Isometry-Invariant Similarity It is incredible what Gromov can do just with the triangle inequality! D. Sullivan, quoted by M. Berger Isometry-Invariant Similarity Alexander Bronstein, Michael Bronstein © 2008 All rights reserved. Web: tosca.cs.technion.ac.il
Equivalence Two shapes and are equal if they contain exactly the same points. We deem two unequal rigid shapes the same if they are congruent. Two unequal non-rigid shapes are the same if they are isometric. Congruence and isometry are equivalence relations. Formally, equivalence is a binary relation on the space of shapes which for all satisfies Reflexivity: Symmetry: Transitivity: Equivalence relation partitions into equivalence classes. Quotient space is the space of equivalence classes.
Similarity Equivalence can be expressed as a binary function , if and only if . Shapes are rarely truly equivalent (e.g., due to acquisition noise). We want to account for “almost equivalence” or similarity. -similar = -isometric (in either intrinsic or extrinsic sense). Define a distance quantifying the degree of dissimilarity of shapes.
Isometry-invariant distance Non-negative function satisfying for all Similarity: and are -isometric; and are -isometric (In particular, satisfies the isolation property: if and only if ). Symmetry: Triangle inequality: Corollary: is a metric on the quotient space .
Discrete isometry-invariant distance In practice, we work with discrete representations of shapes and that are -coverings. We require the discrete version to satisfy two additional properties: Consistency to sampling: Efficiency: computation complexity of the approximation is polynomial.
Canonical forms distance Given two shapes and . Compute canonical forms Compare extrinsic geometries of canonical forms No fixed embedding space will give distortionless canonical forms.
Gromov-Hausdorff distance Include into minimization problem can be selected as disjoint union equipped with metrics . and are isometric embeddings. Alternative: Felix Hausdorff Mikhail Gromov
Gromov-Hausdorff distance A metric on the quotient space of isometries of shapes. Similarity: and are -isometric; and are -isometric Generalization of Hausdorff distance: Hausdorff distance – distance between subsets of a metric space Gromov-Hausdorff distance – distance between metric spaces
Gromov-Hausdorff distance Gromov-Hausdorff distance is computationally intractable! Fortunately, an alternative formulation exists: in terms of distortion of embedding of one shape into the other. Distortion terms Joint distortion:
Distortion How much is distorted by when embedded into .
Distortion How much is distorted by when embedded into .
Joint distortion How much is far from being the inverse of .
Discrete Gromov-Hausdorff distance Two coupled GMDS problems Can be cast as a constrained problem
MINIMUM DISTORTION EMBEDDING Discrete Gromov-Hausdorff distance CANONICAL FORMS (MDS, 500 points) MINIMUM DISTORTION EMBEDDING (GMDS, 50 points)
Connection to ICP distance Consider the metric space and rigid shapes and . Similarity = congruence. ICP distance: Gromov-Hausdorff distance: What is the relation between ICP and Gromov-Hausdorff distances?
Connection to ICP distance Obviously Is the converse true? Theorem [Mémoli, 2008]: The metrics and are not equal. Yet, they are equivalent (comparable).
Connection to canonical form distance
Self-similarity (symmetry) Shape is symmetric, if there exists a rigid motion such that . Yes, I am symmetric. Am I symmetric?
Symmetry I am symmetric. What about us?
Symmetry Shape is symmetric, if there exists a rigid motion such that . Alternatively: Shape is symmetric if there exists an automorphism such that . Said differently: Shape is symmetric if has a non-trivial self-isometry. Substitute extrinsic metric with intrinsic counterpart . Distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic symmetry.
Symmetry: extrinsic vs. intrinsic Extrinsic symmetry Intrinsic symmetry
Symmetry: extrinsic vs. intrinsic I am extrinsically symmetric. We are all intrinsically symmetric. We are extrinsically asymmetric.