Implementing geometric algorithms robustly

  • Leonidas J. Guibas
Invited Contributions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1148)


This note is meant as a sequel to Steven Fortune's note on ‘Robustness issues in geometric algorithms’ [For96] in these proceedings. We revisit some of the issues raised by him, such as the consistency between the combinatorial and numerical data in geometric algorithms, and then we elaborate on a number of additional topics, including issues in proving correct geometric algorithms meant to be executed with imprecise primitives, and in the rounding of geometric structures so that all their features are exactly representable.


Convex Hull Integral Point Computational Geometry Delaunay Triangulation Geometric Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [CLR90]
    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, and R. L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [FM91]
    S. Fortune and V. Milenkovic. Numerical stability of algorithms for line arrangements. In Proc. 7th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom., pages 334–341, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [For93]
    S. Fortune. Computational geometry. In R. Martin, editor, Directions in Computational Geometry. Information Geometers, 1993. To appear.Google Scholar
  4. [For95]
    S. Fortune. Numerical stability of algorithms for 2-d Delaunay triangulations. Internat. J. Comput. Geom. Appl., 5(1):193–213, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [For96]
    S. Fortune. Robustness issues in geometric algorithms. In Proc. 1996 Workshop on Applied Computational Geometry, page in these proceedings, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [FV93]
    S. Fortune and C. J. Van Wyk. Efficient exact arithmetic for computational geometry. In Proc. 9th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom., pages 163–172, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [GM95]
    Leonidas Guibas and David Marimont. Rounding arrangements dynamically. In Proc. 11th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom., pages 190–199, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [GSS89]
    L. J. Guibas, D. Salesin, and J. Stolfi. Epsilon geometry: building robust algorithms from imprecise computations. In Proc. 5th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom., pages 208–217, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [GSS90]
    L. Guibas, D. Salesin, and J. Stolfi. Constructing strongly convex approximate hulls with inaccurate primitives. In Proc. 1st Annu. SIGAL Internat. Sympos. Algorithms, volume 450 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 261–270. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [GY86]
    D. H. Greene and F. F. Yao. Finite-resolution computational geometry. In Proc. 27th Annu. IEEE Sympos. Found. Comput. Sci., pages 143–152, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. [Mil88]
    V. J. Milenkovic. Verifiable implementations of geometric algorithms using finite precision arithmetic. Artif. Intell, 37:377–401, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [Mil90]
    V. Milenkovic. Rounding face lattices in d dimensions. In Proc. 2nd Canad. Conf. Comput. Geom., pages 40–45, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [Mne89]
    N.E. Mnev. The universality thorems on the classification problem of configuration varieties and convex polytope varieties. In O.Y. Viro, editor, Topology and Geometry — Rohlin Seminar, pages 527–544. Springer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [Ped70]
    D. Pedoe. Geometry, a comprehensive course. Dover Publications, New York, 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonidas J. Guibas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations