Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 379–399

Discrete Surfaces and Frontier Orders

Article

Abstract

Many applications require the extraction of an object boundary from a discrete image. In most cases, the result of such a process is expected to be, topologically, a surface, and this property might be required in subsequent operations. However, only through careful design can such a guarantee be provided. In the present article we will focus on partially ordered sets and the notion of n-surfaces introduced by Evako et al. to deal with this issue. Partially ordered sets are topological spaces that can represent the topology of a wide range of discrete spaces, including abstract simplicial complexes and regular grids. It will be proved in this article that (in the framework of simplicial complexes) any n-surface is an n-pseudomanifold, and that any n-dimensional combinatorial manifold is an n-surface. Moreover, given a subset of an n-surface (an object), we show how to build a partially ordered set called frontier order, which represents the boundary of this object. Similarly to the continuous case, where the boundary of an n-manifold, if not empty, is an (n−1)-manifold, we prove that the frontier order associated to an object is a union of disjoint (n−1)-surfaces. Thanks to this property, we show how topologically consistent Marching Cubes-like algorithms can be designed using the framework of partially ordered sets.

Keywords

discrete topology discrete surfaces partially ordered sets simplicial complexes frontier orders

References

1. 1.
J. Hudson, Piecewise Linear Topology, W.A. Benjamin inc. 1969.Google Scholar
2. 2.
J. Alexander, “The combinatorial theory of complexes,” Ann. Math., Vol. 31, pp. 294–322, 1930.Google Scholar
3. 3.
W. Lickorish, “Simplicial moves on complexes and manifolds,” Geometry and Topology Monograph, Proccedings of the KirbyFest, Vol. 2, pp. 229–320, 1998.Google Scholar
4. 4.
E. Moise, “Affine structures on 3-manifolds,” Annals of mathematics, Vol. 56, pp. 96–114, 1952.Google Scholar
5. 5.
T.Y. Kong and A. Rosenfeld, “Digital topology: Introduction and survey,” Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing, Vol. 48, pp. 357–393, 1989.Google Scholar
6. 6.
D. Morgenthaler and A. Rosenfeld, “Surfaces in three-dimensional images,” Information and Control, Vol. 51, pp. 227–247, 1981.
7. 7.
R. Malgouyres, “A definition of surfaces of ℤ3,” in Discrete Geometry for Computer Imagery, pp. 23–34, 1993.Google Scholar
8. 8.
M. Couprie and G. Bertrand, “Simplicity surfaces : A new definition of surfaces in ℤ3,” SPIE Vision Geometry V Proceedings, Vol. 3454, pp. 40–51, 1998.Google Scholar
9. 9.
R. Ayala, E. Dominguez, A. Frances, A. Quintero, and J. Rubio, “On surfaces in digital topolgy,” Discrete Geometry for Computer Imagery, pp. 271–276, 1995.Google Scholar
10. 10.
G. Bertrand and M. Couprie, “A model for digital topology,” in Springer (Ed.), Discrete Geometry for Computer Imagery, Vol. 1568, of LNCS, pp. 229–241, 1999.Google Scholar
11. 11.
E. Khalimsky, “On topologies of generalized segments,” Soviet Mat. Doklady, Vol. 10, pp. 1508–1511, 1969.Google Scholar
12. 12.
G. Bertrand, “New notions for discrete topology,” in Springer (Ed.), Discrete Geometry for Computer Imagery, Vol. 1568 of LNCS, pp. 218–228, 1999.Google Scholar
13. 13.
P. Alexandroff, Combinatorial Topology, Dover Publications, 1947.Google Scholar
14. 14.
A.V. Evako, R. Kopperman, and Y.V. Mukhin, “Dimensional properties of graphs and digital spaces,” Jour. of Math. Imaging and Vision, Vol. 6, pp. 109–119, 1996.
15. 15.
A.V. Ivashchenko, “Representation of smooth surfaces by graphs,” Transformations of Graphs which do not Change the Euler Characteristic of Graphs, Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 122, pp. 219–133, 1993.Google Scholar
16. 16.
A.V. Ivashchenko, “Dimension on discrete spaces,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 1994.Google Scholar
17. 17.
E.D. Khalimsky and R. Kopperman P. M., “Computer graphics and connected topologies on finite ordered sets,” Topology Appl. Vol. 36, pp. 1–17, 1990.
18. 18.
R. Kopperman, P.R. Meyer, and R.W., “A Jordan surface theorem for three-dimensional digital spaces,” Discrete Computational Geometry, Vol. 6, pp. 155–161, 1991.Google Scholar
19. 19.
G. Herman, “Discrete multidimensional Jordan surfaces,” Graphicals Models and Image Processing, Vol. 54, pp. 507–515, 1992.
20. 20.
G. Herman, “Oriented surfaces in digital spaces,” Graphicals Models and Image Processing, Vol. 55, pp. 381–396, 1993.Google Scholar
21. 21.
J. Udupa, “Multidimensional digital boundaries,” Graphicals Models and Image Processing, Vol. 56, pp. 311–323, 1994.Google Scholar
22. 22.
R. Aharoni, G.T. Herman, and M.L., “Jordan graphs,” Graphicals Models and Image Processing, Vol. 58, pp. 345–359, 1996.Google Scholar
23. 23.
J. Burguet, R.M., “Strong thinning and polyhedric approximation of the surface of a voxel object,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, Vol. 125, pp. 93–114, 2003.Google Scholar
24. 24.
W. Lorensen and H. Cline, “Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm,” Computer Graphics, Vol. 21, pp. 163–169, 1987.Google Scholar
25. 25.
J.O. Lachaud and A. Montanvert, “Continuous analogs of digital boundaries: A topological approach to iso-surfaces,” Graphical models, Vol. 62, pp. 129–164, 2000.
26. 26.
X. Daragon, M. Couprie, and G. Bertrand, Marching chains algorithm for Alexandroff-Khalimsky spaces. In: SPIE Vision Geometry XI proceedings, pp. 51–62, 2002.Google Scholar
27. 27.
X. Daragon, M. Couprie, and G. Bertrand, “Discrete frontiers,” in Springer (Ed.) Discrete Geometry for Computer Imagery, Vol. 2886 of LNCS, pp. 236–245, 2003.Google Scholar
28. 28.
V. Kovalevsky, “Finite topology as applied to image analysis,” Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing, 1989.Google Scholar
29. 29.
Y. Cointepas, I. Bloch, and L. Garnero, “A cellular model for multi-objects multi-dimensional homotopic deformations,” Pattern Recognition, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 1785–1798, 2001.
30. 30.
C. Lohou and G. Bertrand, “Poset approach to 3d parallel thinning,” in SPIE Vision Geometry VIII, Vol 3811, pp. 45–56, 1999.Google Scholar
31. 31.
X. Daragon and M. Couprie, “Segmentation topologique du neo-cortex cérébral depuis des données IRM,” in: RFIA 2002, Vol. 3, pp. 809–818, 2002.Google Scholar
32. 32.
J. Pescatore, Maillages homotopiques tétraédriques des tissus de la tête pour le calcul du problème direct en électro/magnéto-encéphalographie. Ph.D. Thesis, ENST Paris, 2001.Google Scholar
33. 33.
J. Burguet and I. Bloch, “Homotopic labeling of elements in a tetrahedral mesh for the head modeling,” in Procs. 9th Iberoamerican Congress on Pattern Recognition, CIARP 2004, pp. 566–573, 2004.Google Scholar
34. 34.
M. Couprie, G. Bertrand, and Y. Kenmochi, “Discretization in 2d and 3d orders,” Graphical Models, Vol. 65, pp. 77–91, 2003.
35. 35.
X. Daragon, M. Couprie, and G. Bertrand, “Derived neighborhoods and frontier orders,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, Special issue on DGCI, Vol. 147, No. 2–3, pp. 227–243, 2005.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

• Xavier Daragon
• 1
• 2
Email author
• Michel Couprie
• 1
• 2
• Gilles Bertrand
• 1
• 2
1. 1.École Supérieure d’Ingénieurs en Électrotechnique et ÉlectroniqueLaboratoire A2 SI, 2, boulevard Blaise Pascal, Cité DESCARTES, BP 99Noisy le Grand CEDEXFrance
2. 2.IGMUnité Mixte de Recherche CNRS-UMLV-ESIEE UMR 8049France