2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.cad.2017.05.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An optimization-driven approach for computing geodesic paths on triangle meshes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The slow performance of iterative relaxation might be attributed to the fact that the amount of progress made on each iteration is not bounded away from zero ( Figure 5), whereas each FlipOut iteration decreases the size of a discrete set of possible states (Theorem 4.2). Acceleration via L-BFGS can help, but yields only approximate geodesics [Liu et al 2017a, Figure 1] and very similar performance to FlipOut (compare speedup relative to Martínez et al [2005] in Figure 18 with Liu et al [2017a, Table 2]). On the other hand, optimization-based schemes like these nicely support user-defined penalties like anisotropic metrics.…”
Section: Performance 9ms 2m Facesmentioning
confidence: 70%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The slow performance of iterative relaxation might be attributed to the fact that the amount of progress made on each iteration is not bounded away from zero ( Figure 5), whereas each FlipOut iteration decreases the size of a discrete set of possible states (Theorem 4.2). Acceleration via L-BFGS can help, but yields only approximate geodesics [Liu et al 2017a, Figure 1] and very similar performance to FlipOut (compare speedup relative to Martínez et al [2005] in Figure 18 with Liu et al [2017a, Table 2]). On the other hand, optimization-based schemes like these nicely support user-defined penalties like anisotropic metrics.…”
Section: Performance 9ms 2m Facesmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Such methods are critical in applications which do not seek shortest paths, as explored in Section 6. Lagrangian methods represent curves via vertices that can move freely along the surface or in R 3 [Hass and Scott 1994;Martínez et al 2005;Xin and Wang 2007;Appleboim et al 2009;Xin et al 2011;Han et al 2017;Liu et al 2017a;Remešíková et al 2019;, whereas Eulerian methods encode curves as level sets of a scalar function [Sethian 1989;Zhang et al 2010]. Many of these methods seek to numerically approximate geodesics, whereas our method considers a discrete configuration space (the flip graph of a triangulation) that includes the exact solution.…”
Section: Curve Shorteningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there is a price to pay for this. In particular, it must be observed that straightest geodesics do not converge to geodesic paths on smooth surfaces under mesh refinement [53,58], and that locally straightest distances do not satisfy the triangular inequality, therefore the straightest geodesic distance is not a metric [61]. Last but not least, we remind the reader that these local geodesic criteria apply only to the Euclidean embedding, and do not extend to alternative metrics (e.g., weighted or anisotropic), thus limiting the applicability of the algorithms that are based on them.…”
Section: 21mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Let us assume the mesh with obstacles have different density with the other base mesh. We use the optimization-driven approach [27] to compute geodesic paths on triangle meshes with nonuniform density setting. Let us assume V (1) and V (1) are the endpoints of the edge , as shown in Figure 1; the initial path (shown in red) through the face sequence Γ can be described by ( , 1 , 2 , .…”
Section: Geodesic Path With Non-uniform Densitymentioning
confidence: 99%