skip to main content
research-article

Controlling singular values with semidefinite programming

Published:27 July 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Controlling the singular values of n-dimensional matrices is often required in geometric algorithms in graphics and engineering. This paper introduces a convex framework for problems that involve singular values. Specifically, it enables the optimization of functionals and constraints expressed in terms of the extremal singular values of matrices.

Towards this end, we introduce a family of convex sets of matrices whose singular values are bounded. These sets are formulated using Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMI), allowing optimization with standard convex Semidefinite Programming (SDP) solvers. We further show that these sets are optimal, in the sense that there exist no larger convex sets that bound singular values.

A number of geometry processing problems are naturally described in terms of singular values. We employ the proposed framework to optimize and improve upon standard approaches. We experiment with this new framework in several applications: volumetric mesh deformations, extremal quasi-conformal mappings in three dimensions, non-rigid shape registration and averaging of rotations. We show that in all applications the proposed approach leads to algorithms that compare favorably to state-of-art algorithms.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a68-sidebyside.mp4

mp4

18.6 MB

References

  1. Aigerman, N., and Lipman, Y. 2013. Injective and bounded distortion mappings in 3d. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 4, 106--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alexa, M., Cohen-Or, D., and Levin, D. 2000. As-rigid-as-possible shape interpolation. Proc. SIGGRAPH, 157--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Alexa, M. 2002. Linear combination of transformations. ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 3 (July), 380--387. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Allen, B., Curless, B., and Popović, Z. 2003. The space of human body shapes: Reconstruction and parameterization from range scans. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3 (July), 587--594. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Andersen, E. D., and Andersen, K. D. 1999. The MOSEK interior point optimization for linear programming: an implementation of the homogeneous algorithm. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 197--232.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Anguelov, D., Srinivasan, P., Koller, D., Thrun, S., Rodgers, J., and Davis, J. 2005. Scape: Shape completion and animation of people. ACM Trans. Graph. 24, 3 (July), 408--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Besl, P. J., and McKay, N. D. 1992. A method for registration of 3-d shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 14, 2 (Feb.), 239--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bommes, D., Campen, M., Ebke, H.-C., Alliez, P., and Kobbelt, L. 2013. Integer-grid maps for reliable quad meshing. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 4 (July), 98:1--98:12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Boyd, S., and Vandenberghe, L. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Boyer, D. M., Lipman, Y., St. Clair, E., Puente, J., Patel, B. A., Funkhouser, T., Jernvall, J., and Daubechies, I. 2011. Algorithms to automatically quantify the geometric similarity of anatomical surfaces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 45, 18221--18226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Brown, B. J., and Rusinkiewicz, S. 2007. Global non-rigid alignment of 3-d scans. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3 (July). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Candès, E. J., and Recht, B. 2009. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. Foundations of Computational mathematics 9, 6, 717--772. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Chao, I., Pinkall, U., Sanan, P., and Schröder, P. 2010. A simple geometric model for elastic deformations. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 4, 38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ecker, A., Jepson, A. D., and Kutulakos, K. N. 2008. Semidefinite programming heuristics for surface reconstruction ambiguities. In ECCV 2008. Springer, 127--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Floater, M. S., and Hormann, K. 2005. Surface parameterization: a tutorial and survey. In Advances in Multiresolution for Geometric Modelling, Springer, 157--186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Freitag, L. A., and Knupp, P. M. 2002. Tetrahedral mesh improvement via optimization of the element condition number. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 53, 6, 1377--1391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Giorgi, D., Biasotti, S., and Paraboschi, L., 2007. Shape retrieval contest 2007: Watertight models track.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Goemans, M. X., and Williamson, D. P. 1995. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. J. ACM 42, 6 (Nov.), 1115--1145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hernandez, F., Cirio, G., Perez, A. G., and Otaduy, M. A. 2013. Anisotropic strain limiting. In Proc. of Congreso Español de Informática Gráfica.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hormann, K., and Greiner, G. 2000. MIPS: An efficient global parametrization method. In Curve and Surface Design: Saint-Malo 1999. Vanderbilt University Press, 153--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hormann, K., Lévy, B., and Sheffer, A. 2007. Mesh parameterization: Theory and practice. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Courses, ACM, New York, NY, USA, SIGGRAPH '07. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Huang, Q., and Guibas, L. 2013. Consistent shape maps via semidefinite programming. Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing 32, 5, 177--186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Huang, Q.-X., Adams, B., Wicke, M., and Guibas, L. J. 2008. Non-rigid registration under isometric deformations. In Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing, 1449--1457. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Igarashi, T., Moscovich, T., and Hughes, J. F. 2005. As-rigid-as-possible shape manipulation. ACM Trans. Graph. 24, 3 (July), 1134--1141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jeuris, B., Vandebril, R., and Vandereycken, B. 2012. A survey and comparison of contemporary algorithms for computing the matrix geometric mean. Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis 39, 379--402.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Karcher, H. 1977. Riemannian center of mass and mollifier smoothing. Comm. pure and applied mathematics 30, 5, 509--541.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kiwiel, K. 1986. A linearization algorithm for optimizing control systems subject to singular value inequalities. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 31, 7, 595--603.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Lévy, B., Petitjean, S., Ray, N., and Maillot, J. 2002. Least squares conformal maps for automatic texture atlas generation. ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 3 (July), 362--371. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Li, H., Sumner, R. W., and Pauly, M. 2008. Global correspondence optimization for non-rigid registration of depth scans. Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing 27, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Lipman, Y. 2012. Bounded distortion mapping spaces for triangular meshes. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4, 108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Lipman, Y. 2014. Bijective mappings of meshes with boundary and the degree in mesh processing. SIAM J. Imaging Sci., to appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu, L., Zhang, L., Xu, Y., Gotsman, C., and Gortler, S. J. 2008. A local/global approach to mesh parameterization. Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing 27, 5, 1495--1504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Löfberg, J. 2004. Yalmip: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB. In Proceedings of the CACSD Conference.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Lu, Z., and Pong, T. K. 2011. Minimizing condition number via convex programming. SIAM J. Matrix Analysis Applications 32, 4, 1193--1211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Maréchal, P., and Ye, J. J. 2009. Optimizing condition numbers. SIAM Journal on Optimization 20, 2, 935--947. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Paillé, G.-P., and Poulin, P. 2012. As-conformal-as-possible discrete volumetric mapping. Computers & Graphics 36, 5, 427--433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Polak, E., and Wardi, Y. 1982. Nondifferentiable optimization algorithm for designing control systems having singular value inequalities. Automatica 18, 3, 267--283. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Rentmeesters, Q., and Absil, P.-A. 2011. Algorithm comparison for karcher mean computation of rotation matrices and diffusion tensors. In Proc. European Signal Processing Conference, EURASIP, 2229--2233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Rossignac, J., and Vinacua, A. 2011. Steady affine motions and morphs. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 5 (Oct.), 116:1--116:16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Rusinkiewicz, S., and Levoy, M. 2001. Efficient variants of the ICP algorithm. In Int. Conf. 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Sander, P. V., Snyder, J., Gortler, S. J., and Hoppe, H. 2001. Texture mapping progressive meshes. Proc. SIGGRAPH, 409--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Schüller, C., Kavan, L., Panozzo, D., and Sorkine-Hornung, O. 2013. Locally injective mappings. Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing 32, 5, 125--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Shoemake, K. 1985. Animating rotation with quaternion curves. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 19, 3 (July), 245--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Singer, A. 2011. Angular synchronization by eigenvectors and semidefinite programming. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis 30, 1, 20--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Sorkine, O., and Alexa, M. 2007. As-rigid-as-possible surface modeling. In Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing, 109--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Sorkine, O., Cohen-Or, D., Goldenthal, R., and Lischinski, D. 2002. Bounded-distortion piecewise mesh parameterization. In Proc. Conference on Visualization '02, VIS '02, 355--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Sumner, R. W., Schmid, J., and Pauly, M. 2007. Embedded deformation for shape manipulation. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Sun, J., Ovsjanikov, M., and Guibas, L. 2009. A concise and provably informative multi-scale signature based on heat diffusion. In Proc. Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing, 1383--1392. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Vandenberghe, L., and Boyd, S. 1994. Semidefinite programming. SIAM Review 38, 49--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Wang, H., O'Brien, J., and Ramamoorthi, R. 2010. Multi-resolution isotropic strain limiting. In ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2010, 156:1--156:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Weber, O., Myles, A., and Zorin, D. 2012. Computing extremal quasiconformal maps. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 5, 1679--1689. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Weinberger, K. Q., and Saul, L. K. 2009. Distance metric learning for large margin nearest neighbor classification. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 10 (June), 207--244. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Controlling singular values with semidefinite programming

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
            ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 33, Issue 4
            July 2014
            1366 pages
            ISSN:0730-0301
            EISSN:1557-7368
            DOI:10.1145/2601097
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2014 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 27 July 2014
            Published in tog Volume 33, Issue 4

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader