Advertisement

Applications of a new space partitioning technique

  • Pankaj K. Agarwal
  • Micha Sharir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 519)

Abstract

We present several applications of a recent space partitioning technique of Chazelle, Sharir and Welzl [8]. Our results include efficient algorithms for output-sensitive hidden surface removal, for ray shooting in two and three dimensions, and for constructing spanning trees with low stabbing number.

Keywords

Span Tree Query Time Hyperplane Arrangement Amortize Time Query Segment 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    P.K. Agarwal, A deterministic algorithm for partitioning arrangements of lines and its applications, Proc. 5th ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, 1989, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P.K. Agarwal, Ray shooting and other applications of spanning trees with low stabbing number, Proc. 5th ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, 1989, pp. 315–325.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. K. Agarwal and M. Sharir, Applications of a new space partitioning scheme, Tech. Rept. CS-1991-14, Dept. Computer Science, Duke University, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Aronov and M. Sharir, On the zone of an algebraic surface in a hyperplane arrangement, Proc. 2nd Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Bar Yehuda and S. Fogel, Good splitters with applications to ray shooting, Proc. 2nd Canadian Conf. on Computational Geometry, 1990, pp. 81–85.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. de Berg, D. Halperin, M. Overmars, J. Snoeyink, and M. van Kreveld, Efficient ray shooting and hidden surface removal, Proc. 7th Symposium on Computational Geometry, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. Chazelle, H. Edelsbrunner, L. Guibas, M. Sharir and J. Stolfi, Lines in space: Combinatorics and algorithms, Tech. Rept. 491, Dept. of Computer Science, New York University, February 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Chazelle, M. Sharir and E. Welzl, Quasi-optimal upper bounds for simplex range searching and new zone theorems, Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, 1990, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Chazelle and E. Welzl, Quasi-optimal range searching in spaces of finite Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimensions, Discrete Comput. Geom. 4 (1989), pp. 467–489.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S.W. Cheng and R. Janardan, Space efficient ray shooting and intersection searching: Algorithms, dynamization, and applications, in Second SIAM-ACM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Dobkin and H. Edelsbrunner, Space searching for intersecting objects, J. Algorithms 8 (1987), pp. 348–361.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Dobkin and D. Kirkpatrick, A linear algorithm for determining the separation of convex polyhedra, J. of Algorithms 6 (1985), 381–392.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Edelsbrunner, L. Guibas, J. Hershberger, R. Seidel, M. Sharir, J. Snoeyink and E. Welzl, Implicitly representing arrangements of lines and of segments, Discrete Comput. Geom. 4 (1989), pp. 433–466.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    L. Guibas, M. Overmars and M. Sharir, Ray shooting, implicit point location, and related queries in arrangements of segments, Tech. Report 433, Courant Institute, New York University, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Matoušek, Spanning trees with low crossing numbers, to appear in Informatique Theoretique et Applications.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Matoušek, Cutting hyperplane arrangements, Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, 1990, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Matoušek, More on cutting hyperplanes and spanning trees with low crossing number, Tech. Rept., Freie Universität Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. Overmars and M. Sharir, An improved technique for output-sensitive hidden surface removal, Tech. rept. RUU-CS-89-32, Computer Science Department, University of Utrecht, December 1989.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. Overmars and M. Sharir, Merging visibility maps, Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, 1990, pp. 168–176.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Pellegrini, Stabbing and ray shooting in three-dimensional space, Proc. 6th ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, 1990, pp. 177–186.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. Schmitt, H. Müller and W. Leister, Ray tracing algorithms — Theory and algorithms, in Theoretical Foundations of Computer Graphics and CAD (ed. R. Earnshaw), NATO Series, Springer Verlag, 1988, pp. 997–1030.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Sharir and M. Overmars, A simple output-sensitive hidden surface removal algorithm, Tech. rept. RUU-CS-89-26, Computer Science Department University of Utrecht, November 1989.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    D.M.H. Sommerville, Analytical Geometry in Three Dimensions, Cambridge, 1951.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Stolfi, Primitives for Computational Geometry, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    E. Welzl, Partition trees for triangle counting and other range searching problems, Proc. 4th ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, 1988, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pankaj K. Agarwal
    • 1
  • Micha Sharir
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentDuke UniversityDurham
  2. 2.School of Mathematical SciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Courant Institute of Mathematical SciencesNew York UniversityNew York

Personalised recommendations