i have an array of points in 3d (imagine the trajectory of a ball) with X samples.
now, i want to resample these points so that i have a new array with positions with y samples.
y can be bigger or smaller than x but not smaller than 1. there will always be at least 1 sample.
how would an algorithm look like to resample the original array into a new one? thanks!
The basic idea is to take your X points and plot them on a graph. Then interpolate between them using some reasonable interpolation function. You could use linear interpolation, quadric B-splines, etc. Generally, unless you have a specific reason to believe the points represent a higher-order function (e.g. N4) you want to stick to a relatively low-order interpolation function.
Once you've done that, you have (essentially) a continuous line on your graph. To get your Y points, you just select Y points equally spaced along the graph's X axis.
You have to select some kind of interpolation/approximation function based on the original x samples (e.g. some kind of spline). Then you can evaluate this function at y (equally spaced, if wanted) points to get your new samples.
For the math, you can use the Wikipedia article about spline interpolation as starting point.
Related
I have a collection of points in some N-dimensional space, where all I know is the distances between them. Let's say it's an unordered collection of structs like the following:
struct {
int first; // Just some identifier that uniquely specifies a point
int second; // No importance to which point is first or second
float separation; // The distance between the first and second points -- always positive
};
Of course the algorithm doesn't have to be C code. I just wrote the struct in this style to make the problem clear. It rather upsets me that the struct spoils the symmetry between the two end-points, but fixing this just makes things more complicated.
Let's say that the separations are defined by the Pythagorean distance between them, and the space is Euclidean. Let's also specify that the separations are internally consistent. For example, given separations AB, BC and AC, we know that AB + BC >= AC.
I want an algorithm that finds the minimal dimensional space that can contain all the points. Within this algorithm, we can assume that separations that deviate from that defined by the space by less than some specified tolerance can be ignored.
Does anyone know an algorithm that does this? So far, I've only been able to think up non-polynominal algorithms. Can anybody improve on that, or at least make something that is clean and extensible?
Why is this interesting? In Physics there are some low-level theories such as String Theory or Quantum Loop Gravity that do not obviously predict our three dimensional world. This algorithm could be part of a project to find how a 3d world can be emergent.
Thank you everybody who posted ideas here. I now have an answer to my own question. It's not great, in that it executes O(n^3) but at least it's polynomial. Roughly, it works like this:
Represent the problem as a symmetric matrix with zero diagonal -- representing the distances between any two points. This is equivalent to the representation using structs, but much easier to work with.
Assume the ordering of the points implied by the matrix (first column/row = first point) is sensible. (It may be worth pivoting to find a better ordering, but that is todo.)
Now create a rectangular coordinate system to fit the points, starting with the first point, which WLOG we take to be the origin.
Second point defines the x axis
For each subsequent point, we calculate its coordinates one at a time, starting with the x axis. We know the distance from the origin and the distance from point 2. This allows us to calculate the x coordinate, as we end up with two simultaneous equations x^2 + y^2 + ... = s1^2 and (x - x2)^2 + y^2 + ... = s2^2, which allows us to calculate x easily from x2, the x coordinate of point 2, and the distances from points 1 and 2, s1 and s2.
Each new coordinate can be calculated easily, because the matrix of coordinates calculated so far is triangular -- there is only one unknown each time.
The last coordinate for each point is on a new axis -- a dimension that has not yet been used. Calculate its coordinate using Pythagoras on the distance from the origin, as we know all the other coordinates.
It is possible that the coordinate on the new axis will come out imaginary -- a general set of distances cannot always be represented by a coordinate system of any number of dimensions -- at least not with real numbers. If this is the case, I error.
Keep going in this way for each new point, building up a vector of coordinate vectors for each point. In general, this is triangular, but there may be cases where the final coordinate we calculate is near enough to zero that we consider the point's position to be represented by the existing dimensions. I store the coordinates anyway, but keep the number of dimensions the same as the previous point. I also skip these points, as they are not needed for calculating further points (see step 10).
Finally, we have represented all points such that the distances are consistent.
As a final check, I validate that the distances match for all points, including those skipped in step 9.
The number of dimensions needed is the number used for the last point.
If anyone is interested in an implementation of this (in Haskell), it is on my GitHub page at https://github.com/MarcusRainbow/EmergentDimensions/coords.hs.
Given a 3d heightmap (from a laser scanner), how do I find the saddle points?
I.e. given something like this:
I am looking for all points where the curvature is positive in one direction and negative in the other.
(These directions should not need to be aligned with the X and Y axis.
I know how to check whether the curvature in X direction has the opposite sign as the curvature in Y direction, but that does not cover all cases. To make matters worse, the resolution in X is different from the resolution in Y)
Ideally I am looking for an algorithm that can tolerate some amount of noise and only mark "significant" saddle points.
I've been exploring a similar problem for a computational topology class and have had some success with the method outlined below.
First you will need a comparison function that will evaluate the height at two input points and will return < or > (not equal) for any input. One way to do this is that if the points are equal height you use some position-based or random index to find the greater point. You can think of this as adding an infinitesimal perturbation to the height.
Now, for each point, you will compare the height at all the surrounding neighbors (there will be 8 neighbors on a 2D rectangular grid). The lower link for a point will be the set of all neighbors for which the height is less than the point.
If all the neighboring values are in the lower link, you are at a local maximum. If none of the points are in the lower link you are at a local minimum. Otherwise, if the lower link is a single connected set, you are at a regular point on a slope. But if the lower link is two unconnected sets, you are at a saddle.
In 2D you can construct a list of the 8 neighboring point in cyclic order around the point you are checking. You assign a value of +/-1 for each neighbor depending on your comparison function. You can then step through that list (remember to compare the two end points) and count how many times the sign changes to determine the number of connected components in the lower link.
Determining which saddles are "important" is a more difficult analysis. You may wish to look at this: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~misha/ReadingSeminar/Papers/Gyulassy08.pdf for some guidance.
-Michael
(From a guess at the maths rather than practical experience)
Fit a quadratic to the surface in a small patch around each candidate point, e.g. with least squares. How big the patch is is one way of controlling noise, and you might gain by weighting points depending on their distance from the candidate point. In matrix notation, you can represent the quadratic as x'Ax + b'x + c, where A is symmetric.
The quadratic will have zero gradient at x = (A^-1)b/2. If this not within the patch, discard it.
If A has both +ve and -ve eigenvalues you have a saddle point at x. Since A is only 2x2 and so has at most two eigenvalues, you can ignore the case when it as a zero eigenvalue and so you couldn't invert it at the previous stage.
Imagine an enormous 3D grid (procedurally defined, and potentially infinite; at the very least, 10^6 coordinates per side). At each grid coordinate, there's a primitive (e.g., a sphere, a box, or some other simple, easily mathematically defined function).
I need an algorithm to intersect a ray, with origin outside the grid and direction entering it, against the grid's elements. I.e., the ray might travel halfway through this huge grid, and then hit a primitive. Because of the scope of the grid, an iterative method [EDIT: (such as ray marching) ]is unacceptably slow. What I need is some closed-form [EDIT: constant time ]solution for finding the primitive hit.
One possible approach I've thought of is to determine the amount the ray would converge each time step toward the primitives on each of the eight coordinates surrounding a grid cell in some modular arithmetic space in each of x, y, and z, then divide by the ray's direction and take the smallest distance. I have no evidence other than intuition to think this might work, and Google is unhelpful; "intersecting a grid" means intersecting the grid's faces.
Notes:
I really only care about the surface normal of the primitive (I could easily find that given a distance to intersection, but I don't care about the distance per se).
The type of primitive intersected isn't important at this point. Ideally, it would be a box. Second choice, sphere. However, I'm assuming that whatever algorithm is used might be generalizable to other primitives, and if worst comes to worst, it doesn't really matter for this application anyway.
Here's another idea:
The ray can only hit a primitive when all of the x, y and z coordinates are close to integer values.
If we consider the parametric equation for the ray, where a point on the line is given by
p=p0 + t * v
where p0 is the starting point and v is the ray's direction vector, we can plot the distance from the ray to an integer value on each axis as a function of t. e.g.:
dx = abs( ( p0.x + t * v.x + 0.5 ) % 1 - 0.5 )
This will yield three sawtooth plots whose periods depend on the components of the direction vector (e.g. if the direction vector is (1, 0, 0), the x-plot will vary linearly between 0 and 0.5, with a period of 1, while the other plots will remain constant at whatever p0 is.
You need to find the first value of t for which all three plots are below some threshold level, determined by the size of your primitives. You can thus vastly reduce the number of t values to be checked by considering the plot with the longest (non-infinite) period first, before checking the higher-frequency plots.
I can't shake the feeling that it may be possible to compute the correct value of t based on the periods of the three plots, but I can't come up with anything that isn't scuppered by the starting position not being the origin, and the threshold value not being zero. :-/
Basically, what you'll need to do is to express the line in the form of a function. From there, you will just mathematically have to calculate if the ray intersects with each object, as and then if it does make sure you get the one it collides with closest to the source.
This isn't fast, so you will have to do a lot of optimization here. The most obvious thing is to use bounding boxes instead of the actual shapes. From there, you can do things like use Octrees or BSTs (Binary Space Partitioning).
Well, anyway, there might be something I am overlooking that becomes possible through the extra limitations you have to your system, but that is how I had to make a ray tracer for a course.
You state in the question that an iterative solution is unacceptably slow - I assume you mean iterative in the sense of testing every object in the grid against the line.
Iterate instead over the grid cubes that the line intersects, and for each cube test the 8 objects that the cube intersects. Look to Bresenham's line drawing algorithm for how to find which cubes the line intersects.
Note that Bresenham's will not return absolutely every cube that the ray intersects, but for finding which primitives to test I'm fairly sure that it'll be good enough.
It also has the nice properties:
Extremely simple - this will be handy if you're running it on the GPU
Returns results iteratively along the ray, so you can stop as soon as you find a hit.
Try this approach:
Determine the function of the ray;
Say the grid is divided in different planes in z axis, the ray will intersect with each 'z plane' (the plane where the grid nodes at the same height lie in), and you can easily compute the coordinate (x, y, z) of the intersect points from the ray function;
Swipe z planes, you can easily determine which intersect points lie in a cubic or a sphere;
But the ray may intersects with the cubics/spheres between the z planes, so you need to repeat the 1-3 steps in x, y axises. This will ensure no intersection is left off.
Throw out the repeated cubics/spheres found from x,y,z directions searches.
The parametric boundary of an object can be extract in Matlab by using the bwtraceboundary function. It returns a Q-by-2 matrix B, where Q is the number of boundary pixels for the object and the first and second columns stores the row and column coordinates of the boundary pixels respectively.
What I want to do is to sample this boundary of Q elements by N points that divide the original boundary in segments of equal arch length.
A straightfoward solution that I thought consists in computing the length L of the boundary by summing the distance of all two consecutive boundary pixels. Those distances are either 1 or sqrt(2). Then I divide L by N to find the desired length of the arcs. Finally, I iterate over the boundary again summing the distance of all two consecutive boundary pixels. When the sum is greater or equal the desired arc-length, the current boundary pixel is chosen as one of the N that will compose the sampled boundary.
Is that a good solution? Is there a more efficient/simple solution?
Over the years, I have seen this question a seemingly vast number of times. So I wrote a little tool that will do exactly that. Sample a piecewise linear or even a curvilinear (spline) arc in a general number of dimensions so that the successive points are at a uniform or specified distance along that arc.
In the case of the use of merely piecewise linear arcs, this is rather easy. You sum up the total arc length of the curve, then do an interpolation in arc length, but since that is known to be piecewise linear, it only requires linear interpolation along that length as a function of the cumulative arc length.
In the case of a curved arc, it is most easily done as the solution of a system of ordinary differential equations, watching for events along the way. ODE45 does this nicely.
You can use interparc, as found on the MATLAB Central File Exchange to do this for you, or if you wish to learn to do it yourself for the simple piecewise linear case, read through the first part of the code where I do the piecewise linear arc length interpolation. A nice thing is the linear case is done in a fully vectorized form, so no explicit loops are necessary.
I need to initialize some three dimensional points, and I want them to be equally spaced throughout a cube. Are there any creative ways to do this?
I am using an iterative Expectation Maximization algorithm and I want my initial vectors to "span" the space evenly.
For example, suppose I have eight points that I want to space equally in a cube sized 1x1x1. I would want the points at the corners of a cube with a side length of 0.333, centered within the larger cube.
A 2D example is below. Notice that the red points are equidistant from eachother and the edges. I want the same for 3D.
In cases where the number of points does not have an integer cube root, I am fine with leaving some "gaps" in the arrangement.
Currently I am taking the cube root of the number of points and using that to calculate the number of points and the desired distance between them. Then I iterate through the points and increment the X, Y and Z coordinates (staggered so that Y doesn't increment until X loops back to 0, same for Z with regard for Y).
If there's an easy way to do this in MATLAB, I'd gladly use it.
The sampling strategy you are proposing is known as a Sukharev grid, which is the optimal low dispersion sampling strategy, http://planning.cs.uiuc.edu/node204.html. In cases where the number of samples is not n^3, the selection of which points to omit from the grid is unimportant from a sampling standpoint.
In practice, it's possible to use low discrepancy (quasi-random) sampling techniques to achieve very good results in three dimensions, http://planning.cs.uiuc.edu/node210.html. You might want to look at using Halton and Hammersley sequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_sequence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructions_of_low-discrepancy_sequences
You'll have to define the problem in more detail for the cases where the number of points isn't a perfect cube. Hovever, for the cases where the number of points is a cube, you can use:
l=linspace(0,1,n+2);
x=l(2:n+1); y=x; z=x;
[X, Y, Z] = meshgrid(x, y, z);
Then for each position in the matrices, the coordinates of that point are given by the corresponding elements of X, Y, and Z. If you want the points listed in a single matrix, such that each row represents a point, with the three columns for x, y, and z coordinates, then you can say:
points(:,1) = reshape(X, [], 1);
points(:,2) = reshape(Y, [], 1);
points(:,3) = reshape(Z, [], 1);
You now have a list of n^3 points on a grid throughout the unit cube, excluding the boundaries. As others have suggested, you can probably randomly remove some of the points if you want fewer points. This would be easy to do, by using randi([0 n^3], a, 1) to generate a indices of points to remove. (Don't forget to check for duplicates in the matrix returned by randi(), otherwise you might not delete enough points.)
This looks related to sphere packing.
Choose the points randomly within the cube, and then compute vectors to the nearest neighbor or wall. Then, extend the endpoints of the smallest vector by exponentially decaying step size. If you do this iteratively, the points should converge to the optimal solution. This even works if the number of points is not cubic.
a good random generator could be a first a usable first approximation. maybe with a later filter to reposition (again randomly) the worst offenders.