TY - JOUR
T1 - Fast approximate convex decomposition using relative concavity
AU - Ghosh, Mukulika
AU - Amato, Nancy M.
AU - Lu, Yanyan
AU - Lien, Jyh-Ming
N1 - KAUST Repository Item: Exported on 2020-10-01
Acknowledged KAUST grant number(s): KUS-C1-016-04
Acknowledgements: The research of NMA and MG was supported in part by NSF awards CRI-0551685, CCF-0833199, CCF-0830753, IIS-096053, and IIS-0917266, by THECB NHARP award 000512-0097-2009, by Chevron, IBM, Intel, Oracle/Sun and by Award KUS-C1-016-04, made by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). The research of J-ML and YL was supported in part by NSF IIS-096053, Autodesk and FHWA.
This publication acknowledges KAUST support, but has no KAUST affiliated authors.
PY - 2013/2
Y1 - 2013/2
N2 - Approximate convex decomposition (ACD) is a technique that partitions an input object into approximately convex components. Decomposition into approximately convex pieces is both more efficient to compute than exact convex decomposition and can also generate a more manageable number of components. It can be used as a basis of divide-and-conquer algorithms for applications such as collision detection, skeleton extraction and mesh generation. In this paper, we propose a new method called Fast Approximate Convex Decomposition (FACD) that improves the quality of the decomposition and reduces the cost of computing it for both 2D and 3D models. In particular, we propose a new strategy for evaluating potential cuts that aims to reduce the relative concavity, rather than absolute concavity. As shown in our results, this leads to more natural and smaller decompositions that include components for small but important features such as toes or fingers while not decomposing larger components, such as the torso, that may have concavities due to surface texture. Second, instead of decomposing a component into two pieces at each step, as in the original ACD, we propose a new strategy that uses a dynamic programming approach to select a set of n c non-crossing (independent) cuts that can be simultaneously applied to decompose the component into n c+1 components. This reduces the depth of recursion and, together with a more efficient method for computing the concavity measure, leads to significant gains in efficiency. We provide comparative results for 2D and 3D models illustrating the improvements obtained by FACD over ACD and we compare with the segmentation methods in the Princeton Shape Benchmark by Chen et al. (2009) [31]. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
AB - Approximate convex decomposition (ACD) is a technique that partitions an input object into approximately convex components. Decomposition into approximately convex pieces is both more efficient to compute than exact convex decomposition and can also generate a more manageable number of components. It can be used as a basis of divide-and-conquer algorithms for applications such as collision detection, skeleton extraction and mesh generation. In this paper, we propose a new method called Fast Approximate Convex Decomposition (FACD) that improves the quality of the decomposition and reduces the cost of computing it for both 2D and 3D models. In particular, we propose a new strategy for evaluating potential cuts that aims to reduce the relative concavity, rather than absolute concavity. As shown in our results, this leads to more natural and smaller decompositions that include components for small but important features such as toes or fingers while not decomposing larger components, such as the torso, that may have concavities due to surface texture. Second, instead of decomposing a component into two pieces at each step, as in the original ACD, we propose a new strategy that uses a dynamic programming approach to select a set of n c non-crossing (independent) cuts that can be simultaneously applied to decompose the component into n c+1 components. This reduces the depth of recursion and, together with a more efficient method for computing the concavity measure, leads to significant gains in efficiency. We provide comparative results for 2D and 3D models illustrating the improvements obtained by FACD over ACD and we compare with the segmentation methods in the Princeton Shape Benchmark by Chen et al. (2009) [31]. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10754/598315
UR - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010448512002370
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868191813&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cad.2012.10.032
DO - 10.1016/j.cad.2012.10.032
M3 - Article
SN - 0010-4485
VL - 45
SP - 494
EP - 504
JO - Computer-Aided Design
JF - Computer-Aided Design
IS - 2
ER -