There is a closed form solution to the arc length of a quadratic Bézier curve, namely:
Assuming the Bézier is of the equation A + Bt + Ct^2 where A,B,C are vectors
a = (B dot B), b = 2*(B dot C), and c = 4*(C dot C)
(2 * c * t + b) * sqrt(a + b * t + c * t ^ 2) / (4 * c) + log(2 * sqrt(c) * sqrt(a + b * t + c * t ^ 2) + 2 * c * t + b) * (4 * a * c - b ^ 2) / (8 * c ^ (3 / 2))
It's hairy, but does provide a precise answer as to the arc length of a given quadratic Bézier. I'm currently working with Bézier curves and need a way to create a function that, given a distance on the Bézier curve, returns a precise t value that can be used to place that point properly.
I'm aware that there are ways to approximate the arc parameterization of a Bézier curve, as for cubics and higher there is no closed form solution to the elliptic integral that returns their arc length, but since there is an exact equation that gives the length of a quadratic Bézier, would it be possible to find the inverse and get an equation that given a distance returns a t value? Putting that equation into Wolfram Alpha and asking it to solve for t has given me no luck.
Related
In particle physics, we have to compute the invariant mass a lot, which is for a two-body decay
When the momenta (p1, p2) are sometimes very large (up to a factor 1000 or more) compared to the masses (m1, m2). In that case, there is large cancellation happening between the last two terms when the calculation is carried out with floating point numbers on a computer.
What kind of numerical tricks can be used to compute this accurately for any inputs?
The question is about suitable numerical tricks to improve the accuracy of the calculation with floating point numbers, so the solution should be language-agnostic. For demonstration purposes, implementations in Python are preferred. Solutions which reformulate the problem and increase the amount of elementary operations are acceptable, but solutions which suggest to use other number types like decimal or multi-precision floating point numbers are not.
Note: The original question presented a simplified 1D dimensional problem in form of a Python expression, but the question is for the general case where the momenta are given in 3D dimensions. The question was reformulated in this way.
With a few tricks listed on Stackoverflow and the transformation described by Jakob Stark in his answer, it is possible to rewrite the equation into a form that does not suffer anymore from catastrophic cancellation.
The original question asked for a solution in 1D, which has a simple solution, but in practice, we need the formula in 3D and then the solution is more complicated. See this notebook for a full derivation.
Example implementation of numerically stable calculation in 3D in Python:
import numpy as np
# numerically stable implementation
#np.vectorize
def msq2(px1, py1, pz1, px2, py2, pz2, m1, m2):
p1_sq = px1 ** 2 + py1 ** 2 + pz1 ** 2
p2_sq = px2 ** 2 + py2 ** 2 + pz2 ** 2
m1_sq = m1 ** 2
m2_sq = m2 ** 2
x1 = m1_sq / p1_sq
x2 = m2_sq / p2_sq
x = x1 + x2 + x1 * x2
a = angle(px1, py1, pz1, px2, py2, pz2)
cos_a = np.cos(a)
if cos_a >= 0:
y1 = (x + np.sin(a) ** 2) / (np.sqrt(x + 1) + cos_a)
else:
y1 = -cos_a + np.sqrt(x + 1)
y2 = 2 * np.sqrt(p1_sq * p2_sq)
return m1_sq + m2_sq + y1 * y2
# numerically stable calculation of angle
def angle(x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2):
# cross product
cx = y1 * z2 - y2 * z1
cy = x1 * z2 - x2 * z1
cz = x1 * y2 - x2 * y1
# norm of cross product
c = np.sqrt(cx * cx + cy * cy + cz * cz)
# dot product
d = x1 * x2 + y1 * y2 + z1 * z2
return np.arctan2(c, d)
The numerically stable implementation can never produce a negative result, which is a commonly occurring problem with naive implementations, even in double precision.
Let's compare the numerically stable function with a naive implementation.
# naive implementation
def msq1(px1, py1, pz1, px2, py2, pz2, m1, m2):
p1_sq = px1 ** 2 + py1 ** 2 + pz1 ** 2
p2_sq = px2 ** 2 + py2 ** 2 + pz2 ** 2
m1_sq = m1 ** 2
m2_sq = m2 ** 2
# energies of particles 1 and 2
e1 = np.sqrt(p1_sq + m1_sq)
e2 = np.sqrt(p2_sq + m2_sq)
# dangerous cancelation in third term
return m1_sq + m2_sq + 2 * (e1 * e2 - (px1 * px2 + py1 * py2 + pz1 * pz2))
For the following image, the momenta p1 and p2 are randomly picked from 1 to 1e5, the values m1 and m2 are randomly picked from 1e-5 to 1e5. All implementations get the input values in single precision. The reference in both cases is calculated with mpmath using the naive formula with 100 decimal places.
The naive implementation loses all accuracy for some inputs, while the numerically stable implementation does not.
If you put e.g. m1 = 1e-4, m2 = 1e-4, p1 = 1 and p2 = 1 in the expression, you get about 4e-8 with double precision but 0.0 with single precision calculation. I assume, that your question is about how one can get the 4e-8 as well with single precision calculation.
What you can do is a taylor expansion (around m1 = 0 and m2 = 0) of the expression above.
e ~ e|(m1=0,m2=0) + de/dm1|(m1=0,m2=0) * m1 + de/dm2|(m1=0,m2=0) * m2 + ...
If I calculated correctly, the zeroth and first order terms are 0 and the second order expansion would be
e ~ (p1+p2)/p1 * m1**2 + (p1+p2)/p2 * m2**2
This yields exactly 4e-8 even with single precision calculation. You can of course do more terms in the expansion if you need, until you hit the precision limit of a single float.
Edit
If the mi are not always much smaller than the pi you could further massage the equation to get
The complicated part is now the one in the square brackets. It essentially is sqrt(x+1)-1 for a wide range of x values. If x is very small, we can use the taylor expansion of the square root (e.g. like here). If the x value is larger, the formula works just fine, because the addition and subtraction of 1 are no longer discarding the value of x due to floating point precision. So one threshold for x must be choosen below one switches to the taylor expansion.
Suppose I have a recursive procedure with a formal parameter p. This procedure
wraps the recursive call in a Θ(1) (deferred) operation
and executes a Θ(g(k)) operation before that call.
k is dependent upon the value of p. [1]
The procedure calls itself with the argument p/b where b is a constant (assume it terminates at some point in the range between 1 and 0).
Question 1.
If n is the value of the argument to p in the initial call to the procedure, what are the orders of growth of the space and the number of steps executed, in terms of n, for the process this procedure generates
if k = p? [2]
if k = f(p)? [3]
Footnotes
[1] i.e., upon the value of the argument passed into p.
[2] i.e., the size of the input to the nested operation is same as that for our procedure.
[3] i.e., the size of the input to the nested operation is some function of the input size of our procedure.
Sample procedure
(define (* a b)
(cond ((= b 0) 0)
((even? b) (double (* a (halve b))))
(else (+ a (* a (- b 1))))))
This procedure performs integer multiplication as repeated additions based on the rules
a * b = double (a * (b / 2)) if b is even
a * b = a + (a * (b - 1)) if b is odd
a * b = 0 if b is zero
Pseudo-code:
define *(a, b) as
{
if (b is 0) return 0
if (b is even) return double of *(a, halve (b))
else return a + *(a, b - 1)
}
Here
the formal parameter is b.
argument to the recursive call is b/2.
double x is a Θ(1) operation like return x + x.
halve k is Θ(g(k)) with k = b i.e., it is Θ(g(b)).
Question 2.
What will be the orders of growth, in terms of n, when *(a, n) is evaluated?
Before You Answer
Please note that the primary questions are the two parts of question 1.
Question 2 can be answered as the first part. For the second part, you can assume f(p) to be any function you like: log p, p/2, p^2 etc.
I saw someone has already answered question 2, so I'll answer question 1 only.
First thing is to notice is that the two parts of the question are equivalent. In the first question, k=p so we execute a Θ(g(p)) operation for some function g. In the second one, k=f(p) and we execute a Θ(g(f(p))) = Θ((g∘f)(p)). replace g from the first question by g∘f and the second question is solved.
Thus, let's consider the first case only, i.e. k=p. Denote the time complexity of the recursive procedure by T(n) and we have that:
T(n) = T(n/b) + g(n) [The free term should be multiplied by a constant c, but we can talk about complexity in "amount of c's" and the theta bound will obviously remain the same]
The solution of the recursive formula is T(n) = g(n) + g(n/b) + ... + g(n/b^i) + ... + g(1)
We cannot further simplify it unless given additional information about g. For example, if g is a polynomial, g(n) = n^k, we get that
T(n) = n^k * (1 + b^-k + b^-2k + b^-4k + ... + b^-log(n)*k) <= n^k * (1 + b^-1 + b^-2 + ....) <= n^k * c for a constant c, thus T(n) = Θ(n^k).
But, if g(n) = log_b(n), [from now on I ommit the base of the log] we get that T(n) = log(n) + log(n/b) + ... + log(n/(b^log_b(n))) = log(n^log(n) * 1/b^(1 + 2 + ... log(n))) = log(n)^2 - log(n)^2 / 2 - log(n) / 2 = Θ(log(n) ^ 2) = Θ(g(n)^2).
You can easily prove, using a similar proof to the one where g is a polynomial that when g = Ω(n), i.e., at least linear, then the complexity is g(n). But when g is sublinear the complexity may be well bigger than g(n), as g(n/b) may be much bigger then g(n) / b.
You need to apply the wort case analysis.
First,
you can approximate the solution by using powers of two:
If then clearly the algorithm takes: (where ).
If it is an odd number then after applying -1 you get an even number and you divide by 2, you can repeat this only times, and the number of steps is also , the case of b being an odd number is clearly the worst case and this gives you the answer.
(I think you need an additional base case for: b=1)
What I have tried already: d = |v||PQ|sin("Theta")
Now, I need to determine what theta is, so I set up a position on a makeshift graph, the graph I made was on the xy plane only as the z plane complicates things needlessly for finding theta. So, I ended up with an acute angle, and if the angle is acute, then I have to find theta which according to dot product facts is greater than 0.
I do not have access to theta, so I used the same princples from cross dots. u * v = |u||v|cos("theta") but in this case, u and v are PQ and v. A vector is a vector, right?
so now I have theta = acos((v*PQ)/(|v||PQ))
with that I get (4sqrt(10))/15 = 32.5125173162 in degrees, so the angle is 32.5125173162 degrees.
So, now that I have theta, I plug it into my distance formula |v||PQ|sin(32.5125173162)
3*sqrt(10)*sin(32.5125173162) = 5.0990195136
or for the sake of simplicity, 5.1
I however want to know if this question is correct.
If it is NOT correct, what can I do to correct it? At what points did I use incorrect information?
This is not a question with a definitive answer in the back of the book, its a question on the side of a page that said: "try this!"
There are a couple of problems with this question.
From the context it looks like you mean for both v and PQ to be vectors. The "distance" between two vectors is an awkward (not well defined) question because vectors are not position bound.
You are using the cross product formula and I have no idea why:
|AxB| = |A||B|Sin(theta)
I think what you are actually trying to do is calculate the distance between the terminal points of the vectors, (2, 1, 2) and (1, 0, 3). Just use the Pythagorean Theorem (extended to 3D) for this.
d = sqrt( (x1 - x2)^2 + (y1 - y2)^2 + (z1 - z2)^2 )
d = sqrt( (2 - 1)^2 + (1 - 2)^2 + (2 - 3)^2 )
d = sqrt( 1^2 + (-1)^2 + (-1)^2 )
d = sqrt(3)
Edit:
If what you need really is the magnitude of the cross product, |AxB| then just find the cross product (using the determinant) and then calculate the magnitude of the result. There is no need for the formula you were using.
I have a problem and please let me know if my solution is correct.
I have a known point, at location A(x1,y1,z1) and the origin O(0,0,0) and I would like to find the coordinates of a point B(x2,y2,z2) that is located on the line OA, and the distance OB is 1.2 times greater then OA.
So, my idea is to obtain the equation of the line formed by points O and A.
The direction of OA is (-x1, -y1, -z1), so the equation of the line is:
x = -x1*t;
y = -y1*t;
z = -z1*t;
Distance OA is sqrt( (x1-0)^2 + (y1-0)^2 + (z1-0)^2). KNOWN
Distance OB is sqrt( (x2-0)^2 + (y2-0)^2 + (z2-0)^2). UNKNOWN
I can replace the x, y, z points determined for the line equation in the distance OB, and the result should be 1.2 times greater then the distance OA.
So, sqrt( (-x1*t-0)^2 + (-y1*t-0)^2 + (-z1*t-0)^2) = 1.2 * dist(OA).
I find t from here, solving the quadratic equation and I obtain the coordinates of the point by replacing the t in the equation of the line.
Is this correct?
Thank you for your time.
EDIT:
This is my code:
rangeRatio = 1.114;
norm = sqrt((P2(1) - P1(1))^2 + (P2(2) - P1(2))^2 + (P2(3) - P1(3))^2);
P3(1) = P1(1) + ((P2(1,1) - P1(1)) /norm) * rangeRatio;
P3(2) = P1(2) + ((P2(1,2) - P1(2)) /norm) * rangeRatio;
P3(3) = P1(3) + ((P2(1,3) - P1(3)) /norm) * rangeRatio;
I tried also norm = 1, and i get slightly different results but still not always colinear.
Thank you
It is even a lot easier; you can just multiply a, b and c by 1.2. This gives a line that is 1.2 times the size of the original line.
I have successfully drawn a Quad2D or Bezier curve in java. I have the equation for the same. But I need to determine whether a particular point(x,y) lies on the curve or not. I tried using Quad2D.contains and a few GeneralPath APIs, I could not get the result accurately.
Can someone help to find out the solution to this?
I think you've meant QuadCurve2D class, which is quadratic Bezier curve.
There seems to be no ready-made method for that, and the problem comes to the distance from the point to the Bezier curve.
Let's P0 will be your point, P1 is a start point, P2 - a control point and P3 is an end point of your curve.
Then point on the curve will be given by
P = B(t)
There is such t, for which distance between P and P0 will be minimal.
F(t) = (B(t)_x - P0_x)^2 + (B(t)_y - P0_y)^2 -> min
If distance is 0 or less than certain error, then P0 is on the curve.
t can be found with Netwon's iterative method by minimizing cost function
t_n = t_n-1 + F'(t) / F''(t)
where F' is first derivative of cost function and F'' is its second derivative.
F'(t) = 2 * (B(t)_x - P0_x) * B'(t)_x + 2 * (B(t)_y - P0_y) * B'(t)_y
F''(t) = 2 * B'(t)_x * B'(t)_x + 2 * (B(t)_x - P0_x) * B''(t)_x +
2 * B'(t)_y * B'(t)_y + 2 * (B(t)_y - P0_x) * B''(t)_y
First derivative of quadratic Bezier curve B'(t) is a line segment with a start point (P2 - P1) and end point (P3 - P2). Second derivative B''(t) is a point P3 - 2 * P2 + P1.
Plugging everything together will give a formula to t for which F(t) is minimal.