Suppose I have a series of (imperfect) azimuth readouts, giving me vague angles between a number of points. Lines projected from points A, B, C obviously [-don't-always-] never converge in a single point to define the location of point D. Hence, angles as viewed from A, B and C need to be adjusted.
To make it more fun, I might be more certain of the relative positions of specific points (suppose I locate them on a satellite image, or I know for a fact they are oriented perfectly north-south), so I might want to use that certainty in my calculations and NOT adjust certain angles at all.
By what technique should I average the resulting coordinates, to achieve a "mostly accurate" overall shape?
I considered treating the difference between non-adjusted and adjusted angles as "tension" and trying to "relieve" it in subsequent passes, but that approach gives priority to points calculated earlier.
Another approach could be to calculate the total "tension" in the set, then shake all angles by a random amount, see if that resulted in less tension, and repeat for possibly improved results, trying to evolve a possibly better solution.
As I understand it you have a bunch of unknown points (p[] say) and a number of measurements of azimuths, say Az[i,j] of p[j] from p[i]. You want to find the coordinates of the points.
You'll need to fix one point. This is because if the values of p[] is a solution -- i.e. gave the measured azimuths -- so too is q[] where for some fixed x,
q[i] = p[i] + x
I'll suppose you fix p[0].
You'll also need to fix a distance. This is because if p[] is a solution, so too is q[] where now for some fixed s,
q[i] = p[0] + s*(p[i] - p[0])
I'll suppose you fix dist(p[0], p[1]), and that there is and azimuth Az[1,2]. You'd be best to choose p[0] p[1] so that there is a reliable azimuth between them. Then we can compute p[1].
The usual way to approach such problems is least squares. That is we seek p[] to minimise
Sum square( (Az[i,j] - Azimuth( p[i], p[j]))/S[i,j])
where Az[i,j] is your measurement data
Azimuth( r, s) is the function that gives the azimuth of the point s from the point r
S[i,j] is the 'sd' of the measurement A[i,j] -- the higher the sd of a particular observation is, relative to the others, the less it affects the final result.
The above is a non linear least squares problem. There are many solvers available for this, but generally speaking as well as providing the data -- the Az[] and the S[] -- and the observation model -- the Azimuth function -- you need to provide an initial estimate of the state -- the values sought, in your case p[2] ..
It is highly likely that if your initial estimate is wrong the solver will fail.
One way to find this estimate would be to start with a set K of known point indices and seek to expand it. You would start with K being {0,1}. Then look for points that have as many azimuths as possible to points in K, and for such points estimate geometrically their position from the known points and the azimuths, and add them to K. If at the end you have all the points in K, then you can go on to the least squares. If it isn't its possible that a different pair of initial fixed points might do better, or maybe you are stuck.
The latter case is a real possibility. For example suppose you had points p[0],p[1],p[2],p[3] and azimuths A[0,1], A[1,2], A[1,3], A[2,3].
As above we fix the positions of p[0] and p[1]. But we can't compute positions of p[2] and p[3] because we do not know the distances of 2 or 3 from 1. The 1,2,3 triangle could be scaled arbitrarily and still give the same azimuths.
Related
I've been wanting to build a 3D engine starting from scratch as a coding challenge with the end objective of implementing it on a fantasy console.
The best (i.e. most simple?) way I found was raytracing/raycasting. I haven't found much by looking online for raycasting algorithms, only finding point-in-polygon problems (which only tell me whether a ray intersects a polygon or not, not quite my interest since I wouldn't have info about the first intersection nor I'd have the intersection points).
The only solution I could think of is brute forcing the ray by moving it at small intervals and every time check whether that point is occupied by something or not (which would require having filled shapes and wouldn't let me have 2D shapes since they would never be rendered, although none of those is a problem). Still, it looks way too complex performance-wisely.
As far as I know, most of those problems are solved using linear algebra, but I'm not quite as competent as to build up a solution on my own. Does this problem have a practical solution?
EDIT: I just found an algebric solution in 2D which could maybe be expanded in 3D. The idea is:
For each edge, check whether one of the two vertices are in the field of view (i.e. if O is the origin of every ray and P is the vertex, you have to check first that the point is inside the far point of sight, and then whether the angle with the forward vector is less than the angle of vision). If at least one of the two vertices is inside the field of view, add them to an array E.
If we have an array R of rays to shoot and an array of arrays I of info about hit points, we can loop for each ray in R and for each edge in E and then store f(ray, edge) in I, where f is a function that gives us info on whether the ray and the edge collided and where they did.
f uses basic linear algebra: both the ray and the edge are, for all purposes, two segments. Two segments are just parts of two lines. Let's say that if the edge has vertices A and B (AB is the vector that goes from A to B) and if the far point is called P (OP is the vector that goes from O to P). We can create two lines, r and s, defined by A + ηAB and O + λOP. After we do a check to see whether r and s are parallel (check if the absolute value of the dot product of AB and OP is equal to the norm of AB times the norm of OP), it's trivial to get the values for η and λ.
Now, if η < 0 OR η > 1 we have that the two segments are not colliding.
After we've done this for every ray and every edge, we compare every element in each array i in I to see which one had the lowest λ. The lowest λ carries the first collision and hence the data to show on screen.
Everything here is linear algebra, though I fear that it might still be computationally heavy, since there's a lot going on, and it's still only 2D.
I'm using a polygonal chain to approximate a curve. I want to approximate the average of a function of curvature of all points that lie on the curve. One function of curvature that I need is, for example, the square of curvature.
I can get near that by choosing some points on the chain, calculating the curvature in those points, applying the function on it (for example squaring it), and then averaging the calculated values.
I need both accuracy and speed. I appreciate both — fast, but approximate; as well as accurate, but slow solutions. I'm working in Java, but the answer doesn't need to be written in Java — it doesn't even need to contain any code at all.
Polygonal chain with uniform segment length
If the polygonal chain's segments all have equal length, I can just calculate the curvature in the vertices and then average that. I see two ways to get the curvature in a vertex.
One way is to get the circle that goes through the selected vertex, the vertex before it, and the one after it. The curvature is then 1/radius of the circle.
The other way is to calculate the external angle (in radians) of the two segments connected at the selected vertex and then divide its absolute value by the length of a segment. In the following image, φ marks the external angle:
I am not sure if this method is correct, as I haven't mathematically derived it, but I've noticed through experimentation that it gives similar results to the above method.
Polygonal chain with non-uniform segment length
Unfortunately, though, there's no guarantee that the segments have uniform length.
If I try using the first of the above methods, vertices connected to longer segments give lower curvatures, even if they are visibly sharper. I tried substituting previous and next vertices with a point x units before the selected vertex and a point x units after it. I don't know what to set the x constant to, to get accurate results. All the values I've tried seemed to give inaccurate results.
If I try using the second method, I don't know what length to divide the angle by. If I don't divide by anything at all, I actually get pretty good results for comparing two curves and determining which one is curvier, but I need to be able to determine the actual curvature in a point.
With both of these methods there's also the problem that parts with shorter segments (where points are denser) will affect the average more.
Another possible solution would be to ignore the vertices and instead use an array of points on the chain that are evenly spaced, treat them as a new polygonal chain (connect the points with straight lines), and then calculate curvatures on this new chain instead, using one of the methods I mentioned under the header titled "Polygonal chain with uniform segment length".
Finding such an array of points is not trivial, though, because I have to choose a segment length, and only after producing the points, I can see if the length of the resulting chain is divisible by the chosen segment length.
If you aren't short on space, the last solution you mentioned would be the best, because the "sphere" approximation, as you've perhaps realized, would give awful results in more extreme cases, especially if the curvature is large or changes sign quickly.
There are many ways to do interpolations, the simplest being quadratic and cubic splines. However if you have more pre-processing time, Lagrange polynomials produce very good results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_polynomial.
Side note on your angle division method, consider this diagram:
(From simple geometry the inside angle there is also theta)
For a << l. So the curvature:
So your approximation is in fact correct for small curvatures.
An alternative is to use a local parabola approximation to estimate the curvature. Basically, to estimate the curvature at point P(i), you take P(i-1), P(i) and P(i+1) and construct a parabola from these 3 points. Then, you compute the curvature at P(i) from the parabola. Remember to use chord-length (or centripetal) parametrization when constructing the parabola.
I'm using a static KD-Tree for nearest neighbor search in 3D space. However, the client's specifications have now changed so that I'll need a weighted nearest neighbor search instead. For example, in 1D space, I have a point A with weight 5 at 0, and a point B with weight 2 at 4; the search should return A if the query point is from -5 to 5, and should return B if the query point is from 5 to 6. In other words, the higher-weighted point takes precedence within its radius.
Google hasn't been any help - all I get is information on the K-nearest neighbors algorithm.
I can simply remove points that are completely subsumed by a higher-weighted point, but this generally isn't the case (usually a lower-weighted point is only partially subsumed, like in the 1D example above). I could use a range tree to query all points in an NxNxN cube centered on the query point and determine the one with the greatest weight, but the naive implementation of this is wasteful - I'll need to set N to the point with the maximum weight in the entire tree, even though there may not be a point with that weight within the cube, e.g. let's say the point with the maximum weight in the tree is 25, then I'll need to set N to 25 even though the point with the highest weight for any given cube probably has a much lower weight; in the 1D case, if I have a point located at 100 with weight 25 then my naive algorithm would need to set N to 25 even if I'm outside of the point's radius.
To sum up, I'm looking for a way that I can query the KD tree (or some alternative/variant) such that I can quickly determine the highest-weighted point whose radius covers the query point.
FWIW, I'm coding this in Java.
It would also be nice if I could dynamically change a point's weight without incurring too high of a cost - at present this isn't a requirement, but I'm expecting that it may be a requirement down the road.
Edit: I found a paper on a priority range tree, but this doesn't exactly address the same problem in that it doesn't account for higher-priority points having a greater radius.
Use an extra dimension for the weight. A point (x,y,z) with weight w is placed at (N-w,x,y,z), where N is the maximum weight.
Distances in 4D are defined by…
d((a, b, c, d), (e, f, g, h)) = |a - e| + d((b, c, d), (f, g, h))
…where the second d is whatever your 3D distance was.
To find all potential results for (x,y,z), query a ball of radius N about (0,x,y,z).
I think I've found a solution: the nested interval tree, which is an implementation of a 3D interval tree. Rather than storing points with an associated radius that I then need to query, I instead store and query the radii directly. This has the added benefit that each dimension does not need to have the same weight (so that the radius is a rectangular box instead of a cubic box), which is not presently a project requirement but may become one in the future (the client only recently added the "weighted points" requirement, who knows what else he'll come up with).
So I'm working on simulating a large number of n-dimensional particles, and I need to know the distance between every pair of points. Allowing for some error, and given the distance isn't relevant at all if exceeds some threshold, are there any good ways to accomplish this? I'm pretty sure if I want dist(A,C) and already know dist(A,B) and dist(B,C) I can bound it by [dist(A,B)-dist(B,C) , dist(A,B)+dist(B,C)], and then store the results in a sorted array, but I'd like to not reinvent the wheel if there's something better.
I don't think the number of dimensions should greatly affect the logic, but maybe for some solutions it will. Thanks in advance.
If the problem was simply about calculating the distances between all pairs, then it would be a O(n^2) problem without any chance for a better solution. However, you are saying that if the distance is greater than some threshold D, then you are not interested in it. This opens the opportunities for a better algorithm.
For example, in 2D case you can use the sweep-line technique. Sort your points lexicographically, first by y then by x. Then sweep the plane with a stripe of width D, bottom to top. As that stripe moves across the plane new points will enter the stripe through its top edge and exit it through its bottom edge. Active points (i.e. points currently inside the stripe) should be kept in some incrementally modifiable linear data structure sorted by their x coordinate.
Now, every time a new point enters the stripe, you have to check the currently active points to the left and to the right no farther than D (measured along the x axis). That's all.
The purpose of this algorithm (as it is typically the case with sweep-line approach) is to push the practical complexity away from O(n^2) and towards O(m), where m is the number of interactions we are actually interested in. Of course, the worst case performance will be O(n^2).
The above applies to 2-dimensional case. For n-dimensional case I'd say you'll be better off with a different technique. Some sort of space partitioning should work well here, i.e. to exploit the fact that if the distance between partitions is known to be greater than D, then there's no reason to consider the specific points in these partitions against each other.
If the distance beyond a certain threshold is not relevant, and this threshold is not too large, there are common techniques to make this more efficient: limit the search for neighbouring points using space-partitioning data structures. Possible options are:
Binning.
Trees: quadtrees(2d), kd-trees.
Binning with spatial hashing.
Also, since the distance from point A to point B is the same as distance from point B to point A, this distance should only be computed once. Thus, you should use the following loop:
for point i from 0 to n-1:
for point j from i+1 to n:
distance(point i, point j)
Combining these two techniques is very common for n-body simulation for example, where you have particles affect each other if they are close enough. Here are some fun examples of that in 2d: http://forum.openframeworks.cc/index.php?topic=2860.0
Here's a explanation of binning (and hashing): http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~bindel/class/cs5220-f11/notes/spatial.pdf
I am rewriting my ray tracer and just trying to better understand certain aspects of it.
I seem to have down pat the issue regarding normals and how you should multiply them by the inverse of the transpose of a transformation matrix.
What I'm confused about is when I should be normalizing my direction vectors?
I'm following a certain book and sometimes it'll explicitly state to Normalize my vector and other cases it doesn't and I find out that I needed to.
Normalized vector is in the same direction with just unit length 1? So I'm unclear when it is necessary?
Thanks
You never need to normalize a vector unless you are working with the angles between vectors, or unless you are rotating a vector.
That's it.
In the former case, all of your trig functions require your vectors to land on a unit circle, which means the vectors are normalized. In the latter case, you are dividing out the magnitude, rotating the vector, making sure it stays a unit, and then multiplying the magnitude back in. Normalization just goes with the territory.
If someone tells you that coordinate system are defined by n unit vectors, know that i-hat, j-hat, k-hat, and so on can be any arbitrary vector(s) of any length and direction, so long as none of them are parallel. This is the heart of affine transformations.
If someone tries to tell you that the dot product requires normalized vectors, shake your head and smile. The dot product only needs normalized vectors when you are using it to get the angle between two vectors.
But doesn't normalization make the math "simpler"?
Not really -- It adds a magnitude computation and a division. Numbers between 0..1 are no different than numbers between 0..x.
Having said that, you sometimes normalize in order to play well with others. But if you find yourself normalizing vectors as a matter of principle before calling methods, consider using a flag attached to the vector to save yourself a step. Mathematically, it is unimportant, but practically, it can make a huge difference in performance.
So again... it's all about rotating a vector or measuring its angle against another vector. If you aren't doing that, don't waste cycles.
tl;dr: Normalized vectors simplify your math. They also reduce the number of very hard to diagnose visual artifacts in your images.
Normalized vector is in the same direction with just unit length 1? So
I'm unclear when it is necessary?
You almost always want all vectors in a ray tracer to be normalized.
The simplest example is that of the intersection test: where does a bouncing ray hit another object.
Consider a ray where:
p(t) = p_0 + v * t
In this case, a point anywhere along that ray p(t) is defined as an offset from the original point p_0 and an offset along a particular direction v. For every increment of parameter t, the resulting p(t) will move another increment of length equal to the length of the vector v.
Remember, you know p_0 and v. When you are trying to find the point where this ray next hits another object, you have to solve for that t. It is obviously more convenient, if not always obviously necessary, to use normalized vector vs in that representation.
However, that same vector v is used in lighting calculations. Imagine that we have another direction vector u that points towards a lighting source. For the purpose of a very simple shading model, we can define the light at a particular point to be the dot product between those two vectors:
L(p) = v * u
Admittedly, this is a very uninteresting reflection model but it captures the high points of the discussion. A spot on a surface is bright if reflection points towards the light and dim if not.
Now, remember that another way of writing this dot product is the product of the magnitudes of the vectors times the cosine of the angle between them:
L(p) = ||v|| ||u|| cos(theta)
If u and v are of unit length (normalized), then the equation will evaluate to be proportional to the angle between the two vectors. However, if v is not of unit length, say because you didn't bother to normalize after reflecting the vector in the ray model above, now your lighting model has a problem. Spots on the surface using a larger v will be much brighter than spots that do not.
It is necessary to normalize a direction vector whenever you use it in some math that is influenced by its length.
The prime example is the dot product, which is used in most lighting equations. You also sometimes need to normalize vectors that you use in lighting calculations, even if you believe that they are normal.
For example, when using an interpolated normal on a triangle. Common sense tells you that since the normals at the vertices are normal, the vectors you get by interpolating are too. So much for common sense... the truth is that they will be shorter unless they incidentially all point into the same direction. Which means that you will shade the triangle too dark (to make matters worse, the effect is more pronounced the closer the light source gets to the surface, which is a... very funny result).
Another example where a vector might or might not be normalized is the cross product, depending on what you are doing. For example, when using the two cross products to build an orthonormal base, then you must at least normalize once (though if you do it naively, you end up doing it more often).
If you only care about the direction of the resulting "up vector", or about the sign, you don't need to normalize.
I'll answer the opposite question. When do you NOT need to normalize? Almost all calculations related to lighting require unit vectors - the dot product then gives you the cosine of the angle between vectors which is really useful. Some equations can still cope but become more complex (essentially doing the normalization in the equation) That leaves mostly intersection tests.
Equations for many intersection tests can be simplified if you have unit vectors. Some do not require it - for example if you have a plane equation (with a unit normal) you can find the ray-plane intersection without normalizing the ray direction vector. The distance will be in terms of the ray direction vectors length. This might be OK if all you want is to intersect a bunch of those planes (the relative distances will all be correct). But as soon as you want to compare with a different distance - calculated using the normalized ray direction - the distance values will not compare properly.
You might think about normalizing a direction vector AFTER doing some work that does not require it - maybe you have an acceleration structure that can be traversed without a normalized vector. But that isn't relevant either because eventually the ray will hit something and you're going to want to do a lighting/shading calculation with it. So you may as well normalize them from the start...
In other words, any specific calculation may not require a normalized direction vector, but a given direction vector will almost certainly need to be normalized at some point in the process.
Vectors are used to store two conceptually different elements: points in space and directions:
If you are storing a point in space (for example the position of the camera, the origin of the ray, the vertices of triangles) you don't want to normalize, because you would be modifying the value of the vector, and losing the specific position.
If you are storing a direction (for example the camera up, the ray direction, the object normals) you want to normalize, because in this case you are interested not in the specific value of the point, but on the direction it represents, so you don't need the magnitude. Normalization is useful in this case because it simplifies some operations, such as calculating the cosine of two vectors, something that can be done with a dot product if both are normalized.