4.5 Article

Geometric Shape Characterisation Based on a Multi-Sweeping Paradigm

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym15061212

关键词

computer science; image analysis; computational geometry; local reflection symmetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method for extracting characterisation vectors of 2D geometric shapes is proposed in this paper, which involves scanning the shape of interest embedded in a raster space with sweep-lines of different slopes multiple times. The interior points of the shape's boundary on the actual sweep-line are identified and connected iteratively into chains, which are then filtered, vectorised, and normalised to obtain polylines. These polylines are used to design the shape's characterisation vector, demonstrating a good rotation- and scaling-invariant identification of equal shapes.
The characterisation of geometric shapes produces their concise description and is, therefore, important for subsequent analyses, for example in Computer Vision, Machine Learning, or shape matching. A new method for extracting characterisation vectors of 2D geometric shapes is proposed in this paper. The shape of interest, embedded into a raster space, is swept several times by sweep-lines having different slopes. The interior shape's points, being in the middle of its boundary and laying on the actual sweep-line, are identified at each stage of the sweeping process. The midpoints are then connected iteratively into chains. The chains are filtered, vectorised, and normalised. The obtained polylines from the vectorisation step are used to design the shape's characterisation vector for further application-specific analyses. The proposed method was verified on numerous shapes, where single- and multi-threaded implementations were compared. Finally, characterisation vectors, among which some were rotated and scaled, were determined for these shapes. The proposed method demonstrated a good rotation- and scaling-invariant identification of equal shapes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据