on the icp algorithm - nyu courant.pptVIP

On the ICP Algorithm Esther Ezra, Micha Sharir Alon Efrat The problem: Pattern Matching Input: A = {a1, …, am}, B = {b1, …, bn} A,B ? Rd Goal: Translate A by a vector t ? Rd s.t. ?(A+t,B) is minimized. The (1-directional) cost function: The algorithm [Besl Mckay 92] Use local improvements: Repeat: At each iteration i, with cumulative translation ti-1 Assign each point a+ti-1 ? A+ti-1 to its NN b = NB(a+ti-1) Compute the relative translation ?ti that minimizes ? with respect to this fixed (frozen) NN-assignment.Translate the points of A by ?ti (to be aligned to B). ti ? ti-1 + ?ti . Stop when the value of ? does not decrease. The algorithm: Convergence [Besl Mckay 92]. The value of ?=?2 decreases at each iteration. The algorithm monotonically converges to a local minimum. This applies for ?=?? as well. NN and Voronoi diagrams Each NN-assignment can be interpreted by the Voronoi diagram V(B) of B. b is the NN of a a is contained in the Voronoi cell V(b) of V(B). The problem under the RMS measure The algorithm: An example in R1 ?(A+t,B) = RMS(t) = Iteration 1: An example in R1: Cont. Number of iterations: An upper bound The value of ? is reduced at each iteration, since The relative translation ?t minimizes ? with respect to the frozen NN-assignment. The value of ? can only decrease with respect to the new NN-assignment (after translating by ?t). No NN-assignment arises more than once! #iterations = #NN-assignments (that the algorithm reaches) Number of iterations: A quadratic upper bound in R1 Critical event: The NN of some point ai is changed. Two “consecutive” NN-assignments  differ by one pair (ai,bj) . #NN-assignments ? |{(ai,bj) | ai ? A, bj ? B}| = nm. The bound in R1 Is the quadratic upper bound tight??? A linear lower bound construction (n=2): ?(m) Structural properties in R1 Lemma: At each iteration i?2 of the algorithm Corollary (Monotonicity): The ICP algorithm always moves A