Geometric constraint solving in a dynamic geometry framework.

Geometric constraint solving is a central topic in many fields such as parametric solid modeling, computer-aided design or chemical molecular docking. A geometric constraint problem consists of a set geometric objects on which a set of constraints is defined. Solving the geometric constraint problem means finding a placement for the geometric elements with respect to each other such that the set of constraints holds. Clearly, the primary goal of geometric constraint solving is to define rigid shapes. However an interesting problem arises when we ask whether allowing parameter constraint values to change with time makes sense. The answer is in the positive. Assuming a continuous change in the variant parameters, the result of the geometric constraint solving with variant parameters would result in the generation of families of different shapes built on top of the same geometric elements but governed by a fixed set of constraints. Considering the problem where several parameters change simultaneously would be a great accomplishment. However the potential combinatorial complexity make us to consider problems with just one variant parameter. Elaborating on work from other authors, we develop a new algorithm based on a new tool we have called h-graphs that properly solves the geometric constraint solving problem with one variant parameter. We offer a complete proof for the soundness of the approach which was missing in the original work. Dynamic geometry is a computer-based technology developed to teach geometry at secondary school, which provides the users with tools to define geometric constructions along with interaction tools such as drag-and-drop. The goal of the system is to show in the user's screen how the geometry changes in real time as the user interacts with the system. It is argued that this kind of interaction fosters students interest in experimenting and checking their ideas. The most important drawback of dynamic geometry is that it is the user who must know how the geometric problem is actually solved. Based on the fact that current user-computer interaction technology basically allows the user to drag just one geometric element at a time, we have developed a new dynamic geometry approach based on two ideas: 1) the underlying problem is just a geometric constraint problem with one variant parameter, which can be different for each drag-and-drop operation, and, 2) the burden of solving the geometric problem is left to the geometric constraint solver. Two classic and interesting problems in many computational models are the reachability and the tracing problems. Reachability consists in deciding whether a certain state of the system can be reached from a given initial state following a set of allowed transformations. This problem is paramount in many fields such as robotics, path finding, path planing, Petri Nets, etc. When translated to dynamic geometry two specific problems arise: 1) when intersecting geometric elements were at least one of them has degree two or higher, the solution is not unique and, 2) for given values assigned to constraint parameters, it may well be the case that the geometric problem is not realizable. For example computing the intersection of two parallel lines. Within our geometric constraint-based dynamic geometry system we have developed an specific approach that solves both the reachability and the tracing problems by properly applying tools from dynamic systems theory. Finally we consider Henneberg graphs, Laman graphs and tree-decomposable graphs which are fundamental tools in geometric constraint solving and its applications. We study which relationships can be established between them and show the conditions under which Henneberg constructions preserve graph tree-decomposability. Then we develop an algorithm to automatically generate tree-decomposable Laman graphs of a given order using Henneberg construction steps.

[1]  Britta Denner-Broser An algorithm for the tracing problem using interval analysis , 2008, SAC '08.

[2]  Nicholas Jackiw Visualizing Complex Functions with The Geometer's Sketchpad , 2003 .

[3]  Michael Jenkin,et al.  Exploiting Hierarchical Probabilistic Motion Planning for Robot Reachable Workspace Estimation , 2011 .

[4]  Lebrecht Henneberg,et al.  Die graphische Statik der Starren Systeme , 1911 .

[5]  James L. Peterson,et al.  Petri net theory and the modeling of systems , 1981 .

[6]  J. C. Owen,et al.  Algebraic solution for geometry from dimensional constraints , 1991, SMA '91.

[7]  Ulrich Kortenkamp,et al.  COMPLEXITY ISSUES IN DYNAMIC GEOMETRY , 2000 .

[8]  Peter Sanders,et al.  Highway Hierarchies Hasten Exact Shortest Path Queries , 2005, ESA.

[9]  Glenn A. Kramer Solving geometric constraint systems a case study in kinematics , 1992, Comput. Aided Des..

[10]  Ileana Streinu,et al.  The Number of Embeddings of Minimally Rigid Graphs , 2004, Discret. Comput. Geom..

[11]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Geometric Constraint Solving in Parametric CAD , 2011 .

[12]  Nicholas Jackiw,et al.  The Geometer’s Sketchpad , 2008 .

[13]  H. A. Van der Meiden Semantics of families of objects , 2008 .

[14]  Glenn A. Kramer,et al.  Using degrees of freedom analysis to solve geometric constraint systems , 1991, SMA '91.

[15]  Hannah Bast,et al.  Car or Public Transport - Two Worlds , 2009, Efficient Algorithms.

[16]  Jürgen Richter-Gebert,et al.  The Interactive Geometry Software Cinderella , 2000 .

[17]  András Frank,et al.  An Extension of a Theorem of Henneberg and Laman , 2001, IPCO.

[18]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Generalized best-first search strategies and the optimality of A* , 1985, JACM.

[19]  Vadim Shapiro,et al.  Consistent updates in dual representation systems , 1999, SMA '99.

[20]  S. Sitharama Iyengar,et al.  Robot reachability problem: A nonlinear optimization approach , 1995, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[21]  Jonathan L. Gross,et al.  Handbook of graph theory , 2007, Discrete mathematics and its applications.

[22]  M. V. Luzón,et al.  Search Space Pruning to Solve the Root Identification Problem in Geometric Constraint Solving , 2009 .

[23]  Gilles Trombettoni,et al.  Decomposition of Geometric Constraint Systems: a Survey , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl..

[24]  Jürgen Richter-Gebert,et al.  Automated Deduction in Geometry - ADG 2000 Revised Papers , 2001 .

[25]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Geometric constraint solver , 1995, Comput. Aided Des..

[26]  David C. Gossard,et al.  Variational geometry in computer-aided design , 1981, SIGGRAPH '81.

[27]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[28]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Decomposition Plans for Geometric Constraint Systems, Part I: Performance Measures for CAD , 2001, J. Symb. Comput..

[29]  Robert Joan-Arinyo,et al.  Combining constructive and equational geometric constraint-solving techniques , 1999, TOGS.

[30]  Günter Rote,et al.  Planar minimally rigid graphs and pseudo-triangulations , 2003, SCG '03.

[31]  B. Aldefeld Variation of geometrics based on a geometric-reasoning method , 1988 .

[32]  Ernst W. Mayr An Algorithm for the General Petri Net Reachability Problem , 1984, SIAM J. Comput..

[33]  Joseph O'Rourke,et al.  Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, Second Edition , 1997 .

[34]  M. Victoria Luzón,et al.  Genetic algorithms for root multiselection in constructive geometric constraint solving , 2003, Comput. Graph..

[35]  Christophe Jermann Résolution de contraintes géométriques par rigidifications récursive et propagation d'intervalles , 2002 .

[36]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  A Spatial Constraint Problem , 1995 .

[37]  Jean Paul Laumond Motion planning for PLM: state of the art and perspectives , 2006 .

[38]  C. Hoffmann,et al.  A Brief on Constraint Solving , 2005 .

[39]  Reinhard Hölzl How does ‘dragging’ affect the learning of geometry , 1996, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[40]  C. Hoffmann,et al.  Symbolic and numerical techniques for constraint solving , 1998 .

[41]  Brigitte Servatius,et al.  Rigidity, global rigidity, and graph decomposition , 2010, Eur. J. Comb..

[42]  G. Laman On graphs and rigidity of plane skeletal structures , 1970 .

[43]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINT SOLVING IN ℜ2 AND ℜ3 , 1995 .

[44]  Nicos Christofides,et al.  Graph theory: An algorithmic approach (Computer science and applied mathematics) , 1975 .

[45]  W. Whiteley,et al.  Generating Isostatic Frameworks , 1985 .

[46]  Robert Joan-Arinyo,et al.  A constraint-based dynamic geometry system , 2008, SPM '08.

[47]  Robert Joan-Arinyo,et al.  The Reachability Problem in Constructive Geometric Constraint Solving Based Dynamic Geometry , 2013, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[48]  Vadim Shapiro,et al.  Boundary representation deformation in parametric solid modeling , 1998, TOGS.

[49]  Vadim Shapiro,et al.  What is a parametric family of solids? , 1995, Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications.

[50]  Louise Poissant Part I , 1996, Leonardo.

[51]  Glenn A. Kramer,et al.  A Geometric Constraint Engine , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[52]  Vadim Shapiro,et al.  Necessary conditions for boundary representation variance , 1997, SCG '97.

[53]  Ulrich Kortenkamp Foundations of Dynamic Geometry , 2000 .

[54]  Gert Vegter,et al.  In handbook of discrete and computational geometry , 1997 .

[55]  Steven M. LaValle,et al.  Planning algorithms , 2006 .

[56]  Harald Winroth,et al.  Dynamic projective geometry , 1999 .

[57]  N. Mata,et al.  Applying Constructive Geometric Constraint Solvers to Geometric Problems with Interval Parameters , 2001 .

[58]  J. A. Bondy,et al.  Graph Theory with Applications , 1978 .

[59]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  A note on two problems in connexion with graphs , 1959, Numerische Mathematik.

[60]  Allan Heydon,et al.  The Juno-2 Constraint-Based Drawing Editor , 1994 .

[61]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Constraint solving for computer-aided design , 1995 .

[62]  R. Light,et al.  Modification of geometric models through variational geometry , 1982 .

[63]  Robert Joan-Arinyo,et al.  A correct rule-based geometric constraint solver , 1997, Comput. Graph..

[64]  Roberta L. Klatzky,et al.  A Geographical Information System for a GPS Based Personal Guidance System , 1998, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[65]  Bill Jackson,et al.  Globally rigid circuits of the direction-length rigidity matroid , 2010, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[66]  Greg Nelson,et al.  Juno, a constraint-based graphics system , 1985, SIGGRAPH.

[67]  Meera Sitharam,et al.  Characterizing 1-dof Henneberg-I graphs with efficient configuration spaces , 2009, SAC '09.

[68]  Beat D. Brüderlin,et al.  A Hybrid Constraint Solver Using Exact and Iterative Geometric Constructions , 1995, CAD Systems Development.

[69]  Robert Joan-Arinyo,et al.  Computing parameter ranges in constructive geometric constraint solving: Implementation and correctness proof , 2012, Comput. Aided Des..

[70]  Narendra Ahuja,et al.  Gross motion planning—a survey , 1992, CSUR.

[71]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  FERRARI: Flexible and efficient reachability range assignment for graph indexing , 2013, 2013 IEEE 29th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE).

[72]  Ching-yao Hsu Graph-based approach for solving geometric constraint problems , 1996 .

[73]  Menghan Wang,et al.  Cayley Configuration Spaces of 1-dof Tree-decomposable Linkages, Part I: Structure and Extreme Points , 2011, ArXiv.

[74]  V. Leitáo,et al.  Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice , 1995 .

[75]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Symbolic Constraints in Constructive Geometric Constraint Solving , 1997, J. Symb. Comput..

[76]  Tibor Jordán,et al.  Egerváry Research Group on Combinatorial Optimization Operations Preserving the Global Rigidity of Graphs and Frameworks in the Plane Operations Preserving the Global Rigidity of Graphs and Frameworks in the Plane , 2022 .

[77]  Menghan Wang,et al.  Cayley Configuration Spaces of 1-dof Tree-decomposable Linkages, Part II: Combinatorial Characterization of Complexity , 2011, ArXiv.

[78]  Erik Carlsson,et al.  Fast Routing in Very Large Public Transportation Networks Using Transfer Patterns , 2010, ESA.

[79]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Towards valid parametric CAD models , 2001, Comput. Aided Des..

[80]  Sebastià Vila-Marta,et al.  On the domain of constructive geometric constraint solving techniques , 2001, Proceedings Spring Conference on Computer Graphics.

[81]  Tadao Murata,et al.  Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[82]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Correctness proof of a geometric constraint solver , 1996, Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl..

[83]  J. Miller Numerical Analysis , 1966, Nature.

[84]  Jiantao Zhou,et al.  On reachability graphs of Petri nets , 2003, Comput. Electr. Eng..

[85]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  A graph-constructive approach to solving systems of geometric constraints , 1997, TOGS.

[86]  Nirmal K. Bose Multidimensional systems theory and applications (2. ed.) , 2003 .

[87]  Günter Rote,et al.  Planar minimally rigid graphs and pseudo-triangulations , 2005, Comput. Geom..

[88]  Christoph M. Hoffmann,et al.  Distributed maintenance of multiple product views , 2000, Comput. Aided Des..

[89]  Peter Sanders,et al.  Engineering Fast Route Planning Algorithms , 2007, WEA.

[90]  Willem F. Bronsvoort,et al.  An Efficient Method to Determine the Intended Solution for a System of Geometric Constraints , 2005, Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl..

[91]  Mohammed J. Zaki,et al.  GRAIL: a scalable index for reachability queries in very large graphs , 2011, The VLDB Journal.

[92]  S. Thierry Décomposition et paramétrisation de systèmes de contraintes géométriques sous-contraint , 2010 .

[93]  Britta Denner-Broser,et al.  About Tracing Problems in Dynamic Geometry , 2013, Discret. Comput. Geom..

[94]  Robert Joan Arinyo,et al.  Geometric constraint problems and solution instances , 2010 .

[95]  Willem F. Bronsvoort,et al.  A constructive approach to calculate parameter ranges for systems of geometric constraints , 2006, Comput. Aided Des..

[96]  Philip Todd A k-Tree Generalization that Characterizes Consistency of Dimensioned Engineering Drawings , 1989, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[97]  Thorsten Orendt Resolution of Geometric Singularities by Complex Detours - Modeling, Complexity and Application , 2011 .