I have array of points in numpy and I compute their ConvexHull by (scipy.spatial.ConvexHull not scipy.spatial.Delaunay.convex_hull), now I wanna know if I add new point to my array is this point lies inside the convexhull of the point cloud or not? what is the best way to do it in numoy?
I should mention that I saw this question and it's not solving my problem (since it's using cipy.spatial.Delaunay.convex_hull for computing ConvexHull)
I know this question is old, but in case some people find it as I did, here is the answer:
I'm using scipy 1.1.0 and python 3.6
def isInHull(P,hull):
'''
Datermine if the list of points P lies inside the hull
:return: list
List of boolean where true means that the point is inside the convex hull
'''
A = hull.equations[:,0:-1]
b = np.transpose(np.array([hull.equations[:,-1]]))
isInHull = np.all((A # np.transpose(P)) <= np.tile(-b,(1,len(P))),axis=0)
Here we use the equations of all the plan to determine if the point is outside the hull. We never build the Delaunay object. This function takes as insput P mxn an array of m points in n dimensions. The hull is constrcuted using
hull = ConvexHull(X)
where X is the pxn array of p points that constitute the cloud of points on which the convex hull should be constructed.
Related
Using numpy, how can I do an orthogonal projection of, for example, the vector np.array([0.3,0.5,0.2]) into the plane 3x+2y-2z=0 ?
EDIT:
I think one may simply use numpy.linalg.lstsq to find the orthogonal projection?
Your hyperplane is defined by the set of x such that <a,x>=0, where a is a vector orthogonal to the plane. In your example,
a = (3,2,-2).
Then The projection of a point p is in the hyperplane is a point p_proj such that p-p_proj is orthogonal to the plane. This means that it is parallel to a, or in other words p-p_proj=lambda*a. So
p_proj = p- lambda*a (1).
since p_proj is in the hyperplane, <p_proj,a> = 0 so multiplying by a on the equality(1) gives
lambda= <p,a>/<a,a>.
Substituting into (2), you get
Projection(p) = p_proj = p-<p,a>/<a,a>a
which can be done easily in numpy using np.dot(v_1,v_2) wherever we encounter <v_1,v_2>:
def projection(p,a):
lambda_val = np.dot(p,a)/np.dot(a,a)
return p - lambda_val * a
(Note that this is a Gram-Schmidt iteration).
If I have a 2-dimensional (x and y coordinates) polynomial transform function of 1st/affine, 2nd, or 3rd order (i.e. I have the coefficients/transformation matrix A), what is the mathematical or programmatic approach to getting the exact inverse of this function? Ideally, how would I implement this in Numpy? This is in the context of image warping or map georeferencing, i.e. transforming or warping the coordinates from an input image to an output image in a new warped coordinate system.
Attempted Solution
To solve this I have tried a matrix algebra approach for solving sets of equations. Mathematically, the transformation procedure is represented as Au = v. Forward transforming is easy, where you calculate u as a column-matrix containing the terms of the polynomial equation based on your input coordinates, and then matrix-multiply u with the transformation matrix A, in order to get the transformed output column matrix v containing the output coordinates. Backwards transforming on the other hand, means we know the output coordinates v and want to find the input coordinates u, so we need to reshuffle our equation as u = Av. By the rules of matrix algebra, the A matrix has to be inverted when moving it over. Implementing this in Numpy for a 2nd order polynomial transform, it does seem to work:
import numpy as np
# input coords
x = np.array([13])
y = np.array([13])
# terms of the 2nd order polynomial equation
x = x
y = y
xx = x*x
xy = x*y
yy = y*y
ones = np.ones(x.shape)
# u consists of each term in 2nd order polynomial equation
# with each term being array if want to transform multiple
u = np.array([xx,xy,yy,x,y,ones])
print('original input u', u)
## output:
## ('original input u', array([[169.],
## [169.],
## [169.],
## [ 13.],
## [ 13.],
## [ 1.]]))
# forward transform matrix
A = np.array([[1,2,3,1,6,8],
[5,2,9,2,0,1],
[8,1,5,8,4,3],
[1,4,8,2,3,9],
[9,3,2,1,9,5],
[4,2,5,6,2,1]])
# get forward coords
v = A.dot(u)
print('output v', v)
## output:
## ('output v', array([[1113.],
## [2731.],
## [2525.],
## [2271.],
## [2501.],
## [1964.]]))
# get backward coords (should exactly reproduce the input coords)
Ainv = np.linalg.inv(A)
u_pred = Ainv.dot(v)
print('backwards predicted input u', u_pred)
## output:
## ('backwards predicted input u', array([[169.],
## [169.],
## [169.],
## [ 13.],
## [ 13.],
## [ 1.]]))
In the above example the output v is actually a 1x6 matrix, where only the top two rows/values represent the transformed x and y coordinates. The problem becomes that we need all the additional values in v in order to exactly inverse the coordinates. But in real-world scenarios we only know transformed x and y values (i.e. the top two rows/values of v), we don't know the full 1x6 v matrix.
Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, or maybe this matrix algebra approach is not the right approach, since 2nd order polynomials and higher are no longer linear? Any alternate programmatic/numpy approaches for inversing the polyonimal transformation?
Some context
I've looked up many similar questions and websites as well as numpy functions such as numpy.polynomial.Polynomial.fit, but most of them relate only to inversing 1-dimensional polynomial transforms. The few links I've found that talk about 2-dimensional transforms say there is no exact way to inverse it, which doesn't make sense since this is a very common operation in image warping/resampling and map georeferencing. For example, the steps for warping an image is often broken down to:
Forward project all original pixel (column-row) coordinates u using the transformation function/matrix A, in order to find the bounds of the transformed coordinate space v.
Then for every coordinate sampled at regular intervals in the transformed coordinate space bounds (found in step 1), backwards sample these v coordinates in the transformed coordinate system to find their original coordinates u. This determines which original pixels to sample for each location in the transformed image.
My problem then is that I have the forward transformation necessary for step 1, but I need to find the exact inverse of that transformation necessary for backwards sampling in step 2. Either a math answer or a numpy solution would be fine.
Inversion of a 2D affine function is pretty easy. It takes the resolution of a 2x2 linear system of equations.
The case of quadratic and cubic polynomials is much more problematic. If I am right, a system in two unknows is equivalent to a single quartic or nonic (degree 9) polynomial equation. Explicit (though complicated) formulas exist for the quartic case, but none for the nonic case, and you will have to resort to numerical methods (Newton's iterations).
In addition, the solution of these nonlinear equations are not unique (you can have 4 or 9 solutions) and you need to keep the right ones.
If your transformation remains close to affine (such as when correcting image distortion), I would suggest to choose an affine transformation that approximates the complete equation, use the backward transformation to find initial approximations, then refine with Newton.
thanks for reading this question. My title is basically what I'm trying to achieve. I did a poisson surface mesh generation using Poisson_surface_reconstruction_3(cgal). I can't figure out how to map the node identities of my resulting surface mesh into my starting point sets?
The output of my poisson surface generation is produced by the following lines:
CGAL::facets_in_complex_2_to_triangle_mesh(c2t3, output_mesh);
out << output_mesh;
In my output file, there are some x y z coordinates, followed by a set of 3 integers each line, I think they indicates which nodes form a delaunay triangle. The problem is that the output points do not correspond to my initial point set, since not any x y z value match to any of my original points. Yet I'm trying to figure out which points are forming a delaunay triangles in my original point set.
Could someone suggest me how can I do this in cgal?
Many thanks.
The poisson recontruction algorithm consist in meshing an implicit function that somehow fits you input points. In practice, it means that you input point will no belong to the set of points of the output surface, and won't even lie exactly on triangles of the output surface. However, they should not be too far from the output surface (except if you have some really sparse sampling parts).
What you can do to locate your input points with the output surface is to use the function closest_point_and_primitive() from the AABB-tree class.
Here is an example of how to build the tree from a mesh.
I was wondering whether anyone used the drawing capabilities of graph-tool and ran into the issue of overlapping nodes after calculating layout in various ways?
On the same note, did anyone find a solution for increasing the size of some of the nodes, say based on their degree, and ensuring that they won't then overlap with other nodes?
For the variable size of the degree, you can define a node property in the graph for that. If you have a dictionary containing the degree for instance, you can do:
import graph_tool as gt
from graph_tool.draw import sfdp_layout,graph_draw
G = gt.Graph(directed=False)
v_size = G.new_vertex_property("int")
for n in nodes:
v = G.add_vertex()
v_size[v] = degree[n]
pos = sfdp_layout(G)
graph_draw(G0,pos,
vertex_size=v_size,
output="graph.png"
)
Hope that helps.
!I have values in the form of (x,y,z). By creating a list_plot3d plot i can clearly see that they are not quite evenly spaced. They usually form little "blobs" of 3 to 5 points on the xy plane. So for the interpolation and the final "contour" plot to be better, or should i say smoother(?), do i have to create a rectangular grid (like the squares on a chess board) so that the blobs of data are somehow "smoothed"? I understand that this might be trivial to some people but i am trying this for the first time and i am struggling a bit. I have been looking at the scipy packages like scipy.interplate.interp2d but the graphs produced at the end are really bad. Maybe a brief tutorial on 2d interpolation in sagemath for an amateur like me? Some advice? Thank you.
EDIT:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxv8ab9PeMQVUFhBYWlldU9ib0E/edit?pli=1
This is mostly the kind of graphs it produces along with this message:
Warning: No more knots can be added because the number of B-spline
coefficients
already exceeds the number of data points m. Probably causes:
either
s or m too small. (fp>s)
kx,ky=3,3 nx,ny=17,20 m=200 fp=4696.972223 s=0.000000
To get this graph i just run this command:
f_interpolation = scipy.interpolate.interp2d(*zip(*matrix(C)),kind='cubic')
plot_interpolation = contour_plot(lambda x,y:
f_interpolation(x,y)[0], (22.419,22.439),(37.06,37.08) ,cmap='jet', contours=numpy.arange(0,1400,100), colorbar=True)
plot_all = plot_interpolation
plot_all.show(axes_labels=["m", "m"])
Where matrix(c) can be a huge matrix like 10000 X 3 or even a lot more like 1000000 x 3. The problem of bad graphs persists even with fewer data like the picture i attached now where matrix(C) was only 200 x 3. That's why i begin to think that it could be that apart from a possible glitch with the program my approach to the use of this command might be totally wrong, hence the reason for me to ask for advice about using a grid and not just "throwing" my data into a command.
I've had a similar problem using the scipy.interpolate.interp2d function. My understanding is that the issue arises because the interp1d/interp2d and related functions use an older wrapping of FITPACK for the underlying calculations. I was able to get a problem similar to yours to work using the spline functions, which rely on a newer wrapping of FITPACK. The spline functions can be identified because they seem to all have capital letters in their names here http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/interpolate.html. Within the scipy installation, these newer functions appear to be located in scipy/interpolate/fitpack2.py, while the functions using the older wrappings are in fitpack.py.
For your purposes, RectBivariateSpline is what I believe you want. Here is some sample code for implementing RectBivariateSpline:
import numpy as np
from scipy import interpolate
# Generate unevenly spaced x/y data for axes
npoints = 25
maxaxis = 100
x = (np.random.rand(npoints)*maxaxis) - maxaxis/2.
y = (np.random.rand(npoints)*maxaxis) - maxaxis/2.
xsort = np.sort(x)
ysort = np.sort(y)
# Generate the z-data, which first requires converting
# x/y data into grids
xg, yg = np.meshgrid(xsort,ysort)
z = xg**2 - yg**2
# Generate the interpolated, evenly spaced data
# Note that the min/max of x/y isn't necessarily 0 and 100 since
# randomly chosen points were used. If we want to avoid extrapolation,
# the explicit min/max must be found
interppoints = 100
xinterp = np.linspace(xsort[0],xsort[-1],interppoints)
yinterp = np.linspace(ysort[0],ysort[-1],interppoints)
# Generate the kernel that will be used for interpolation
# Note that the default version uses three coefficients for
# interpolation (i.e. parabolic, a*x**2 + b*x +c). Higher order
# interpolation can be used by setting kx and ky to larger
# integers, i.e. interpolate.RectBivariateSpline(xsort,ysort,z,kx=5,ky=5)
kernel = interpolate.RectBivariateSpline(xsort,ysort,z)
# Now calculate the linear, interpolated data
zinterp = kernel(xinterp, yinterp)