Skip to main content

computational geometry - Regression /Bug in DelaunayMesh from 10.3.1 to 10.4


Bug introduced in 10.4 and persists through 11.1



In answering this question, I realized the OP and I were obtaining different results from the alphaShapes2D code. This question was updated with additional point sets, but when I tried to use my answer there, it failed. The OP used my answer and got really good results which made me realize something has changed between Mathematica versions 10.3.1 and 10.4. I think I may have tracked the problem down to DelaunayMesh. To see what I mean, here are the MeshRegions generated from the data obtained from the linked question using the same alpha parameter (10.4 is on the right of the following images):


alphaShapes2D[points, 3.0]

Mathematica graphics


You can see it's more pronounced if we try to extract the region boundaries:


Mathematica graphics


When I tried to apply the code to the second data set provided (points2), Mathematica 10.3.1 returns the nice result shown in the linked question whereas, 10.4 fails to return any useful result. After spending some time debugging the only thing I could come up with is that DelaunayMesh is doing something different in both versions. For instance the number of mesh cells returned in both versions are different:



$Version
dd = DelaunayMesh[points];
MeshCellCount[dd, All]

Mathematica graphics Mathematica graphics


Also, as you can see from above, in 10.4 DelaunayMesh claims there's a degenerate polygon but we don't see this error in 10.3.1. Can anyone reproduce this? Is this a change in algorithm in DelaunayMesh?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...
Post a Comment
Read more

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - What best practices or performance considerations are there for choosing between Cases, Position, Pick and Select?

Cases , Select , Pick and Position each have different syntaxes and purposes, but there are times when you can express the same calculation equivalently using either of them. So with this input: test = RandomInteger[{-25, 25}, {20, 2}] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {-8, -19}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {-3, -25}, {21, -18}, {4, 4}, {2, -2}, {-24, 8}, {-17, -8}, {4, -18}, {22, -24}, {-4, -3}, {21, 0}, {19, 18}, {-23, -8}, {23, -25}, {14, -2}, {-1, -13}} You can get the following equivalent results: Cases[test, {_, _?Positive}] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} Select[test, #[[2]] > 0 &] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} Pick[test, Sign[test[[All, 2]] ], 1] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} test[[Flatten@Position[test[[All, 2]], _?Positive] ]] {{-15, 13}, {-8, 16}, {7, 6}, {-21, 9}, {4, 4}, {-24, 8}, {19, 18}} Are there performance or other considerations that should guide which you shou...
Post a Comment
Read more