I have plotted n random points (the black points) and used delaunay triangulation, now I want to interpolate m random evaluation points (the red points) so I need to calculate which triangle the evaluation point is inside.
What is the approach for calculating the vertices of the triangle for each point?
For a given triangle, ABC, a point is inside the triangle if it is on the same side of line AB as point C is, on the same side of line BC as point A is, and on the same side of line AC as point B is. You can pre-optimize this check for each triangle and check them all until you find the triangle(s) it is in. See this page for more details.
To save computation, you can compute the minimum and maximum X and Y coordinates of the points for each triangle. If the X and Y coordinates of a point are not within the minimum and maximum values, you can immediately skip checking that triangle. The point cannot be inside it if it isn't inside the rectangle that bounds the triangle.
I'll assume that triangles do not intersect except of common edges.
You don't want to check every triangle (or subset of them) independently. The main reason is computation errors - due to them you may get answer "inside" for more than one triangle (or zero) which may break logic of your program.
More robust way is:
Find closest edge to the point
Select one of triangles touching this edge
Make one check for that triangle (the point lies on the same side as the third triangle vertex)
If "inside" - return this triangle
If "outside" - return another triangle on this edge (or "nothing" if there is no other triangle)
Even if you will return wrong triangle because of computation error, there still be exactly one triangle and point will lie close enough to it to accept such mistakes.
For #1 you can use something like quad-tree as Michael Wild suggests.
This simple example triangulates 10 random points, a further 3 random points are generated and if they fall inside a triangle the vertices are given:
import numpy as np
from pyhull.delaunay import DelaunayTri
def sign(a,b,c):
return (a[0]-c[0])*(b[1]-c[1])-(b[0]-c[0])*(a[1]-c[1])
def findfacet(p,simplice):
c,b,a = simplice.coords
b1 = sign(p,a,b) < 0.0
b2 = sign(p,b,c) < 0.0
b3 = sign(p,c,a) < 0.0
return b1 == b2 == b3
data = np.random.randn(10, 2)
dtri = DelaunayTri(data)
interpolate = np.random.randn(3, 2)
for point in interpolate:
for triangle in dtri.simplices:
if findfacet(point,triangle):
print "Point",point,"inside",triangle.coords
break
Using matplotlib to visualize (code omitted):
The dotted cyan lines now connect the points to interpolate with the vertices of triangle it lays within. The black lines are the convex hull, and the solid cyan lines are the delaunay triangulation.
A Delaunay triangulation is in itself a search data structure. Your Delaunay triangulation implementation probably has location functions. How have you computed the Delaunay triangulation of your points?
CGAL has an implementation of 2D and 3D triangulations. The resulting data structure is able to localize any point using a walk from a given point. See for example that chapter of the manual. CGAL is a C++ library, but it has python bindings.
Related
I am working in a discrete 2D grid of points in which there are "shapes" that I would like to create points outside of. I have been able to identify the vertices of these points and take convex hulls. So far, this leads to this and all is good and well. The purple here is the shape in question and the red line is the convex contour I have computed.
What I would like to do now is create two neighborhoods of points outside this shape. The first one is a set of points directly outside (as close as the grid size will allow), the second is another set of points but offset some distance away (the distance is not fixed, but rather an input).
I have attempted to write this in Python and get okay results. Here is an example of my current output. The problem is I notice the offsets are not perfect, for example look at the bottom most point in the image I attached. It kinks downwards whereas the original shape does not. It's not too bad in this example, but in other cases where the shape is smaller or if I take a smaller offset it gets worse. I also have an issue where the offsets sometimes overlap, even if they are supposed to be some distance away. I would also like there to be one line in each section of the contour, not two lines (for example in the top left).
My current attempt uses the Shapely package to handle most of the computational geometry. An outline of what I do once I have found the vertices of the convex contour is to offset these vertices by some amount, and interpolate along each pair of vertices to obtain many points alone these lines. Afterwards I use a coordinate transform to identify all points to the nearest grid point. This is how I obtain my final set of points. Below is the actual code I have written.
How can I improve this so I don't run into the issues I described?
Function #1 - Computes the offset points
def OutsidePoints(vertices, dist):
poly_line = LinearRing(vertices)
poly_line_offset = poly_line.buffer(dist, resolution=1, join_style=2, mitre_limit=1).exterior
new_vertices = list(poly_line_offset.coords)
new_vertices = np.asarray(new_vertices)
shape = sg.Polygon(new_vertices)
points = []
for t in np.arange(0, shape.length, step_size):
temp_points = np.transpose(shape.exterior.interpolate(t).xy)
points.append(temp_points[0])
points = np.array(points)
points = np.unique(points, axis=0)
return points
Function #2 - Transforming these points into points that are on my grid
def IndexFinder(points):
index_points = invCoordinateTransform(points)
for i in range(len(index_points)):
for j in range(2):
index_points[i][j] = math.floor(index_points[i][j])
index_points = np.unique(index_points, axis=0)
return index_points
Many thanks!
I got this plane
from sympy.geometry.plane import Plane
p=Plane((0,5,0),(0,0,0),(5,7,0)) #2d first to make it easier
now I want to get a point on that plane 45deg from plane point one and lenght=sqrt(2). In this case that point will be (1,6,0)
I've tried this:
a=np.sqrt(2)*p.arbitrary_point(pi/4)
but it does not work as a coordinates return (1.0,8.07106781187,0.0)
the problem is that arbitrary_point returns a point in a circle of radius 1 about p1 of the Plane. I want to be able to change that radius.
Multiplying all of a point's coordinates by sqrt(2) moves it away from the origin (0,0,0). You want to move it away from p1 of the plane. This is what the scale method is for.
p.arbitrary_point(np.pi/4).scale(np.sqrt(2), np.sqrt(2), np.sqrt(2), p.p1)
returns Point3D(1, 6, 0).
(I'm assuming import numpy as np here, to match the setting of the question; the standard math module could be used instead of numpy.)
I have some geo data (the image below shows the path of a river as red dots) which I want to approximate using a multi segment cubic bezier curve. Through other questions on stackoverflow here and here I found the algorithm by Philip J. Schneider from "Graphics Gems". I successfully implemented it and can report that even with thousands of points it is very fast. Unfortunately that speed comes with some disadvantages, namely that the fitting is done quite sloppily. Consider the following graphic:
The red dots are my original data and the blue line is the multi segment bezier created by the algorithm by Schneider. As you can see, the input to the algorithm was a tolerance which is at least as high as the green line indicates. Nevertheless, the algorithm creates a bezier curve which has too many sharp turns. You see too of these unnecessary sharp turns in the image. It is easy to imagine a bezier curve with less sharp turns for the shown data while still maintaining the maximum tolerance condition (just push the bezier curve a bit into the direction of the magenta arrows). The problem seems to be that the algorithm picks data points from my original data as end points of the individual bezier curves (the magenta arrows point indicate some suspects). With the endpoints of the bezier curves restricted like that, it is clear that the algorithm will sometimes produce rather sharp curvatures.
What I am looking for is an algorithm which approximates my data with a multi segment bezier curve with two constraints:
the multi segment bezier curve must never be more than a certain distance away from the data points (this is provided by the algorithm by Schneider)
the multi segment bezier curve must never create curvatures that are too sharp. One way to check for this criteria would be to roll a circle with the minimum curvature radius along the multisegment bezier curve and check whether it touches all parts of the curve along its path. Though it seems there is a better method involving the cross product of the first and second derivative
The solutions I found which create better fits sadly either work only for single bezier curves (and omit the question of how to find good start and end points for each bezier curve in the multi segment bezier curve) or do not allow a minimum curvature contraint. I feel that the minimum curvature contraint is the tricky condition here.
Here another example (this is hand drawn and not 100% precise):
Lets suppose that figure one shows both, the curvature constraint (the circle must fit along the whole curve) as well as the maximum distance of any data point from the curve (which happens to be the radius of the circle in green). A successful approximation of the red path in figure two is shown in blue. That approximation honors the curvature condition (the circle can roll inside the whole curve and touches it everywhere) as well as the distance condition (shown in green). Figure three shows a different approximation to the path. While it honors the distance condition it is clear that the circle does not fit into the curvature any more. Figure four shows a path which is impossible to be approximated with the given constraints because it is too pointy. This example is supposed to illustrate that to properly approximate some pointy turns in the path, it is necessary that the algorithm chooses control points which are not part of the path. Figure three shows that if control points along the path were chosen, the curvature constraint cannot be fulfilled anymore. This example also shows that the algorithm must quit on some inputs as it is not possible to approximate it with the given constraints.
Does there exist a solution to this problem? The solution does not have to be fast. If it takes a day to process 1000 points, then that's fine. The solution does also not have to be optimal in the sense that it must result in a least squares fit.
In the end I will implement this in C and Python but I can read most other languages too.
I found the solution that fulfills my criterea. The solution is to first find a B-Spline that approximates the points in the least square sense and then convert that spline into a multi segment bezier curve. B-Splines do have the advantage that in contrast to bezier curves they will not pass through the control points as well as providing a way to specify a desired "smoothness" of the approximation curve. The needed functionality to generate such a spline is implemented in the FITPACK library to which scipy offers a python binding. Lets suppose I read my data into the lists x and y, then I can do:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from scipy import interpolate
tck,u = interpolate.splprep([x,y],s=3)
unew = np.arange(0,1.01,0.01)
out = interpolate.splev(unew,tck)
plt.figure()
plt.plot(x,y,out[0],out[1])
plt.show()
The result then looks like this:
If I want the curve more smooth, then I can increase the s parameter to splprep. If I want the approximation closer to the data I can decrease the s parameter for less smoothness. By going through multiple s parameters programatically I can find a good parameter that fits the given requirements.
The question though is how to convert that result into a bezier curve. The answer in this email by Zachary Pincus. I will replicate his solution here to give a complete answer to my question:
def b_spline_to_bezier_series(tck, per = False):
"""Convert a parametric b-spline into a sequence of Bezier curves of the same degree.
Inputs:
tck : (t,c,k) tuple of b-spline knots, coefficients, and degree returned by splprep.
per : if tck was created as a periodic spline, per *must* be true, else per *must* be false.
Output:
A list of Bezier curves of degree k that is equivalent to the input spline.
Each Bezier curve is an array of shape (k+1,d) where d is the dimension of the
space; thus the curve includes the starting point, the k-1 internal control
points, and the endpoint, where each point is of d dimensions.
"""
from fitpack import insert
from numpy import asarray, unique, split, sum
t,c,k = tck
t = asarray(t)
try:
c[0][0]
except:
# I can't figure out a simple way to convert nonparametric splines to
# parametric splines. Oh well.
raise TypeError("Only parametric b-splines are supported.")
new_tck = tck
if per:
# ignore the leading and trailing k knots that exist to enforce periodicity
knots_to_consider = unique(t[k:-k])
else:
# the first and last k+1 knots are identical in the non-periodic case, so
# no need to consider them when increasing the knot multiplicities below
knots_to_consider = unique(t[k+1:-k-1])
# For each unique knot, bring it's multiplicity up to the next multiple of k+1
# This removes all continuity constraints between each of the original knots,
# creating a set of independent Bezier curves.
desired_multiplicity = k+1
for x in knots_to_consider:
current_multiplicity = sum(t == x)
remainder = current_multiplicity%desired_multiplicity
if remainder != 0:
# add enough knots to bring the current multiplicity up to the desired multiplicity
number_to_insert = desired_multiplicity - remainder
new_tck = insert(x, new_tck, number_to_insert, per)
tt,cc,kk = new_tck
# strip off the last k+1 knots, as they are redundant after knot insertion
bezier_points = numpy.transpose(cc)[:-desired_multiplicity]
if per:
# again, ignore the leading and trailing k knots
bezier_points = bezier_points[k:-k]
# group the points into the desired bezier curves
return split(bezier_points, len(bezier_points) / desired_multiplicity, axis = 0)
So B-Splines, FITPACK, numpy and scipy saved my day :)
polygonize data
find the order of points so you just find the closest points to each other and try them to connect 'by lines'. Avoid to loop back to origin point
compute derivation along path
it is the change of direction of the 'lines' where you hit local min or max there is your control point ... Do this to reduce your input data (leave just control points).
curve
now use these points as control points. I strongly recommend interpolation polynomial for both x and y separately for example something like this:
x=a0+a1*t+a2*t*t+a3*t*t*t
y=b0+b1*t+b2*t*t+b3*t*t*t
where a0..a3 are computed like this:
d1=0.5*(p2.x-p0.x);
d2=0.5*(p3.x-p1.x);
a0=p1.x;
a1=d1;
a2=(3.0*(p2.x-p1.x))-(2.0*d1)-d2;
a3=d1+d2+(2.0*(-p2.x+p1.x));
b0 .. b3 are computed in same way but use y coordinates of course
p0..p3 are control points for cubic interpolation curve
t =<0.0,1.0> is curve parameter from p1 to p2
this ensures that position and first derivation is continuous (c1) and also you can use BEZIER but it will not be as good match as this.
[edit1] too sharp edges is a BIG problem
To solve it you can remove points from your dataset before obtaining the control points. I can think of two ways to do it right now ... choose what is better for you
remove points from dataset with too high first derivation
dx/dl or dy/dl where x,y are coordinates and l is curve length (along its path). The exact computation of curvature radius from curve derivation is tricky
remove points from dataset that leads to too small curvature radius
compute intersection of neighboring line segments (black lines) midpoint. Perpendicular axises like on image (red lines) the distance of it and the join point (blue line) is your curvature radius. When the curvature radius is smaller then your limit remove that point ...
now if you really need only BEZIER cubics then you can convert my interpolation cubic to BEZIER cubic like this:
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// x=cx[0]+(t*cx[1])+(tt*cx[2])+(ttt*cx[3]); // cubic x=f(t), t = <0,1>
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// cubic matrix bz4 = it4
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
// cx[0]= ( x0) = ( X1)
// cx[1]= (3.0*x1)-(3.0*x0) = (0.5*X2) -(0.5*X0)
// cx[2]= (3.0*x2)-(6.0*x1)+(3.0*x0) = -(0.5*X3)+(2.0*X2)-(2.5*X1)+( X0)
// cx[3]= ( x3)-(3.0*x2)+(3.0*x1)-( x0) = (0.5*X3)-(1.5*X2)+(1.5*X1)-(0.5*X0)
// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
const double m=1.0/6.0;
double x0,y0,x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3;
x0 = X1; y0 = Y1;
x1 = X1-(X0-X2)*m; y1 = Y1-(Y0-Y2)*m;
x2 = X2+(X1-X3)*m; y2 = Y2+(Y1-Y3)*m;
x3 = X2; y3 = Y2;
In case you need the reverse conversion see:
Bezier curve with control points within the curve
The question was posted long ago, but here is a simple solution based on splprep, finding the minimal value of s allowing to fulfill a minimum curvature radius criteria.
route is the set of input points, the first dimension being the number of points.
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import splprep, splev
#The minimum curvature radius we want to enforce
minCurvatureConstraint = 2000
#Relative tolerance on the radius
relTol = 1.e-6
#Initial values for bisection search, should bound the solution
s_0 = 0
minCurvature_0 = 0
s_1 = 100000000 #Should be high enough to produce curvature radius larger than constraint
s_1 *= 2
minCurvature_1 = np.float('inf')
while np.abs(minCurvature_0 - minCurvature_1)>minCurvatureConstraint*relTol:
s = 0.5 * (s_0 + s_1)
tck, u = splprep(np.transpose(route), s=s)
smoothed_route = splev(u, tck)
#Compute radius of curvature
derivative1 = splev(u, tck, der=1)
derivative2 = splev(u, tck, der=2)
xprim = derivative1[0]
xprimprim = derivative2[0]
yprim = derivative1[1]
yprimprim = derivative2[1]
curvature = 1.0 / np.abs((xprim*yprimprim - yprim* xprimprim) / np.power(xprim*xprim + yprim*yprim, 3 / 2))
minCurvature = np.min(curvature)
print("s is %g => Minimum curvature radius is %g"%(s,np.min(curvature)))
#Perform bisection
if minCurvature > minCurvatureConstraint:
s_1 = s
minCurvature_1 = minCurvature
else:
s_0 = s
minCurvature_0 = minCurvature
It may require some refinements such as iterations to find a suitable s_1, but works.
I am trying to estimate the value of pi using a monte carlo simulation. I need to use two unit circles that are a user input distance from the origin. I understand how this problem works with a single circle, I just don't understand how I am meant to use two circles. Here is what I have got so far (this is the modified code I used for a previous problem the used one circle with radius 2.
import random
import math
import sys
def main():
numDarts=int(sys.argv[1])
distance=float(sys.argv[2])
print(montePi(numDarts,distance))
def montePi(numDarts,distance):
if distance>=1:
return(0)
inCircle=0
for I in range(numDarts):
x=(2*(random.random()))-2
y=random.random()
d=math.sqrt(x**2+y**2)
if d<=2 and d>=-2:
inCircle=inCircle+1
pi=inCircle/numDarts*4
return pi
main()
I need to change this code to work with 2 unit circles, but I do not understand how to use trigonometry to do this, or am I overthinking the problem? Either way help will be appreciated as I continue trying to figure this out.
What I do know is that I need to change the X coordinate, as well as the equation that determines "d" (d=math.sqrt(x*2+y*2)), im just not sure how.
These are my instructions-
Write a program called mcintersection.py that uses the Monte Carlo method to
estimate the area of this shape (and prints the result). Your program should take
two command-line parameters: distance and numDarts. The distance parameter
specifies how far away the circles are from the origin on the x-axis. So if distance
is 0, then both circles are centered on the origin, and completely overlap. If
distance is 0.5 then one circle is centered at (-0.5, 0) and the other at (0.5, 0). If
distance is 1 or greater, then the circles do not overlap at all! In that last case, your
program can simply output 0. The numDarts parameter should specify the number
of random points to pick in the Monte Carlo process.
In this case, the rectangle should be 2 units tall (with the top at y = 1 and the
bottom at y = -1). You could also safely make the rectangle 2 units wide, but this
will generally be much bigger than necessary. Instead, you should figure out
exactly how wide the shape is, based on the distance parameter. That way you can
use as skinny a rectangle as possible.
If I understand the problem correctly, you have two unit circles centered at (distance, 0) and (-distance, 0) (that is, one is slightly to the right of the origin and one is slightly to the left). You're trying to determine if a given point, (x, y) is within both circles.
The simplest approach might be to simply compute the distance between the point and the center of each of the circles. You've already done this in your previous code, just repeat the computation twice, once with the offset distance inverted, then use and to see if your point is in both circles.
But a more elegant solution would be to notice how your two circles intersect each other exactly on the y-axis. To the right of the axis, the left circle is completely contained within the right one. To the left of the y-axis, the right circle is entirely within the left circle. And since the shape is symmetrical, the two halves are of exactly equal size.
This means you can limit your darts to only hitting on one side of the axis, and then get away with just a single distance test:
def circle_intersection_area(num_darts, distance):
if distance >= 1:
return 0
in_circle = 0
width = 1-distance # this is enough to cover half of the target
for i in range(num_darts):
x = random.random()*width # random value from 0 to 1-distance
y = random.random()*2 - 1 # random value from -1 to 1
d = math.sqrt((x+distance)**2 + y**2) # distance from (-distance, 0)
if d <= 1:
in_circle += 1
sample_area = width * 2
target_area = sample_area * (in_circle / num_darts)
return target_area * 2 # double, since we were only testing half the target
I'm interested in calculating the Hausdorff Distance between 2 polygons (specifically quadrilaterals which are almost rectangles) defined by their vertices. They may overlap.
Recall $d_H(A,B) = \max(d(A,B), d(B,A))$ where $d$ is the Hausdorff semi-metric
$d(A,B) = \sup_{a\in A}\inf_{b\in B}d(a,b)$.
Is it true that, given a finite disjoint covering of $A$, ${A_i}$, $d(A,B)=\max{d(A_i,B)}$? A corollary of which is that $d(A,B)=d(A\setminus B,B)$.
I have found a paper by Atallah 1 (PDF). I'm interested in working in Python and would be open to any preprogrammed solutions.
In the case of convex polygons, d(A, B) is the maximum of the distances from vertices of A to any point in B. Therefore the Hausdorff distance is not too hard to calculate if you can calculate the distance from an arbitrary point to a convex polygon.
To calculate the distance from a point to a convex polygon you first have to test whether the point is inside the polygon (if so the distance is 0), and then if it is not find the minimum distance to any of the bounding line segments.
The answer to your other query is no. As an example let A and B both be the same 2x2 square centered at the origin. Partition A into 4 1x1 squares. The Hausdorff distance from each Ai to B is sqrt(2), but the distance from A to B is 0.
UPDATE: The claim about the vertices is not immediately obvious, therefore I'll sketch a proof that is good in any finite number of dimensions. The result I am trying to prove is that in calculating d(A, B) with both polygons and B convex, it suffices to find the distances from the vertices of A to B. (The closest point in B might not be a vertex, but one of the farthest points in A must be a vertex.)
Since both are finite closed shapes, they are compact. From compactness, there must exist a point p in A that is as far as possible from B. From compactness, there must exist a point q in B that is as close as possible to A.
This distance is 0 only if A and B are the same polygon, in which case it is clear that we achieve that distance at a vertex of A. So without loss of generality we may assume that there is a positive distance from p to q.
Draw the plane (in higher dimensions, some sort of hyperplane) touching q that is perpendicular to the line from p to q. Can any point in B cross this plane? Well if there was one, say r, then every point on the line segment from q to r must be in B because B is convex. But it is easy to show that there must be a point on this line segment that is closer to p than q is, contradicting the definition of q. Therefore B cannot cross this plane.
Clearly p cannot be an interior point, because if it was, then continue along the ray from q to p and you find points in A that are farther from the plane that B is bounded behind, contradicting the definition of p. If p is a vertex of A, then the result is trivially true. Therefore the only interesting case is if p is on a boundary of A but is not a vertex.
If so, then p is on a surface. If that surface were not parallel to the plane we constructed, it would be easy to travel along that surface, away from the plane we have bounded B behind, and find points farther away from B than p. Therefore that surface must be parallel to that plane. Since A is finite, that surface must terminate in vertices somewhere. Those vertices are the same distance from that plane as p, and therefore are at least as far from B as p. Therefore there exists at least one vertex of A that is as far as possible from B.
That is why it sufficed to find the maximum of the distances from the vertices of the polygons to the other polygon.
(I leave constructing a pair of polygons with q not a vertex as a fun exercise for the reader.)