Problem: What is the smallest possible diameter of a circle which covers given N points on a 2D plane?
What is the most efficient algorithm to solve this problem and how does it work?
This is the smallest circle problem. See the references for the links to the suggested algorithms.
E.Welzl, Smallest Enclosing Disks
(Balls and Ellipsoids), in H. Maurer
(Ed.), New Results and New Trends in
Computer Science, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Vol. 555,
Springer-Verlag, 359–37 (1991)
is the reference to the "fastest" algorithm.
There are several algorithms and implementations out there for the Smallest enclosing balls problem.
For 2D and 3D, Gärtner's implementation is probably the fastest.
For higher dimensions (up to 10,000, say), take a look at https://github.com/hbf/miniball, which is the implementation of an algorithm by Gärtner, Kutz, and Fischer (note: I am one of the co-authors).
For very, very high dimensions, core-set (approximation) algorithms will be faster.
Note: If you are looking for an algorithm to compute the smallest enclosing sphere of spheres, you will find a C++ implementation in the Computational Geometry Algorithms Library (CGAL). (You do not need to use all of CGAL; simply extract the required header and source files.)
the furthest point voronoi diagram approach
http://www.dma.fi.upm.es/mabellanas/tfcs/fvd/algorithm.html
turns out to work really well for the 2 d problem. It is non-iterative and (pretty sure) guaranteed exact. I suspect it doesn't extend so well to higher dimensions, which is why there is little attention to it in the literature.
If there is interest i'll describe it here - the above link is a bit hard to follow I think.
edit another link: http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/daimipb/article/view/6704
Related
I'm currently trying to find a way to take irregularly shaped polygons and divide them into as few quadrilaterals as possible.
I can't find an obvious out of the box algorithm anywhere that does this, so I'm thinking of going down two possible routes.
1.Getting the optimal triangulation first, and then converting these to quadrilaterals
2.Trying to alter the CGAL optimal_convex_partitions function from their 2d polygon partitioning package to create quadrilateral partitions https://doc.cgal.org/latest/Partition_2/group__PkgPolygonPartitioning2.html#ga3ca9fb1f363f9f792bfbbeca65ad5cc5
I'm a total beginner to computational geometry, so I'd just like to know if either of these approaches seems like a fools errand before I try to learn C++? If anyone knows anything about the best possible approach to this that'd be even better. Thanks!
(Edit) Including a sample polygon - None of them should have holes, though they may have complex exteriors and concavity.
I assume that if you start with triangles and then try to merge two adjacent triangles into one quadrilateral in a greedy fashion you may end up with many isolated triangles.
Not sure how the convex partition may come handy.
You may find useful information in the articles below. As far as know, finite element analysis requires that the input object comprise of triangles or quads, so there has been some research done in this direction. Here are two papers that might be relevant:
Ted D. Blacker amd Michael B. Stephenson, “Paving: a new approach to automated quadrilateral mesh generation” Int. J. Num.Meth.Engg, Vol 32, 811-847 (1991)
Jinwoo Choi and Yohngjo Kim , Development of a New Algorithm for Automatic Generation of a Quadrilateral Mesh, International Journal of CAD/CAM Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 00~00 (2011
I'm far from being an expert on this subjest, but I'm certain that these alg. can be implemented using CGAL...
Can someone point me to a reference implementation on how to construct a (multiplicatively and/or additively) weighted voronoi diagram, which is preferably based on Fortune's voronoi algorithm?
My goal:
Given a set of points(each point has a weight) and a set of boundary edges(usually a rectangle) I want to construct a weighted voronoi diagram using either python or the processing.org-framework. Here is an example.
What I have worked on so far:
So far I have implemented Fortune's algorithm as well as the "centroidal voronoi tessellation" presented in Michael Balzer's paper. Algorithm 3 states how the weights need to be adjusted, however, when I implement this my geometry does not work anymore. To fix this the sweep-line algorithm has to be updated to take weights into account, but I have been unable to do this so far.
Hence I would like to see how other people solved this problem.
For additively weighted Voronoi Diagram: Remember that a power diagram in dimension n is only a(n unweighted) Voronoi diagram in dimension n+1.
For that, just recall that the Voronoi diagram of a point set is invariant if you add any constant to the coordinates, and that the weighted Voronoi diagram can thus be written as a non weighted Voronoi diagram using the coordinates, for example in 2D lifted to 3D:
(x_i, y_i, sqrt(C - w_i))
where w_i is the weight of the seed, and C is any arbitrarily large constant (in practice, one just small enough such that C-w_i is positive).
Once your diagram is computed, just discard the last component.
So, basically, you only need to find a library that is able to handle Voronoi diagrams in dimension n+1 compared to your problem. CGAL can do that. This also makes the implementation extremely easy.
This computation is not easy, but it is available in CGAL. See the manual pages here.
See also the Effective Computational Geometry project, which employs and
supports CGAL:
There is little `off-the-shelf' open source code out there, for the case where distances to the centers are weighted with a multiplicative factor.
To my knowledge, none of the current CGAL packages covers this case.
Takashi Ohyama's beautifully colorful website provides java implementations
http://www.nirarebakun.com/voro/emwvoro.html
for up to 100 points with a SIMPLE algorithm (Euclidean and Manhattan distances).
There is also a paper describing this simple intersection algorithm and an approximate implementation within O(n^3) time, as a plugin to TerraView.
However, I cannot find the source of this plugin in the TerraView / TerraLib repository:
http://www.geoinfo.info/geoinfo2011/papers/mauricio1.pdf
Aurenhammer and Edelsbrunner describe an optimal n^2 time algorithm, but I'm unaware of available code of that.
If you are comfortable digging into Octave, you could reference the code provided in their library.
I'm writing an app that looks up points in two-dimensional space using a k-d tree. It would be nice, during development, to be able to "see" the nearest-neighbor zones surrounding each point.
In the attached image, the red points are points in the k-d tree, and the blue lines surrounding each point bound the zone where a nearest neighbor search will return the contained point.
The image was created thusly:
for each point in the space:
da = distance to nearest neighbor
db = distance to second-nearest neighbor
if absolute_value(da - db) < 4:
draw blue pixel
This algorithm has two problems:
(more important) It's slow on my (reasonably fast Core i7) computer.
(less important) It's sloppy, as you can see by the varying widths of the blue lines.
What is this "visualization" of a set of points called?
What are some good algorithms to create such a visualization?
This is called a Voronoi Diagram and there are many excellent algorithms for generating them efficiently. The one I've heard about most is Fortune's algorithm, which runs in time O(n log n), though others algorithms exist for this problem.
Hope this helps!
Jacob,
hey, you found an interesting way of generating this Voronoi diagram, even though it is not so efficient.
The less important issue first: the varying thickness boundaries that you get, those butterfly shapes, are in fact the area between the two branches of an hyperbola. Precisely the hyperbola given by the equation |da - db| = 4. To get a thick line instead, you have to modify this criterion and replace it by the distance to the bisector of the two nearest neighbors, let A and B; using vector calculus, | PA.AB/||AB|| - ||AB||/2 | < 4.
The more important issue: there are two well known efficient solutions to the construction of the Voronoi diagram of a set of points: Fortune's sweep algorithm (as mentioned by templatetypedef) and Preparata & Shamos' Divide & Conquer solutions. Both run in optimal time O(N.Lg(N)) for N points, but aren't so easy to implement.
These algorithm will construct the Voronoi diagram as a set of line segments and half-lines. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram.
This paper "Primitives for the manipulation of general subdivisions and the computation of Voronoi" describes both algorithms using a somewhat high-level framework, caring about all implementation details; the article is difficult but the algorithms are implementable.
You may also have a look at "A straightforward iterative algorithm for the planar Voronoi diagram", which I never tried.
A totally different approach is to directly build the distance map from the given points for example by means of Dijkstra's algorithm: starting from the given points, you grow the boundary of the area within a given distance from every point and you stop growing when two boundaries meet. [More explanations required.] See http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O6rXggLa9fE/TnAwz4f9hXI/AAAAAAAAAPk/0vrqEKRPVIw/s1600/distmap-20-seed4-fin.jpg
Another good starting point (for efficiently computing the distance map) can be "A general algorithm for computing distance transforms in linear time".
From personal experience: Fortune's algorithm is a pain to implement. The divide and conquer algorithm presented by Guibas and Stolfi isn't too bad; they give detailed pseudocode that's easy to transcribe into a procedural programming language. Both will blow up if you have nearly degenerate inputs and use floating point, but since the primitives are quadratic, if you can represent coordinates as 32-bit integers, then you can use 64 bits to carry out the determinant computations.
Once you get it working, you might consider replacing your kd-tree algorithms, which have a Theta(√n) worst case, with algorithms that work on planar subdivisions.
You can find a great implementation for it at D3.js library: http://mbostock.github.com/d3/ex/voronoi.html
I have a detailed 2D polygon (representing a geographic area) that is defined by a very large set of vertices. I'm looking for an algorithm that will simplify and smooth the polygon, (reducing the number of vertices) with the constraint that the area of the resulting polygon must contain all the vertices of the detailed polygon.
For context, here's an example of the edge of one complex polygon:
My research:
I found the Ramer–Douglas–Peucker algorithm which will reduce the number of vertices - but the resulting polygon will not contain all of the original polygon's vertices. See this article Ramer-Douglas-Peucker on Wikipedia
I considered expanding the polygon (I believe this is also known as outward polygon offsetting). I found these questions: Expanding a polygon (convex only) and Inflating a polygon. But I don't think this will substantially reduce the detail of my polygon.
Thanks for any advice you can give me!
Edit
As of 2013, most links below are not functional anymore. However, I've found the cited paper, algorithm included, still available at this (very slow) server.
Here you can find a project dealing exactly with your issues. Although it works primarily with an area "filled" by points, you can set it to work with a "perimeter" type definition as yours.
It uses a k-nearest neighbors approach for calculating the region.
Samples:
Here you can request a copy of the paper.
Seemingly they planned to offer an online service for requesting calculations, but I didn't test it, and probably it isn't running.
HTH!
I think Visvalingam’s algorithm can be adapted for this purpose - by skipping removal of triangles that would reduce the area.
I had a very similar problem : I needed an inflating simplification of polygons.
I did a simple algorithm, by removing concav point (this will increase the polygon size) or removing convex edge (between 2 convex points) and prolongating adjacent edges. In any case, doing one of those 2 possibilities will remove one point on the polygon.
I choosed to removed the point or the edge that leads to smallest area variation. You can repeat this process, until the simplification is ok for you (for example no more than 200 points).
The 2 main difficulties were to obtain fast algorithm (by avoiding to compute vertex/edge removal variation twice and maintaining possibilities sorted) and to avoid inserting self-intersection in the process (not very easy to do and to explain but possible with limited computational complexity).
In fact, after looking more closely it is a similar idea than the one of Visvalingam with adaptation for edge removal.
That's an interesting problem! I never tried anything like this, but here's an idea off the top of my head... apologies if it makes no sense or wouldn't work :)
Calculate a convex hull, that might be way too big / imprecise
Divide the hull into N slices, for example joining each one of the hull's vertices to the center
Calculate the intersection of your object with each slice
Repeat recursively for each intersection (calculating the intersection's hull, etc)
Each level of recursion should give a better approximation.... when you reached a satisfying level, merge all the hulls from that level to get the final polygon.
Does that sound like it could do the job?
To some degree I'm not sure what you are trying to do but it seems you have two very good answers. One is Ramer–Douglas–Peucker (DP) and the other is computing the alpha shape (also called a Concave Hull, non-convex hull, etc.). I found a more recent paper describing alpha shapes and linked it below.
I personally think DP with polygon expansion is the way to go. I'm not sure why you think it won't substantially reduce the number of vertices. With DP you supply a factor and you can make it anything you want to the point where you end up with a triangle no matter what your input. Picking this factor can be hard but in your case I think it's the best method. You should be able to determine the factor based on the size of the largest bit of detail you want to go away. You can do this with direct testing or by calculating it from your source data.
http://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/projektTDB/ht13/project10/Project-10-report.pdf
I've written a simple modification of Douglas-Peucker that might be helpful to anyone having this problem in the future: https://github.com/prakol16/rdp-expansion-only
It's identical to DP except that it pushes a line segment outwards a bit if the points that it would remove are outside the polygon. This guarantees that the resulting simplified polygon contains all the original polygon, but it has almost the same number of line segments as the original DP algorithm and is usually reasonably good at approximating the original shape.
The problem of finding the intersection/union of 'N' discs/circles on a flat plane was first proposed by M. I. Shamos in his 1978 thesis:
Shamos, M. I. “Computational Geometry” Ph.D. thesis, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT 1978.
Since then, in 1985, Micha Sharir presented an O(n log2n) time and O(n) space deterministic algorithm for the disc intersection/union problem (based on modified Voronoi diagrams): Sharir, M. Intersection and closest-pair problems for a set of planar discs. SIAM .J Comput. 14 (1985), pp. 448-468.
In 1988, Franz Aurenhammer presented a more efficient O(n log n) time and O(n) space algorithm for circle intersection/union using power diagrams (generalizations of Voronoi diagrams): Aurenhammer, F. Improved algorithms for discs and balls using power diagrams. Journal of Algorithms 9 (1985), pp. 151-161.
Earlier in 1983, Paul G. Spirakis also presented an O(n^2) time deterministic algorithm, and an O(n) probabilistic algorithm: Spirakis, P.G. Very Fast Algorithms for the Area of the Union of Many Circles. Rep. 98, Dept. Comput. Sci., Courant Institute, New York University, 1983.
I've been searching for any implementations of the algorithms above, focusing on computational geometry packages, and I haven't found anything yet. As neither appear trivial to put into practice, it would be really neat if someone could point me in the right direction!
Perhaps a constructive solid geometry (CSG) package would have a surface-area feature for overlapping circle primitives?
I've spent some time looking at the algorithms for computing the union of a set of balls - as you mention, it is done by using generalized Voronoi diagrams.
The CGAL library has a package that implements a union of balls. This is one dimension higher than what you're interested in, and it doesn't handle intersections. so probably no cigar.
If you're working in 2 dimensions, the problem is equivalent to finding a convex hull in 3 dimensions. You could use the convex hull stuff from CGAL or another package.
If you're looking for implementations of the specific algorithms you've mentioned, I can't help you. But if you just want to find the power diagram that allows you to easily compute unions and intersections, it might be easier than you think to roll your own using a 3D convex hull algorithm.
Sorry for the half baked answer, but we may as well start somewhere and see how much flexibility you have.
Edit: There's also a CGAL package for 2D power diagrams: http://www.cgal.org/Manual/last/doc_html/cgal_manual/Apollonius_graph_2/Chapter_main.html.
Also, #RGrey has found a CGAL library for calculating 2D booleans for generalized polygons, including circles at http://www.cgal.org/Manual/3.5/doc_html/cgal_manual/Boolean_set_operations_2/Chapter_main.html.
There is no 2D power diagram implementation in CGAL. The link suggested above (http://www.cgal.org/Manual/last/doc_html/cgal_manual/Apollonius_graph_2/Chapter_main.html) is for the additive weighted Voronoi diagram, which uses the euclid + weight, instead of euclid^2 + weight (as Power Diagrams do).