So, say you wanted to find the shortest path between two vertices.
I would argue this:
A.) If the graph has no negative edge weights and is represented by an adjacency list, you could run Dijkstra's algorithm either once to find a single source shortest path in O(V^2) time or run Dijkstra's algorithm on all vertices O(V^3) (both of are pretty sloppy in the case of non-complete graphs) to find all shortest paths.
B.) Graph with no negative edge weights and is in matrix form: Either use Dijkstra's to find a single source shortest path O(V^2) or run Floyd-Warshall to find all possible shortest paths O(V^3).
C.) Graph has negative edge weights and is in either list or matrix form: Run either Bellman-Ford to find the single source shortest path O(V^3) or use FW to find all shortest paths in O(V^3) time. Since their runtime is approximately the same (they will differ if the graph is in list form) you might as well just run FW and get more information for approximately the same runtime... right?
So: Is there any real-world application where one would use Bellman-Ford? The only thing I can think of is if the graph is in list form and has negative edge weights. I'm not sure of the implications this has on FW or if that list would first need to be converted into a matrix.
Related
If this question would be more appropriate on a related site, let me know, and I'd be happy to move it.
I have 165 vertices in ℤ11, all of which are at a distance of √8 from the origin and are extreme points on their corresponding convex hull. CGAL is able to calculate their d-dimensional triangulation in only 133 minutes on my laptop using just under a gigabyte of RAM.
Magma manages a similar 66 vertex case quite quickly, and, crucially for my application, it returns an actual polytope instead of a triangulation. Thus, I can view each d-dimensional face as a single object which can be bounded by an arbitrary number of vertices.
Additionally, although less essential to my application, I can also use Graph : TorPol -> GrphUnd to calculate all the topological information regarding how those faces are connected, and then AutomorphismGroup : Grph -> GrpPerm, ... to find the corresponding automorphism group of that cell structure.
Unfortunately, when applied to the original polytope, Magma's AutomorphismGroup : TorPol -> GrpMat only returns subgroups of GLd(ℤ), instead of the full automorphism group G, which is what I'm truly hoping to calculate. As a matrix group, G ∉ GL11(ℤ), but is instead ∈ GL11(𝔸), where 𝔸 represents the algebraic numbers. In general, I won't need the full algebraic closure of the rationals, ℚ̅, but just some field extension. However, I could make use of any non-trivially powerful representation of G.
With two days of calculation, Magma can manage the 165 vertex case, but is only able to provide information about the polytope's original 165 vertices, 10-facets, and volume. However, attempting to enumerate the d-faces, for any 2 ≤ d < 10, quickly consumes the 256 GB of RAM I have at my disposal.
CGAL's triangulation, on the other hand, only calculates collections of d-simplices, all of which have d + 1 vertices. It seems possible to derive the same facial information from such a triangulation, but I haven't thought of an easy way to code that up.
Am I missing something obvious in CGAL? Do you have any suggestions for alternative ways to calculate the polytope's face information, or to find the full automorphism group of my set of points?
You can use the package Combinatorial maps in CGAL, that is able to represent polytopes in nD. A combinatorial map describes all cells and all incidence and adjacency relations between the cells.
In this package, there is an undocumented method are_cc_isomorphic allowing to test if an isomorphism exist from two starting points. I think you can use this method from all possible pair of starting points to find all automorphisms.
Unfortunatly, there is no method to build a combinatorial map from a dD triangulation. Such method exists in 3D (cf. this file). It can be extended in dD.
Minimally, I would like to know how to achieve what is stated in the title. Specifically, signal.lfilter seems like the only implementation of a difference equation filter in scipy, but it is 1D, as shown in the docs. I would like to know how to implement a 2D version as described by this difference equation. If that's as simple as "bro, use this function," please let me know, pardon my naiveté, and feel free to disregard the rest of the post.
I am new to DSP and acknowledging there might be a different approach to answering my question so I will explain the broader goal and give context for the question in the hopes someone knows how do want I want with Scipy, or perhaps a better way than what I explicitly asked for.
To get straight into it, broadly speaking I am using vectorized computation methods (Numpy/Scipy) to implement a Monte Carlo simulation to improve upon a naive for loop. I have successfully abstracted most of my operations to array computation / linear algebra, but a few specific ones (recursive computations) have eluded my intuition and I continually end up in the digital signal processing world when I go looking for how this type of thing has been done by others (that or machine learning but those "frameworks" are much opinionated). The reason most of my google searches end up on scipy.signal or scipy.ndimage library references is clear to me at this point, and subsequent to accepting the "signal" representation of my data, I have spent a considerable amount of time (about as much as reasonable for a field that is not my own) ramping up the learning curve to try and figure out what I need from these libraries.
My simulation entails updating a vector of data representing the state of a system each period for n periods, and then repeating that whole process a "Monte Carlo" amount of times. The updates in each of n periods are inherently recursive as the next depends on the state of the prior. It can be characterized as a difference equation as linked above. Additionally this vector is theoretically indexed on an grid of points with uneven stepsize. Here is an example vector y and its theoretical grid t:
y = np.r_[0.0024, 0.004, 0.0058, 0.0083, 0.0099, 0.0133, 0.0164]
t = np.r_[0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20]
I need to iteratively perform numerous operations to y for each of n "updates." Specifically, I am computing the curvature along the curve y(t) using finite difference approximations and using the result at each point to adjust the corresponding y(t) prior to the next update. In a loop this amounts to inplace variable reassignment with the desired update in each iteration.
y += some_function(y)
Not only does this seem inefficient, but vectorizing things seems intuitive given y is a vector to begin with. Furthermore I am interested in preserving each "updated" y(t) along the n updates, which would require a data structure of dimensions len(y) x n. At this point, why not perform the updates inplace in the array? This is wherein lies the question. Many of the update operations I have succesfully vectorized the "Numpy way" (such as adding random variates to each point), but some appear overly complex in the array world.
Specifically, as mentioned above the one involving computing curvature at each element using its neighbouring two elements, and then imediately using that result to update the next row of the array before performing its own curvature "update." I was able to implement a non-recursive version (each row fails to consider its "updated self" from the prior row) of the curvature operation using ndimage generic_filter. Given the uneven grid, I have unique coefficients (kernel weights) for each triplet in the kernel footprint (instead of always using [1,-2,1] for y'' if I had a uniform grid). This last part has already forced me to use a spatial filter from ndimage rather than a 1d convolution. I'll point out, something conceptually similar was discussed in this math.exchange post, and it seems to me only the third response saliently addressed the difference between mathematical notion of "convolution" which should be associative from general spatial filtering kernels that would require two sequential filtering operations or a cleverly merged kernel.
In any case this does not seem to actually address my concern as it is not about 2D recursion filtering but rather having a backwards looking kernel footprint. Additionally, I think I've concluded it is not applicable in that this only allows for "recursion" (backward looking kernel footprints in the spatial filtering world) in a manner directly proportional to the size of the recursion. Meaning if I wanted to filter each of n rows incorporating calculations on all prior rows, it would require a convolution kernel far too big (for my n anyways). If I'm understanding all this correctly, a recursive linear filter is algorithmically more efficient in that it returns (for use in computation) the result of itself applied over the previous n samples (up to a level where the stability of the algorithm is affected) using another companion vector (z). In my case, I would only need to look back one step at output signal y[n-1] to compute y[n] from curvature at x[n] as the rest works itself out like a cumsum. signal.lfilter works for this, but I can't used that to compute curvature, as that requires a kernel footprint that can "see" at least its left and right neighbors (pixels), which is how I ended up using generic_filter.
It seems to me I should be able to do both simultaneously with one filter namely spatial and recursive filtering; or somehow I've missed the maths of how this could be mathematically simplified/combined (convolution of multiples kernels?).
It seems like this should be a common problem, but perhaps it is rarely relevant to do both at once in signal processing and image filtering. Perhaps this is why you don't use signals libraries solely to implement a fast monte carlo simulation; though it seems less esoteric than using a tensor math library to implement a recursive neural network scan ... which I'm attempting to do right now.
EDIT: For those familiar with the theoretical side of DSP, I know that what I am describing, the process of designing a recursive filters with arbitrary impulse responses, is achieved by employing a mathematical technique called the z-transform which I understand is generally used for two things:
converting between the recursion coefficients and the frequency response
combining cascaded and parallel stages into a single filter
Both are exactly what I am trying to accomplish.
Also, reworded title away from FIR / IIR because those imply specific definitions of "recursion" and may be confusing / misnomer.
I am new to VTK and am trying to compute the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), starting from 2 meshes.
DSC can be computed as 2 Vab / (Va + Vb), where Vab is the overlapping volume among mesh A and mesh B.
To read a mesh (i.e. an organ contour exported in .vtk format using 3D Slicer, https://www.slicer.org) I use the following snippet:
string inputFilename1 = "organ1.vtk";
// Get all data from the file
vtkSmartPointer<vtkGenericDataObjectReader> reader1 = vtkSmartPointer<vtkGenericDataObjectReader>::New();
reader1->SetFileName(inputFilename1.c_str());
reader1->Update();
vtkSmartPointer<vtkPolyData> struct1 = reader1->GetPolyDataOutput();
I can compute the volume of the two meshes using vtkMassProperties (although I observed some differences between the ones computed with VTK and the ones computed with 3D Slicer).
To then intersect 2 meshses, I am trying to use vtkIntersectionPolyDataFilter. The output of this filter, however, is a set of lines that marks the intersection of the input vtkPolyData objects, and NOT a closed surface. I therefore need to somehow generate a mesh from these lines and compute its volume.
Do you know which can be a good, accurate way to generete such a mesh and how to do it?
Alternatively, I tried to use ITK as well. I found a package that is supposed to handle this problem (http://www.insight-journal.org/browse/publication/762, dated 2010) but I am not able to compile it against the latest version of ITK. It says that ITK must be compiled with the (now deprecated) ITK_USE_REVIEW flag ON. Needless to say, I compiled it with the new Module_ITKReview set to ON and also with backward compatibility but had no luck.
Finally, if you have any other alternative (scriptable) software/library to solve this problem, please let me know. I need to perform these computation automatically.
You could try vtkBooleanOperationPolyDataFilter
http://www.vtk.org/doc/nightly/html/classvtkBooleanOperationPolyDataFilter.html
filter->SetOperationToIntersection();
if your data is smooth and well-behaved, this filter works pretty good. However, sharp structures, e.g. the ones originating from binary image marching cubes algorithm can make a problem for it. That said, vtkPolyDataToImageStencil doesn't necessarily perform any better on this regard.
I had once impression that the boolean operation on polygons is not really ideal for "organs" of size 100k polygons and more. Depends.
If you want to compute a Dice Similarity Coefficient, I suggest you first generate volumes (rasterize) from the meshes by use of vtkPolyDataToImageStencil.
Then it's easy to compute the DSC.
Good luck :)
Given 2 open Polyhedron3 made of triangles in CGAL, I want to cut the first one with the second one. That is, all intersecting triangle facets from poly2 should cut facets from poly1 and create new edges (and faces) in poly1 following the path of intersection. In the end, I need the list of edges/half edges which are part of the intersection path.
I'm using a typedef CGAL::Simple_cartesian Kernel.
While this looks like a boolean operation, it's not because there's no 'inside' or 'outside' for open meshes. The way I tried to implement it is:
build an AABB for mesh 1 (to be cut)
find intersecting faces from mesh1 cut by the first triangle of mesh 2
compute intersection infos using cgal : this returns the intersection description, but with some problems:
cgal will sometimes return 'wrong' intersections (for exemple, segments of 0 length)
the first mesh is not cut in the operation. Given the intersection description, I have to cut triangles myself (unless there's a function I've overlooked in cgal to cut a face/triangle given an intersection). This is not a trivial problem, as there are lots of corner cases
repeat with next face of poly2
My algorithm sorts of works, but I sometimes have problems : path not closed, small numerical accuracy problem, and it's not very fast.
So here's (at last) my question : what would be the recommended way to implement such an operation in a robust way ? Which kernel would you recommend?
Following sloriot comment, I've spent some time playing with the code of the CGAL polyhedron demo. Indeed it contains a plugin corefinement which does what I want. I've not finished integrating all changes in my own code base but I believe I can mark this question as answered.
All thanks to SLoriot for his suggestion!
Pascal
I'm trying to minimize a function using one of the scipy minimizers. Unfortunately my function has plateaus of equal value so minimisers get stuck there. I was wondering which of the scipy optimisers would be least sensitive to this and why?
I know I could start a number of times at random locations but I'm not able to do that with what I am currently working on and have to use on of these minimisers out of the box.
Add a linear function of the coordinates to your function to give some nonzero, but very small slope to the flat areas. If your minimum/maximum is in a flat area, you need to decide which part of the flat area to choose as your final answer, so you might as well bias the whole search. After this arrives at a minimum/maximum, rerun the optimization using that as the starting point and no added bias.
If there is a way to determine the boundaries of the search space, then you might try a large number of starting locations that uniformly sample the search space.