works. You can trim the rhombuses a little bit so that they each contain the same number of points. They only miss the origin, which has to be allowed separately as a special case. Here is a code for that:
from math import sqrt
from random import randrange, random
from matplotlib import pyplot
size = 10
vectors = [(-1.,0),(.5,sqrt(3.)/2.),(.5,-sqrt(3.)/2.)]
def randinunithex():
if not randrange(3*size*size+1): return (0,0)
t = randrange(3);
(v1,v2) = (vectors[t], vectors[(t+1)%3])
(x,y) = (randrange(0,size),randrange(1,size))
return (x*v1[0]+y*v2[0],x*v1[1]+y*v2[1])
# Plot 500 random points in the hexagon
for n in xrange(500):
v = randinunithex()
pyplot.plot([v[0]],[v[1]],'ro')
# Show the trimmed rhombuses
for t in xrange(3):
(v1,v2) = (vectors[t], vectors[(t+1)%3])
corners = [(0,1),(0,size-1),(size-1,size-1),(size-1,1),(0,1)]
corners = [(x*v1[0]+y*v2[0],x*v1[1]+y*v2[1]) for (x,y) in corners]
pyplot.plot([x for (x,y) in corners],[y for (x,y) in corners],'b')
pyplot.show()
And here is a picture.
alt text http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/0f80ad5d9a.png
The traditional approach (applicable to regions of any polygonal shape) is to perform trapezoidal decomposition of your original hexagon. Once that is done, you can select your random points through the following two-step process:
1) Select a random trapezoid from the decomposition. Each trapezoid is selected with probability proportional to its area.
2) Select a random point uniformly in the trapezoid chosen on step 1.
You can use triangulation instead of trapezoidal decomposition, if you prefer to do so.
Chop it up into six triangles (hence this applies to any regular polygon), randomly choose one triangle, and randomly choose a point in the selected triangle.
Choosing random points in a triangle is a well-documented problem.
And of course, this is quite fast and you'll only have to generate 3 random numbers per point --- no rejection, etc.
Update:
Since you will have to generate two random numbers, this is how you do it:
R = random(); //Generate a random number called R between 0-1
S = random(); //Generate a random number called S between 0-1
if(R + S >=1)
{
R = 1 – R;
S = 1 – S;
}
You may check my 2009 paper, where I derived an "exact" approach to generate "random points" inside different lattice shapes: "hexagonal", "rhombus", and "triangular". As far as I know it is the "most optimized approach" because for every 2D position you only need two random samples. Other works derived earlier require 3 samples for each 2D position!
Hope this answers the question!
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0162
1) make biection from points to numbers (just enumerate them), get random number -> get point.
Another solution.
2) if N - length of hexagon's side, get 3 random numbers from [1..N], start from some corner and move 3 times with this numbers for 3 directions.
The rejection sampling solution above is intuitive and simple, but uses a rectangle, and (presumably) euclidean, X/Y coordinates. You could make this slightly more efficient (though still suboptimal) by using a circle with radius r, and generate random points using polar coordinates from the center instead, where distance would be rand()*r, and theta (in radians) would be rand()*2*PI.