I am wondering what the documentation of cumulativeCost() in GEE exactly means by "nearest source location".
"nearest" in terms of "the closest starting pixel, linearly computed" or
"nearest" in terms of "the closest in terms of cumulative cost" ?
For my analysis I would like to know if the algorithm already reduces the number of potential routes in advance (by choosing only 1 starting point in advance) OR if it first tries the routes from one pixel to all possible starting points, and then takes the value to the starting pixel with the lowest total cost. Does anyone have more detailed information on how the algorithm works in that case? Thanks.
Related
RSME calculates how close the predicted value is compared to the actual value, but in a point cloud, there are 2 things that I am confused about:
How do we know which point corresponds to which point, to be subtracted from?
Point clouds are 3-dimensional since it has xyz values, but how do people turn those 3 values to one RSME value?
First of all, it's RMSE, not RSME. It stands for Root Mean Square Error:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root-mean-square_deviation
With 3D coordinates you can compare component wise, or however else you choose to define a distance measure. Then you plug this into the RMSE formula. Essentially this means comparing an expected value to your observed value.
As for the point correspondence - this depends on the algorithm of choice. Probably one of the most famous examples is ICP:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_Closest_Point_Algorithm
In a nutshell for every point of one cloud, the closest point of the other cloud is determined. Then an error measure is calculated and lastly points are transformed. This is done an arbitrary number of times, depending on the desired precision.
Since I strongly suspect that you are indeed looking for ICP, here is the description as to how they are put together:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_closest_point
Other than that you will have to do some reading yourself.
// Compute the normals
pcl::NormalEstimation<pcl::PointXYZ, pcl::Normal> normalEstimation;
pcl::search::KdTree<pcl::PointXYZ>::Ptr tree(new pcl::search::KdTree<pcl::PointXYZ>);
normalEstimation.setInputCloud(source_cloud);
normalEstimation.setSearchMethod(tree);
Hello everyone,
I am beginner for learning PCL
I don't understand at "normalEstimation.setSearchMethod(tree);"
what does this part mean?
Does it mean there are some methods that we have to choose?
Sometimes I see the code is like this
// Normal estimation
pcl::NormalEstimation<pcl::PointXYZ, pcl::Normal> n;
pcl::search::KdTree<pcl::PointXYZ>::Ptr tree(new pcl::search::KdTree<pcl::PointXYZ>);
tree->setInputCloud(cloud_smoothed)*/; [this part I dont understand too]
n.setInputCloud(cloud_smoothed);
n.setSearchMethod(tree);
Thankyou guys
cheers
you can find some information on how normals are computed here: http://pointclouds.org/documentation/tutorials/normal_estimation.php.
Basically, to compute a normal at a specific point, you need to "analyze" its neighbourhood, so the points that are around it. Usually, you take either the N closest points or all the points that are within a certain radius around the target point.
Finding these neighbour points is not trivial if the pointcloud is completely unstructured. KD-trees are here to speedup this search. In fact, they are an optimized data structure which allows very fast nearest-neighbour search for example. You can find more information on KD-trees here http://pointclouds.org/documentation/tutorials/kdtree_search.php.
So, the line normalEstimation.setSearchMethod(tree); just sets an empty KD-tree that will be used by the normal estimation algorithm.
So let's say I got a matrix with two types of cells: 0 and 1. 1 is not passable.
I want to find a point, from which I can run paths (say, A*) to a bunch of destinations (don't expect it to be more than 4). And I want the length of these paths to be such that l1/l2/l3/l4 = 1 or as close to 1 as possible.
For two destinations is simple: run a path between them and take the midpoint. For more destinations, I imagine I can run paths between each pair, then they will create a sort of polygon, and I could grab the centroid (or average of all path point coordinates)? Or would it be better to take all midpoints of paths between each pair and then use them as vertices in a polygon which will contain my desired point?
It seems you want to find the point with best access to multiple endpoints. For other readers, this is like trying to found an ideal settlement to trade with nearby cities; you want them to be as accessible as possible. It appears to be a variant of the Weber Problem applied to pathfinding.
The best solution, as you can no longer rely on exploiting geometry (imagine a mountain path or two blocking the way), is going to be an iterative approach. I don't imagine it will be easy to find an optimal solution because you'll need to check every square; you can't guess by pathing between endpoints anymore. In nearly any large problem space, you will need to path from each possible centroid to all endpoints. A suboptimal solution will be fairly fast. I recommend these steps:
try to estimate the centroid using geometry, forming a search area
Use a modified A* algorithm from each point S in the search area to all your target points T to generate a perfect path from S to each T.
Add the length of each path S -> T together to get Cost (probably stored in a matrix for all sample points)
Select the lowest Cost from all your samples in the matrix (or the entire population if you didn't cull the search space).
The algorithm above can also work without estimating a centroid and limiting solutions. If you choose to search the entire space, the search will be much longer, but you can find a perfect solution even in a labyrinth. If you estimate the centroid and start the search near it, you'll find good answers faster.
I mentioned earlier that you should use a modified A* algorithm... Rather than repeating a generic A* search S->Tn for every T, code A* so that it seeks multiple target locations, storing the paths to each one and stopping when it has found them all.
If you really want a perfect solution to the problem, you'll be waiting a long time, so I recommend that you use any exploit you can to reduce wasteful calculations. Even go so far as to store found paths in a lookup table for each T, and see if a point already exists along any of those paths.
To put it simply, finding the point is easy. Finding it fast-enough might take lots of clever heuristics (cost-saving measures) and stored data.
I have a logic question, therefore chose from two explanations:
Mathematical:
I have a undirected weighted complete graph over 2-14 nodes. The nodes always come in pairs (startpoint to endpoint). For this I already have the minimum spanning tree, which considers that the pairs startpoint always comes before his endpoint. Now I want to add another pair of nodes.
Real life explanation:
I already have a optimal taxi route for 1-7 people. Each joins (startpoint) and leaves (endpoint) at different places. Now I want to find the optimal route when I add another person to the taxi. I have already the calculated subpaths from each point to each point in my database (therefore this is a weighted graph). All calculated paths are real value, not heuristics.
Now I try to find the most performant solution to solve this. My current idea:
Find the point nearest to the new startpoint. Add it a) before and b) after this point. Choose the faster one.
Find the point nearest to the new endpoint. Add it a) before and b) after this point. Choose the faster one.
Ignoring the case that the new endpoint comes before the new start point, this seams feasible.
I expect that the general direction of the taxi is one direction, this eliminates the following edge case.
Is there any case I'm missing in which this algorithm wouldn't calculate the optimal solution?
There are definitely many cases were this algorithm (which is a First Fit construction heuristic) won't find the optimal solution. Given a reasonable sized dataset, in my experience, I would guess to get improvements of 10-20% by simply taking that result and adding metaheuristics (or other optimization algo's).
Explanation:
If you have multiple taxis with a limited person capacity, it has an inherit bin packing problem, which is NP-complete (which is proven to be suboptimally solved by all known construction heuristics in P).
But even if you have just 1 taxi, it is similar to TSP: if you have the optimal solution for 10 locations and add 1 location, it can create a snowball effect in the optimal solution to make the optimal solution look completely different. (sorry, no visual image of this yet)
And if you need to any additional constraints on top of that later on, you need to be aware of these false assumptions.
How big should epsilon be when checking if dot product is close to 0?
I am working on raytracing project, and i need to check if the dot product is 0. But
that will probably never happen, so I want to take it as 0 if its value is in a small
area [-eps, +eps], but I am not sure how big should eps be?
Thanks
Since you describe this as part of a ray-tracing project, your accuracy needed is likely dictated by the "world coordinates" of a scene, or perhaps even the screen coordinates to which those are translated. Either of these would give an acceptable target for absolute error in your calculation.
It might be possible to backtrack from that to the accuracy required in the intermediate calculations you are doing, such as forming an inner product which is supposed "theoretically" to be zero. For example, you might be trying to find a shortest path (reflected light) between two smooth bodies, and the disappearance of the inner product (perpendicularity) gives the location of a point.
In a case like that the inner product may be a quadratic in the unknowns (location of a point) that you seek. It's possible that the unknowns form a "double root" (zero of multiplicity 2), making the location of that root extra sensitive to the computation of the inner product being zero.
For such cases you would want to get roughly twice the number of digits "zero" in the inner product as needed in the accuracy of the location. Essentially the inner product changes very slowly with location in the neighborhood of a double root.
But your application might not be so sensitive; analysis of the algorithm involved is necessary to give you a good answer. As a general rule I do the inner product in double precision to get answers that may be reliable as far as single precision, but this may be too costly if the ray-tracing is to be done in real time.
There is no definitive answer. I use two approaches.
If you are only concerned by floating point error then you can use a pretty small value, comparable to the smallest floating number that the compiler can handle. In c/c++ you can use the definitions provided in float.h, such as DBL_MIN to check for these numbers. I'd use a small multiple of the number, e.g., 10. * DBL_MIN as the value for eps.
If the problem is not floating point math rounding error, then I use a value that is small (say 1%) compared to the modulus of the smallest vector.