Skip to main content

graphics - Generate nonoverlapping random circles



I want to distribute n circles unformly in an area(e.g. free plannar space). The circles could touch each other but cannot overlap.


n = 5;
r = 0.2;

Table[pt[i] = RandomReal[{-1, 1}, 2], {i, 1, n}];
Graphics[{Table[Circle[pt[i], r], {i, n}]}, Axes -> True,
PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}}]

My method is to generate the random points firstly, and then calculate the smallest distance between all point pairs. If the smallest distance is larger than 2r, the points are kept. However, the problem with this method is that the larger the radius, the more trials have to be taken. enter image description here



Answer



There are a bunch of Region functions that just showed up in 10. This uses RegionDistance[] to make a function that computes the shortest distance from a point to a region. The generated function runs faster than just checking all the circles. Though the creation of the function in the first place has to look at all the circles. So this still runs in O(n2) time, but at least the inner While should be faster when there are already a lot of circles and not a lot of places to put a new one.


distinct[n_,r_]:=Module[{d,f,p},
d={Circle[RandomReal[{-1,1},2],r]};
Do[

f=RegionDistance[RegionUnion@@d];
While[p=RandomReal[{-1,1},2];f[p] d=Append[d,Circle[p,r]],
{n-1}];
d
]

Example:


distinct[75, 0.1] // Graphics


75 non-overlapping circles


The following runs quite a bit faster, generating a Nearest function for a large set of circles, and using that one function to eliminate many overlaps in a single pass.


sweep[pts_,r_]:=Module[{p,f,c},
p=pts;
While[
f=Nearest[p->Automatic];
c=f[p,{2,r}];
Last[Dimensions[c]]!=1,
p=Pick[p,First[#]<=Last[#]&/@c];
];

p
]

distinct2[n_,r_]:=Module[{p},
p={};
While[
p=Join[p,RandomReal[{-1,1},{n,2}]];
p=sweep[p,2r];
Length[p] ];

Circle[#,r]&/@Take[p,n]
]

Measuring the performance (your mileage may vary):


Timing[distinct[75,0.1];]


{3.021209,Null}

Timing[distinct2[75,0.1];]



{0.077105,Null}

A problem with both of these algorithms is that there is no assurance that they will halt. You can ask for too many circles, and end up with the While loops trying to add circles forever when there is no place to put even one. If this is supposed to be part of some larger automated process, then you need to add a check for no progress after so many tries in order to give up. E.g.:


distinct3[n_,r_,maxiter_]:=Module[{p,m,k},
p={};
m=0;
k=maxiter;
While[

p=Join[p,RandomReal[{-1,1},{n,2}]];
p=sweep[p,2r];
k=If[Length[p]>m,maxiter,k-1];
m=Length[p];
m0
];
Circle[#,r]&/@If[Length[p]>n,Take[p,n],p]
]

Then:



distinct3[100,0.1,1000]//Length


80

distinct3[100,0.1,1000]//Length


78


As pointed out by Ernst Stelzer, this works in 3D just as well with two small changes:


distinct3D[n_,r_,maxiter_]:=Module[{p,m,k},
p={};
m=0;
k=maxiter;
While[
p=Join[p,RandomReal[{-1,1},{n,3}]];
p=sweep[p,2r];
k=If[Length[p]>m,maxiter,k-1];
m=Length[p];

m0
];
Sphere[#,r]&/@If[Length[p]>n,Take[p,n],p]
]

Then:


distinct3D[150, 0.2, 100]//Graphics3D

118 spheres of radius 0.2 packed into 2x2x2 box


That is 118 spheres.



I'd show you one in four dimensions, except that there's no HyperSphere[] or Graphics4D[]. Perhaps someone could work on those.


And now for something completely different. @novice did not ask that the circles be placed randomly, rather that the circles be distributed "uniformly". You can get more circles in if they are not placed randomly. This hexagonally packs in as many circles as possible of radius r, and then removes any excess circles randomly:


distinctx[n_,r_]:=Module[{x,c},
x={
2Floor[1/(2r)+1/2]-1,
2Floor[1/(2r)],
Sqrt[3](2Floor[1/(2Sqrt[3]r)+1/2]-1),
2Sqrt[3]Floor[1/(2Sqrt[3]r)]}//
Min[1/Select[#,#>0&]]&;
c=Join[

Table[Circle[x{2 i+1,Sqrt[3]j},r],
{i,-Floor[1/(2x)+1/2],Floor[1/(2x)-1/2]},
{j,-1-2Floor[1/(2Sqrt[3]x)-1/2],1+2Floor[1/(2Sqrt[3]x)-1/2],2}]
//Flatten,
Table[Circle[x{2 i,Sqrt[3]j},r],
{i,-Floor[1/(2x)],Floor[1/(2x)]},
{j,-2Floor[1/(2Sqrt[3]x)],2Floor[1/(2Sqrt[3]x)],2}]
//Flatten];
If[Length[c]>n,RandomSample[c,n],c]
]


For example:


distinctx[10,0.15]//
Graphics[{Blue,Line[{{-1,-1},{-1,1},{1,1},{1,-1},{-1,-1}}],Black,#}]&

random sample of hex arrangement


distinctx[40,0.15]//
Graphics[{Blue,Line[{{-1,-1},{-1,1},{1,1},{1,-1},{-1,-1}}],Black,#}]&

just a few missing



You're very unlikely to be able to get 40 circles of radius 0.15 stuffed in there randomly.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...