520 likes | 743 Views
Geodesics on Implicit Surfaces and Point Clouds. Guillermo Sapiro Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Minnesota guille@ece.umn.edu. Supported by NSF, ONR, NGA, NIH. IPAM 2005. Overview. Motivation Distances and Geodesics Implicit surfaces Point clouds. Key Motivation.
E N D
Geodesics on Implicit Surfaces and Point Clouds Guillermo Sapiro Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Minnesota guille@ece.umn.edu Supported by NSF, ONR, NGA, NIH IPAM 2005
Overview • Motivation • Distances and Geodesics • Implicit surfaces • Point clouds
Key Motivation • We can’t do much if we do not know the distance between two points!
Representation Motivation • Implicit surfaces • Facilitate fundamental computations • Natural representation for many algorithms (e.g., medical imaging) • Part of the computation very often (distance functions) • Point clouds • Natural representation for 3D scanners • Natural representation for manifold learning • Dimensionality independent • Pure geometry (no artificial meshes, etc)
Background: Distance and Geodesic Computation via Dijkstra • Complexity: O(n log n) • Advantage: Works in any dimension and with any geometry (graphs) • Problems: • Not consistent • Unorganized points? • Noise? • Implicit surfaces?
Background: Distance and Geodesic Computation via Dijkstra • Complexity: O(n log n) • Advantage: Works in any dimension and with any geometry (graphs) • Problems: • Not consistent • Unorganized points? • Noise? • Implicit surfaces?
Background: Distance and Geodesic Computation via Dijkstra • Complexity: O(n log n) • Advantage: Works in any dimension and with any geometry (graphs) • Problems: • Not consistent • Unorganized points? • Noise? • Implicit surfaces?
Background: Distance and Geodesic Computation via Dijkstra • Complexity: O(n log n) • Advantage: Works in any dimension and with any geometry (graphs) • Problems: • Not consistent • Unorganized points? • Noise? • Implicit surfaces?
Background: Distance and Geodesic Computation via Dijkstra • Complexity: O(n log n) • Advantage: Works in any dimension and with any geometry (graphs) • Problems: • Not consistent • Unorganized points? • Noise? • Implicit surfaces?
Background: Distance Functions as Hamilton-Jacobi Equations • g = weight on the hyper-surface • The g-weighted distance function between two points p and x on the hyper-surface S is:
d Slope = 1
Background: Computing Distance Functions as Hamilton-Jacobi Equations • Solved in O(n log n) by Tsitsiklis, by Sethian, and by Helmsen, only for Euclidean spaces and Cartesian grids • Solved only for acute 3D triangulations by Kimmel and Sethian
^ ^ T4=T0+4Δ 10 11 12 ^ ^ T5=T0+5Δ 13 ^ T0 1 2 3 4 Pr Pmin ^ ^ T1=T0+Δ 5 ^ ^ T2=T0+2Δ ^ ^ T3=T0+3Δ 6 7 8 9 O(N) Implementation of the Fast Marching Algorithm (Yatziv, Bartesaghi, S.) • Untidy Priority queue • Cyclic Bucket sort • Calendar queue • Rounding off priorities • Error bounded O(h) • Size of array can be small and unrelated to N
The Problem • How to compute intrinsic distances and geodesics for • General dimensions • Implicit surfaces • Unorganized noisy points (hyper-surfaces just given by examples)
Our Approach • We have to solve
Basic Idea Theorem (Memoli-S.):
Implicit Form Representation Figure from G. Turk
Data extension • Embed M: • Extend I outside M: M I I I
Randomly sampled manifolds(with noise) Theorem (Memoli - S. 2002):
Intermezzo: Tenenbaum, de Silva, et al... • Main Problem: • Doesn’t address noisy examples/measurements: Much less robust to noise!
Intermezzo: de Silva, Tenenbaum, et al... • Problems: • Doesn’t address noisy examples/measurements: Much less robust to noise! • Only convex surfaces • Uses Dijkestra (back to non consistency) • Doesn’t work for implicit surface representations
Concluding remarks • A general computational framework for distance functions and geodesics. • Implicit hyper-surfaces and un-organized points
End of part 1 Thank You