Related
Given a set of coordinates corresponding to a closed shape, I want to calculate the total absolute curvature, which requires calculating the curvature for each point, taking the absolute value, and summing them. Simple enough.
I used the answer to this question to calculate the curvature from a matrix of x y coordinates (xymat) and get what I thought would be the total absolute curvature:
sum(abs(predict(smooth.spline(xymat), deriv = 2)$y))
The problem is that total absolute curvature has a minimum value of 2*pi and is exactly that for circles, but this code is evaluating to values less than 2*pi:
library(purrr)
xymat <- map_df(data.frame(degrees=seq(0:360)),
function(theta) data.frame(x = sin(theta), y = cos(theta)))
sum(abs(predict(smooth.spline(xymat), deriv = 2)$y))
This returns 1.311098 instead of the expected value of 6.283185.
If I change the df parameter of smooth.spline to 3 as in the previous answer, the returned value is 3.944053, still shy of 2*pi (the df value smooth.spline calculated for itself was 2.472213).
Is there a better way to calculate curvature? Is smooth.spline parameterized by arc length or will incorporating it (somehow) rescue this calculation?
Okay, a few things before we begin. You're using degrees in your seq, which will give you incorrect results (0 to 360 degrees). You can check that this is wrong by taking cos(360) in R, which isn't 1. This is explained in the documentation for the trig functions under Details.
So let's change your function to this
xymat <- map_df(data.frame(degrees=seq(0,2*pi,length=360)),
function(theta) data.frame(x = sin(theta), y = cos(theta)))
If you plot this, this indeed looks like a circle.
Let's actually restrict this to the lower half of the circle. If you put a spline through this without understanding the symmetry and looking at the plot, chances are that you'll get a horizontal line through the circle.
Why? because the spline doesn't know that it's symmetric above and below y = 0. The spline is trying to fit a function that explains the "data", not trace an arc. It splits the difference between two symmetric sets of points around y = 0.
If we restrict the spline to the lower half of the circle, we can use y values between 1 and -1, like this:
lower.semicircle <- data.frame(predict(smooth.spline(xymat[91:270,], all.knots = T)))
And let's fit a spline through it.
lower.semicircle.pred<-data.frame(predict(smooth.spline(lower.semicircle, all.knots = T)))
Note that I'm not using the deriv function here. That is for a different problem in the cars example to which you linked. You want total absolute curvature and they are looking at rate of change of curvature.
What we have now is an approximation to a lower semicircle using splines. Now you want the distance between all of the little sequential points like in the integral from the wikipedia page.
Let's calculate all of the little arc distances using a distance matrix. This literally calculates the Euclidean distances between each point to every other point.
all.pairwise.distances.in.the.spline.approx<-dist(lower.semicircle.pred, diag=F)
dist.matrix<-as.matrix(all.pairwise.distances.in.the.spline.approx)
seq.of.distances.you.want<-dist.matrix[row(dist.matrix) == col(dist.matrix) + 1]
This last object is what you need to sum across.
sum(seq.of.distances.you.want)
..which evaluates to [1] 3.079 for the lower semicircle, around half of your 2*pi expected value.
It's not perfect but splines have problems with edge effects.
The only equation to calculate this that I can find involves t in the range [0, 1], but I have no idea how long it will take to travel the entire path, so I can't calculate (1 - t).
I know the speed at which I'm traveling, but it seems to be a heavy idea to calculate the total time beforehand (nor do I actually know how to do that calculation). What is an equation to figure out the position without knowing the total time?
Edit To clarify on the cubic bezier curve: I have four control points (P0 to P1), and to get a value on the curve with t, I need to use the four points as such:
B(t) = (1-t)^3P0 + 3t(1-t)^2P1 + 3t^2(1-t)P2 + t^3P3
I am not using a parametric equation to define the curve. The control points are what define the curve. What I need is an equation that does not require the use of knowing the range of t.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The 't' in the cubic Bezier curve's definition does not refer to 'time'. It is parameter that the x, y or even z functions based on. Unlike the traditional way of representing y as a function of x, such as y=f(x), an alternative way of representing a curve is by the parametric form that represents x, y and z as functions of an additional parameter t, C(t)=(x(t), y(t), z(t)). Typically the t value will range from 0 to 1, but this is not a must. The common representation for a circle as x=cos(t) and y=sin(t) is an example of parametric representation. So, if you have the parametric representation of a curve, you can evaluate the position on the curve for any given t value. It has nothing to do with the time it takes to travel the entire path.
You have the given curve and you have your speed. To calculate what you're asking for you need to divide the total distance by the speed you traveled given that time. That will give you the parametric (t) you need. So if the total curve has a distance of 72.2 units and your speed is 1 unit then your t is 1/72.2.
Your only missing bit is calculating the length of a given curve. This is typically done by subdividing it into line segments small enough that you don't care, and then adding up the total distance of those line segments. You could likely combine those two steps as well if you were so inclined. If you have your given speed, just iteration like 1000th of the curve add the line segment between the start and point 1000th of the way through the curve, and subtract that from how far you need to travel (given that you have speed and time, you have distance you need to travel), and keep that up until you've gone as far as you need to go.
The range for t is between 0 and 1.
x = (1-t)*(1-t)*(1-t)*p0x + 3*(1-t)*(1-t)*t*p1x + 3*(1-t)*t*t*p2x + t*t*t*p3x;
y = (1-t)*(1-t)*(1-t)*p0y + 3*(1-t)*(1-t)*t*p1y + 3*(1-t)*t*t*p2y + t*t*t*p3y;
I am trying to quantize surface normals into let's say 8 bins.
For example, when computing features like HOG to quantize 2D gradients [x,y] into 8 bins we just take the angle with the y plane i.e. arctan(y/x) which will give us an angle between 0-360.
My question is, given a 3D direction [x,y,z], a surface normal in this case, how can we histogram it in a similar way? Do we just project onto one plane and use that angle i.e. the dot product of [x,y,z] and [0,1,0] for example?
Thanks
EDIT
I also read a paper recently where they quantized surface normals by measuring angles between normal and precomputed vectors that which are arranged around a right circular cone shape. I have added a link to this paper in the question (section 3.3.2 last paragraph), is this an effective approach? And if so, how do we compute these vectors?
Quantizing a continuous topological space corresponds to partitioning it and assigning labels to each partition. The straightforward standard approach for this scenario (quantizing normals) is as follows.
Choose your favorite uniform polyhedron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedron (4 faces)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube (6 faces)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octahedron (8 faces)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecahedron (12 faces)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icosahedron (20 faces)
In general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schl%C3%A4fli_symbol
Develop a mapping function from a normal on the unit sphere to the face of your chosen polyhedron that the normal intersects.
I would advise doing an argmax across polyhedron faces, taking the dot product of your normal and each polyhedron face normal. The one that gives the highest dot product is the face your normal should be binned into.
Use the face normal for each polyhedron face as the label for that face.
Prefer this approach to the approach suggested by others of mapping to spherical coordinates and then binning those. That approach suffers from too much sensitivity near the poles of the sphere.
Edit
In the paper you added to your question, the same idea is being used. There, however, the normals are restricted to a hemisphere - the only surfaces directly visible in an image have surface normals no more than 90 degrees away from the vector from the surface to the viewpoint.
The paper wants to quantize these surface normals into 8 values, represented by 8-bit integers with exactly one bit set to 1 and the rest set to 0. The 8 precomputed normals are computed as:
ntx = cos(a)*cos(t)
nty = cos(a)*sin(t)
ntz = sin(a)
where a = pi/4 and t = 0, pi/4, 2*pi/4, 3*pi/4, ..., 7*pi/4.
Notice
[cos(a)*cos(t)]2 + [cos(a)*sin(t)]2 + [sin(a)]2 = cos2(a)[cos2(t) + sin2(t)] + sin2(a) = cos2(a) + sin2(a) = 1
given a 3D direction [x,y,z], a surface normal in this case, how can
we histogram it in a similar way?
In the first case you quantize the polar orientation theta of the gradients. Now you need to quantize the spherical orientations theta and phi in a 2D histogram.
Do we just project onto one plane and use that angle
The binning of the sphere determines how you summarize the information to build a compact yet descriptive histogram.
Projecting the normal is not a good idea, if theta is more important than phi, just use more bins for theta
EDIT
Timothy Shields points in his comment and his answer that a regular binning of theta and phi won't produce a regular binning over the sphere as the bins will be bunched toward the poles.
His answer gives a solution. Alternatively, the non-regular binning described here can be hacked as follows:
Phi is quantized regularly in [0,pi]. For theta rather than quantizing the range [0,pi], the range [-1,1] is quantized instead;
For each quantized value u in [-1,1], theta is computed as
theta = arcsin(sqrt(1 - u * u)) * sign(u)
sign(u) returns -1 if u is negative, 1 otherwise.
The computed theta along with phi produce a regular quantization over the sphere.
To have an idea of the equation given above look at this article. It describes the situation in the context of random sampling though.
EDIT
In the above hack Timothy Shields points out that only the area of the bins is considered. The valence of the vertices (point of intersection of neighboring bins) won't be regular because of the poles singularity.
A hack for the previous hack would be to remesh the bins into a regular quadrilateral mesh and keep the regular area.
A heuristic to optimize this problem with the global constraints of having the same valence and the area can be inspired from Integer-Grid Maps Quad Meshing.
With the two hacks, this answer is too hacky and a little out of context as opposed to Timothy Shields answer.
A 3-dimensional normal cannot be quantized into a 1-D array as easily as for a 2-D normal (e.g., using arctan). I would recommend histogramming it into a 2-d space with a polar angle and an azimuth angle. For example, use spherical coordinates where the r (radius) value is always 1.0 (since your surface normal is normalized, length 1.0). In this case, you can throw away the r-value and just use polar angle θ (theta), and azimuthal angle φ (phi) to quantize the 3D normal.
I am new to this forum and not a native english speaker, so please be nice! :)
Here is the challenge I face at the moment:
I want to calculate the (approximate) relative coordinates of yet unknown points in a 3D euclidean space based on a set of given distances between 2 points.
In my first approach I want to ignore possible multiple solutions, just taking the first one by random.
e.g.:
given set of distances: (I think its creating a pyramid with a right-angled triangle as a base)
P1-P2-Distance
1-2-30
2-3-40
1-3-50
1-4-60
2-4-60
3-4-60
Step1:
Now, how do I calculate the relative coordinates for those points?
I figured that the first point goes to 0,0,0 so the second one is 30,0,0.
After that the third points can be calculated by finding the crossing of the 2 circles from points 1 and 2 with their distances to point 3 (50 and 40 respectively). How do I do that mathematically? (though I took these simple numbers for an easy representation of the situation in my mind). Besides I do not know how to get to the answer in a correct mathematical way the third point is at 30,40,0 (or 30,0,40 but i will ignore that).
But getting the fourth point is not as easy as that. I thought I have to use 3 spheres in calculate the crossing to get the point, but how do I do that?
Step2:
After I figured out how to calculate this "simple" example I want to use more unknown points... For each point there is minimum 1 given distance to another point to "link" it to the others. If the coords can not be calculated because of its degrees of freedom I want to ignore all possibilities except one I choose randomly, but with respect to the known distances.
Step3:
Now the final stage should be this: Each measured distance is a bit incorrect due to real life situation. So if there are more then 1 distances for a given pair of points the distances are averaged. But due to the imprecise distances there can be a difficulty when determining the exact (relative) location of a point. So I want to average the different possible locations to the "optimal" one.
Can you help me going through my challenge step by step?
You need to use trigonometry - specifically, the 'cosine rule'. This will give you the angles of the triangle, which lets you solve the 3rd and 4th points.
The rules states that
c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2abCosC
where a, b and c are the lengths of the sides, and C is the angle opposite side c.
In your case, we want the angle between 1-2 and 1-3 - the angle between the two lines crossing at (0,0,0). It's going to be 90 degrees because you have the 3-4-5 triangle, but let's prove:
50^2 = 30^2 + 40^2 - 2*30*40*CosC
CosC = 0
C = 90 degrees
This is the angle between the lines (0,0,0)-(30,0,0) and (0,0,0)- point 3; extend along that line the length of side 1-3 (which is 50) and you'll get your second point (0,50,0).
Finding your 4th point is slightly trickier. The most straightforward algorithm that I can think of is to firstly find the (x,y) component of the point, and from there the z component is straightforward using Pythagoras'.
Consider that there is a point on the (x,y,0) plane which sits directly 'below' your point 4 - call this point 5. You can now create 3 right-angled triangles 1-5-4, 2-5-4, and 3-5-4.
You know the lengths of 1-4, 2-4 and 3-4. Because these are right triangles, the ratio 1-4 : 2-4 : 3-4 is equal to 1-5 : 2-5 : 3-5. Find the point 5 using trigonometric methods - the 'sine rule' will give you the angles between 1-2 & 1-4, 2-1 and 2-4 etc.
The 'sine rule' states that (in a right triangle)
a / SinA = b / SinB = c / SinC
So for triangle 1-2-4, although you don't know lengths 1-4 and 2-4, you do know the ratio 1-4 : 2-4. Similarly you know the ratios 2-4 : 3-4 and 1-4 : 3-4 in the other triangles.
I'll leave you to solve point 4. Once you have this point, you can easily solve the z component of 4 using pythagoras' - you'll have the sides 1-4, 1-5 and the length 4-5 will be the z component.
I'll initially assume you know the distances between all pairs of points.
As you say, you can choose one point (A) as the origin, orient a second point (B) along the x-axis, and place a third point (C) along the xy-plane. You can solve for the coordinates of C as follows:
given: distances ab, ac, bc
assume
A = (0,0)
B = (ab,0)
C = (x,y) <- solve for x and y, where:
ac^2 = (A-C)^2 = (0-x)^2 + (0-y)^2 = x^2 + y^2
bc^2 = (B-C)^2 = (ab-x)^2 + (0-y)^2 = ab^2 - 2*ab*x + x^2 + y^2
-> bc^2 - ac^2 = ab^2 - 2*ab*x
-> x = (ab^2 + ac^2 - bc^2)/2*ab
-> y = +/- sqrt(ac^2 - x^2)
For this to work accurately, you will want to avoid cases where the points {A,B,C} are in a straight line, or close to it.
Solving for additional points in 3-space is similar -- you can expand the Pythagorean formula for the distance, cancel the quadratic elements, and solve the resulting linear system. However, this does not directly help you with your steps 2 and 3...
Unfortunately, I don't know a well-behaved exact solution for steps 2 and 3, either. Your overall problem will generally be both over-constrained (due to conflicting noisy distances) and under-constrained (due to missing distances).
You could try an iterative solver: start with a random placement of all your points, compare the current distances with the given ones, and use that to adjust your points in such a way as to improve the match. This is an optimization technique, so I would look up books on numerical optimization.
If you know the distance between the nodes (fixed part of system) and the distance to the tag (mobile) you can use trilateration to find the x,y postion.
I have done this using the Nanotron radio modules which have a ranging capability.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but here goes...
Short version: I'm trying to compute the orientation of a triangle on a plane, formed by the intersection of 3 edges, without explicitly computing the intersection points.
Long version: I need to triangulate a PSLG on a triangle in 3D. The vertices of the PSLG are defined by the intersections of line segments with the plane through the triangle, and are guaranteed to lie within the triangle. Assuming I had the intersection points, I could project to 2D and use a point-line-side (or triangle signed area) test to determine the orientation of a triangle between any 3 intersection points.
The problem is I can't explicitly compute the intersection points because of the floating-point error that accumulates when I find the line-plane intersection. To figure out if the line segments strike the triangle in the first place, I'm using some freely available robust geometric predicates, which give the sign of the volume of a tetrahedron, or equivalently which side of a plane a point lies on. I can determine if the line segment endpoints are on opposite sides of the plane through the triangle, then form tetrahedra between the line segment and each edge of the triangle to determine whether the intersection point lies within the triangle.
Since I can't explicitly compute the intersection points, I'm wondering if there is a way to express the same 2D orient calculation in 3D using only the original points. If there are 3 edges striking the triangle that gives me 9 points in total to play with. Assuming what I'm asking is even possible (using only the 3D orient tests), then I'm guessing that I'll need to form some subset of all the possible tetrahedra between those 9 points. I'm having difficultly even visualizing this, let alone distilling it into a formula or code. I can't even google this because I don't know what the industry standard terminology might be for this type of problem.
Any ideas how to proceed with this? Thanks. Perhaps I should ask MathOverflow as well...
EDIT: After reading some of the comments, one thing that occurs to me... Perhaps if I could fit non-overlapping tetrahedra between the 3 line segments, then the orientation of any one of those that crossed the plane would be the answer I'm looking for. Other than when the edges enclose a simple triangular prism, I'm not sure this sub-problem is solvable either.
EDIT: The requested image.
I am answering this on both MO & SO, expanding the comments I made on MO.
My sense is that no computational trick with signed tetrahedra volumes will avoid the precision issues that are your main concern. This is because, if you have tightly twisted segments, the orientation of the triangle depends on the precise positioning of the cutting plane.
[image removed; see below]
In the above example, the upper plane crosses the segments in the order (a,b,c) [ccw from above]: (red,blue,green), while the lower plane crosses in the reverse order (c,b,a): (green,blue,red). The height
of the cutting plane could be determined by your last bit of precision.
Consequently, I think it makes sense to just go ahead and compute the points of intersection in
the cutting plane, using enough precision to make the computation exact. If your segment endpoints coordinates and plane coefficients have L bits of precision, then there is just a small constant-factor increase needed. Although I am not certain of precisely what that factor is, it is small--perhaps 4. You will not need e.g., L2 bits, because the computation is solving linear equations.
So there will not be an explosion in the precision required to compute this exactly.
Good luck!
(I was prevented from posting the clarifying image because I don't have the reputation. See
the MO answer instead.)
Edit: Do see the MO answer, but here's the image:
I would write symbolic vector equations, you know, with dot and cross products, to find the normal of the intersection triangle. Then, the sign of the dot product of this normal with the initial triangle one gives the orientation. So finally you can express this in a form sign(F(p1,...,p9)), where p1 to p9 are your points and F() is an ugly formula including dot and cross products of differences (pi-pj). Don't know if this can be done simpler, but this general approach does the job.
As I understand it, you have three lines intersecting the plane, and you want to calculate the orientation of the triangle formed by the intersection points, without calculating the intersection points themselves?
If so: you have a plane
N·(x - x0) = 0
and six points...
l1a, l1b, l2a, l2b, l3a, l3b
...forming three lines
l1 = l1a + t(l1b - l1a)
l2 = l2a + u(l2b - l2a)
l3 = l3a + v(l3b - l3a)
The intersection points of these lines to the plane occur at specific values of t, u, v, which I'll call ti, ui, vi
N·(l1a + ti(l1b - l1a) - x0) = 0
N·(x0 - l1a)
ti = ----------------
N·(l1b - l1a)
(similarly for ui, vi)
Then the specific points of intersection are
intersect1 = l1a + ti(l1b - l1a)
intersect2 = l2a + ui(l2b - l2a)
intersect3 = l3a + vi(l3b - l3a)
Finally, the orientation of your triangle is
orientation = direction of (intersect2 - intersect1)x(intersect3 - intersect1)
(x is cross-product) Work backwards plugging the values, and you'll have an equation for orientation based only on N, x0, and your six points.
Let's call your triangle vertices T[0], T[1], T[2], and the first line segment's endpoints are L[0] and L[1], the second is L[2] and L[3], and the third is L[4] and L[5]. I imagine you want a function
int Orient(Pt3 T[3], Pt3 L[6]); // index L by L[2*i+j], i=0..2, j=0..1
which returns 1 if the intersections have the same orientation as the triangle, and -1 otherwise.
The result should be symmetric under interchange of j values, antisymmetric under interchange of i values and T indices. As long as you can compute a quantity with these symmetries, that's all you need.
Let's try
Sign(Product( Orient3D(T[i],T[i+1],L[2*i+0],L[2*i+1]) * -Orient3D(T[i],T[i+1],L[2*i+1],L[2*i+0]) ), i=0..2))
where the product should be taken over cyclic permutations of the indices (modulo 3). I believe this has all the symmetry properties required. Orient3D is Shewchuk's 4-point plane orientation test, which I assume you're using.