1 / 82

Survey and Recent Results: Robust Geometric Computation

Survey and Recent Results: Robust Geometric Computation. Chee Yap Department of Computer Science Courant Institute New York University. OVERVIEW. Part I: NonRobustness Survey Part II: Exact Geometric Computation Core Library Constructive Root Bounds Part III: New Directions

beth
Télécharger la présentation

Survey and Recent Results: Robust Geometric Computation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Survey and Recent Results: Robust Geometric Computation Chee Yap Department of Computer Science Courant Institute New York University Talk @ MIT

  2. OVERVIEW • Part I: NonRobustness Survey • Part II: Exact Geometric Computation • Core Library • Constructive Root Bounds • Part III: New Directions • Moore’s Law and NonRobustness • Certification Paradigm • Conclusion Talk @ MIT

  3. Numerical Nonrobustness Phenomenon Talk @ MIT

  4. Part I: OVERVIEW • The Phenomenon • What is Geometric? • Taxonomy of Approaches • EGC and relatives Talk @ MIT

  5. Numerical Non-robustness • Non-robustness phenomenon • crash, inconsistent state, intermittent • Round-off errors • benign vs. catastrophic • quantitative vs. qualitative Talk @ MIT

  6. Examples • Intersection of 2 lines • check if intersection point is on line • Mesh Generation • point classification error (dirty meshes) • Trimmed algebraic patches in CAD • bounding curves are approximated leading to topological inconsistencies • Front Tracking Physics Simulation • front surface becomes self-intersecting Talk @ MIT

  7. Responses to Non-robustness • “It is a rare event” • “Use more stable algorithms” • “Avoid ill-conditioned inputs” • “Epsilon-tweaking” • “There is no solution” • “Our competitors couldn’t do it, so we don’t have to bother” Talk @ MIT

  8. Impact of Non-robustness • Acknowledged, seldom demanded • Economic/productivity Impact • barrier to full automation • scientist/programmer productivity • mission critical computation fail • Patriot missile, Ariadne Rocket • E.g. Mesh generation • a preliminary step for simulations • 1 failure/5 million cells [Aftosmis] • tweak data if failure Talk @ MIT

  9. What is Special about Geometry? Talk @ MIT

  10. Geometry is Harder • Geometry = Combinatorics+Numerics • E.g. Voronoi Diagram Talk @ MIT

  11. Example: Convex Hulls 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 7 8 7 7 8 4 4 4 9 9 6 6 6 5 5 5 Input Convex Hull Output Talk @ MIT

  12. Consistency • Geometric Object • Consistency Relation (P) • E.g. D is convex hull or Voronoi diagram • Qualitative error  inconsistency D = (G, L,P) G=graph, L=labeling of G Talk @ MIT

  13. Examples/Nonexamples • Consistency is critical • matrix multiplication • shortest paths in graphs (e.g. Djikstra’s algorithm) • sorting and geometric sorting • Euclidean shortest paths Talk @ MIT

  14. Taxonomy of Approaches Talk @ MIT

  15. Gold Standard • Must understand the dominant mode of numerical computing • “F.P. Mode” : • machine floating point • fixed precision (single/double/quad) • IEEE 754 Standard • What does the IEEE standard do for nonrobustness? Reduces but not eliminate it. Main contribution is cross-platform predictability. • Historical Note Talk @ MIT

  16. Type I Approaches • Basic Philosophy: to make the fast but imprecise (IEEE) arithmetic robust • Taxonomy • arithmetic(FMA, scalar vector, sli, etc) • finite resolution predicates(-tweaking, -predicates [Guibas-Salesin-Stolfi’89]) • finite resolution geometry(e.g., grids) • topology oriented approach[Sugihara-Iri’88] Talk @ MIT

  17. Example • Grid Geometry [Greene-Yao’86] • Finite Resolution Geometries Talk @ MIT

  18. fat line: polyline: rounded line: aX+bY+c=0; (a<2L, b<2L, c<22L) Example • What is a Finite Resolution Line? • A suitable set of pixels [graphics] • A fat line [generalized intervals] • A polyline [Yao-Greene, Milenkovic, etc] • A rounded line [Sugihara] Talk @ MIT

  19. Example • Topology Oriented Approach of Sugihara-Iri:Voronoi diagram of 1 million points • Priority of topological part over numerical part • Identify relevant and maintainable properties: e.g.planarity • Issue: which properties to choose? Talk @ MIT

  20. Exact Approach • Idea: avoid all errors • Big number packages (big integers, big rationals, big floats, etc) • Only rational problems are exact • Even this is a problem [Yu’92, Karasick-Lieber-Nackman’89] Talk @ MIT

  21. Algebraic Computation • Algebraic number: •     • P(x) = x2 – 2 = 0 • Representation:   P(x), 1, 2) • Exact manipulation: • comparison • arithmetic operations, roots, etc. • Most problems in Computational Geometry textbooks requires only +, –, , ,  Talk @ MIT

  22. Type II Approach • Basic Philosophy: to make slow but error-free computation more efficient • Taxonomy • Exact Arithmetic (naïve approach) • Expression packages • Compiler techniques • Consistency approach • Exact Geometric Computation (EGC) Talk @ MIT

  23. Consistency Approach • Goal: ensure that no decisions are contradictory • Parsimonious Algorithms [Fortune’89] :only make tests that are independent of previous results • NP-hard but in PSPACE Talk @ MIT

  24. Consistency is Hard • [Hoffmann, Hopcroft, Karasick’88] • Geometric Object D = (G, L) • G is realizable if there exists L such that (G, L) is consistent • Algorithm AL:IG(I), L(I)) • AL is geometrically exact if G(I) is the exact structure for input I • AL is consistent if G(I) is realizable • Intersecting 3 convex polygons is hard (geometry theorem proving)  Talk @ MIT

  25. Exact Geometric Computation Talk @ MIT

  26. Part II: OVERVIEW • Exact Geometric Computing (EGC) • The Core Library • Constructive Root Bounds Talk @ MIT

  27. How to Compute Exactly in the Geometric Sense • Algorithm = sequence of steps • construction steps • conditional or branching steps • Branching based on sign   of predicate evaluation • Output combinatorial structure G in D=(G,L) is determined by path • Ensure all branches are correct • this guarantees that G is exact! Talk @ MIT

  28. Exact Geometric Computation (EGC) • Exactness in the Geometry, NOT the arithmetic (cf.geometric exactness) • Simple but profound implications • We can now use approximate arithmetic [Dube-Yap’94] • EGC tells us exactly how much precision is needed • No unusual geometries • No need to invent new algorithms -- “standard” algorithms apply • no unusual geometries • General solution (algebraic case) • Not algorithm-specific solutions! Talk @ MIT

  29. Constant Expressions •  = set of real algebraic operators. •  = set of expressions over . • E.g., if  , x1 x2 then  is the integer polynomials over x1 x2. • Assume  are constant operators (no variables likex1 x2). • An expression E is a DAG • E = with  and  shared • Value function, Val:   Rwhere Val(E) may be undefined Talk @ MIT

  30. Fundamental Problem of EGC • Constant Zero Problem • CZP: given E, is Val(E)=0? • Constant Sign Problem • CSP: given E, compute the sign of Val(E). • CSP is reducible to CZP • Potential exponential gap: • sum of square roots • CZP is polynomial time [Bloemer-Yap] Talk @ MIT

  31. Complexity of CSP • Hierarchy: • 0  ,    • 1  0     • 2  1    • 3  2  Root(P,i) : P(x)Z[x]  • 4  0  Sin(x),   • Theorem: CSP(3) is decidable. • Theorem: CSP(1 ) is alternating polynomial time. • Is CSP(4) is decidable? Talk @ MIT

  32. Root Bound b > 0 • A root bound for an expression E is a value such that • E.g., the Cauchy’s bound says that because is a root of the polynomial x4 0x2  1. • Root bit-bound is defined as  log(b) E ¹ 0 Þ |E|  b = Talk @ MIT

  33.  E E   E   b/2  E How to use root bounds • Let b be a root bound for • Compute a numerical approximation for . • If then sign sign( ) • Else sign (E) = 0. • N.B. root bound is not reached unless sign is really zero! E. ( ) = E Talk @ MIT

  34. Nominally Exact Inputs • EGC Inputs are exact and consistent • Why care about exactness if the input is inexact? Because EGC is the easiest method to ensure consistency. Talk @ MIT

  35. Core Library Talk @ MIT

  36. EGC Libraries • GOAL: any programmer may routinely construct robust programs* • Current Libraries: • Real/Expr [Yap-Dube’94] • LEDA real[Burnikel et al’99] • Core Library [Karamcheti et al’99] Talk @ MIT

  37. Core Library • An EGC Library • C++, compact (200 KB) • Focus on “Numerical Core” of EGC • precision sensitive mechanism • automatically incorporates state of art techniques • Key Design Goal: ease of use • “Regular C++ Program” with preamble: #include “CORE.h” • easy to convert existing programs Talk @ MIT

  38. Core Accuracy API • Four Levels (I) Machine Accuracy(IEEE standard) (II) Arbitrary Accuracy (e.g. Maple) (III) Guaranteed Accuracy (e.g. Real/Expr) (IV) Mixed Accuracy (for fine control) Talk @ MIT

  39. Delivery System • No change of programmer behavior • At the flip of a switch! • Benefits: code logic verification, fast debugging #define Level N // N=1,2,3,4 #include “CORE.h” /* ***************************** * any C/C++ Program Here * ***************************** */ Talk @ MIT

  40. What is in CORE levels? • Numerical types: • int, long, float, double • BigInt, BigFloat, Expr • Promotions (+Demotions): • Level II: longBigInt, doubleBigFloat • Level III: long, doubleExpr Talk @ MIT

  41. What is in Level III? • Fundamental gap between Levels II and III • Need for iteration: consider a = b + c; • Precision sensitive evaluation Talk @ MIT

  42. Relative and Absolute Precision  • Let real X be an approximation of X. • Composite precision bound[r, a] • If r , then get absolute precision a. • If a , then get relative precision r. • Interesting case: [r, a] = [1, ] means we obtain the correct sign of X. Talk @ MIT

  43. Precision-Driven Eval of Expressions • Expr’s are DAGs • Each node stores: an approximate BigFloat value; a precision; a root bound • Down-Up Algorithm: • precision p is propagated down • error e propagated upwards • At each node, check e  p • Check passes automatically at leaves • Iterate if check fails; use root bounds to terminate Talk @ MIT

  44. Example • Line intersection (2-D): • generate 2500 pairs of lines • compute their intersections • check if intersection lies on one line • 40% failure rate at Level I • In 3-D: • classify pairs of lines as skew, parallel, intersecting, or identical. • At Level I, some pairs are parallel and intersecting, etc. Talk @ MIT

  45. Example: Theorem Proving Application • Kahan’s example (4/26/00) • “To show that you need theorem proving, or why significance arithmetic is doomed” • F(z): if (z=0) return 1; else (exp(z)-1)/z; • Q(y): |y-sqrt(y**2 +1)| - 1/(y-sqrt(y**2+1)); • G(x): F(Q(x)**2). • Compute G(x) for x=15 to 9999. • Theorem proving with Core Library [Tulone-Yap-Li’00] • Generalized Schwartz Lemma for radical expressions Talk @ MIT

  46. Constructive Root Bounds Talk @ MIT

  47. Problem of Constructive Root Bounds • Classical root bounds (e.g. Cauchy’s) are not constructive • Wanted: recursive rules for a family of expressions to maintain parameters p1, p2, etc, for any expression E so that B(p1, p2, ...) is a root bound for E. • We will survey various bounds Talk @ MIT

  48.    Illustration •  is root of A(X) = i=0 ai Xi of degree n • Height of A(X) is A  • Degree-height [Yap-Dube 95] • Cauchy’s bound: • maintain bound on heights • but this requires the maintenance of bounds on degrees • Degree-length [Yap-Dube 95] • Landau’s bound: Talk @ MIT

  49. Degree-Measure Bounds • [Mignotte 82, Burnikel et al 00] where m( is the measure of . • It turns out that we also need to maintain the degree bound Talk @ MIT

  50. BFMS Bound • [Burnikel-Fleischer-Mehlhorn-Schirra’99] • For radical expressions • Tight for division-free expressions • For those with divisions: where E is transformed to U(E)/L(E) • Improvement [‘01] Talk @ MIT

More Related