GridDS: a hybrid data structure for residue computation in point set matching


Registration of 3D point clouds is a problem that arises in a variety of research areas such as computer vision, computer graphics and computational geometry. This situation causes most papers in the area to focus on solving practical problems by using data structures often developed in theoretical contexts. Consequently, discrepancies arise between asymptotic cost and experimental performance. The point cloud registration or matching problem encompasses many different steps. Among them, the computation of the distance between two point sets (often refereed to as residue computation) is crucial and can be seen as an aggregate of range searching or nearest neighbor searching. In this paper, we aim at providing theoretical analysis and experimental performance of range searching and nearest neighbor data structures applied to 3D point cloud registration. Performance of widely used data structures such as compressed octrees, KDtrees, BDtrees and regular grids is reported. Additionally, we present a new hybrid data structure named GridDS, which combines a regular grid with some preexisting “inner” data structure in order to meet the best asymptotic bounds while also obtaining the best performance. The experimental evaluation in both synthetic and real data demonstrates that the hybrid data structures built using GridDS improve the running times of the single data structures. Thus, as we have studied the performances of the state-of-the-art techniques managing to improve their respective running times thanks to GridDS, this paper presents the best running time for point cloud residue computation up to date.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10


  1. 1.

    Holding \(d(a_i,b_j)=d(\mu (a_i),\mu (b_j) ) \forall a_i,b_j \in {\mathbb {R}}^3\), d() being the Euclidean distance.

  2. 2.

  3. 3.

  4. 4.

  5. 5.

  6. 6.

  7. 7.

  8. 8.

  9. 9.


  1. 1.

    Aiger, D., Mitra, N.J., Cohen-Or, D.: 4-Points congruent sets for robust pairwise surface registration. In: ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 27, p. 85 (2008)

  2. 2.

    Aluru, S., Sevilgen, F.E.: Dynamic compressed hyperoctrees with application to the n-body problem. In: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 21–33. Springer (1999)

  3. 3.

    Andreadis, A., Gregor, R., Sipiran, I., Mavridis, P., Papaioannou, G., Schreck, T.: Fractured 3D object restoration and completion. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2015 Posters, p. 74. ACM (2015)

  4. 4.

    Arya, S., Mount, D.M.: Approximate nearest neighbor queries in fixed dimensions. SODA 93, 271–280 (1993)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Arya, S., Mount, D.M., Netanyahu, N.S., Silverman, R., Wu, A.Y.: An optimal algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor searching fixed dimensions. J. ACM (JACM) 45(6), 891–923 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bærentzen, J.A., Gravesen, J., Anton, F., Aanæs, H.: 3D surface registration via iterative closest point (ICP). In: Guide to Computational Geometry Processing, pp. 263–275. Springer (2012)

  7. 7.

    Besl, P.J., McKay, N.D.: A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 14(2), 239–256 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bronstein, A.M.: Shrec 2010: robust feature detection and description benchmark. Eurogr. Workshop 3D Object Retr. 2(5), 6 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Buchin, K., Diez, Y., van Diggelen, T., Meulemans, W.: Efficient trajectory queries under the fréchet distance (gis cup). In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, SIGSPATIAL’17, pp. 101:1–101:4. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2017).

  10. 10.

    Choi, S., Zhou, Q.Y., Koltun, V.: Robust reconstruction of indoor scenes. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015, pp. 5556–5565. IEEE (2015)

  11. 11.

    Díez, Y., Martí, J., Salvi, J.: Hierarchical normal space sampling to speed up point cloud coarse matching. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 33, 2127–2133 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Díez, Y., Roure, F., Lladó, X., Salvi, J.: A qualitative review on 3D coarse registration methods. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 47(3), 45 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Elbaz, G., Avraham, T., Fischer, A.: 3D point cloud registration for localization using a deep neural network auto-encoder. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), vol. 00, pp. 2472–2481 (2017).

  14. 14.

    Ericson, C.: Real-Time Collision Detection. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fan, J., Yang, J., Ai, D., Xia, L., Zhao, Y., Gao, X., Wang, Y.: Convex hull indexed Gaussian mixture model (CH-GMM) for 3D point set registration. Pattern Recognit. 59, 126–141 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Friedman, J.H., Baskett, F., Shustek, L.J.: An algorithm for finding nearest neighbors. IEEE Trans. comput. 10, 1000–1006 (1975)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Friedman, J.H., Bentley, J.L., Finkel, R.A.: An algorithm for finding best matches in logarithmic expected time. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. (TOMS) 3(3), 209–226 (1977)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fujimura, K., Toriya, H., Yamaguchi, K., Kunii, T.: Oct-Tree Algorithms for Solid Modeling. Springer, Berlin (1983)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gelfand, N., Mitra, N.J., Guibas, L.J., Pottmann, H.: Robust global registration. In: Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing, pp. 197–206 (2005)

  20. 20.

    Jerbi, B., Suligoj, F., Svaco, M., Sekoranja, B.: Robot assisted 3D point cloud object registration. Procedia Eng. 100, 847–852 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Johnson, A.E., Hebert, M.: Using spin images for efficient object recognition in cluttered 3D scenes. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 21(5), 433–449 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kim, H., Hilton, A.: Evaluation of 3D feature descriptors for multi-modal data registration. In: 2013 International Conference on 3D Vision-3DV 2013, IEEE, pp. 119–126 (2013)

  23. 23.

    Körtgen, M., Park, G.J., Novotni, M., Klein, R.: 3D shape matching with 3D shape contexts. In: Central European Seminar on Computer Graphics, vol. 3, p. 5 (2003)

  24. 24.

    Lian, Z., Godil, A., Bustos, B., Daoudi, M., Hermans, J., Kawamura, S., Kurita, Y., Lavoué, G., Van Nguyen, H., Ohbuchi, R., et al.: A comparison of methods for non-rigid 3D shape retrieval. Pattern Recognit. 46(1), 449–461 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Manay, S., Hong, B.W., Yezzi, A., Soatto, S.: Integral invariant signatures. In: European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 87–99 (2004)

  26. 26.

    Mellado, N., Aiger, D., Mitra, N.J.: Super 4PCS fast global pointcloud registration via smart indexing. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 33, pp. 205–215. Wiley Online Library (2014)

  27. 27.

    Mian, A., Bennamoun, M., Owens, R.: On the repeatability and quality of keypoints for local feature-based 3D object retrieval from cluttered scenes. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 89(2), 348–361 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Pottmann, H., Wallner, J., Huang, Q.X., Yang, Y.L.: Integral invariants for robust geometry processing. Comput. Aided Geom. Des. 26(1), 37–60 (2009)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Pribanić, T., Diez, Y., Roure, F., Salvi, J.: An efficient surface registration using smartphone. Mach. Vis. Appl. 27(4), 559–576 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Pribanić, T., Mrvoš, S., Salvi, J.: Efficient multiple phase shift patterns for dense 3D acquisition in structured light scanning. Image Vis. Comput. 28(8), 1255–1266 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Roure, F., Diez, Y., Llad, X., Forest, J., Pribanic, T., Salvi, J.: A study on the robustness of shape descriptors to common scanning artifacts. In: 2015 14th IAPR International Conference on Machine Vision Applications (MVA), pp. 522–525 (2015).

  32. 32.

    Roure, F., Diez, Y., Lladó, X., Forest, J., Pribanic, T., Salvi, J.: An experimental benchmark for point set coarse registration. In: International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications (2015)

  33. 33.

    Roure, F., Lladó, X., Salvi, J., Pribanic, T., Diez, Y.: Hierarchical techniques to improve hybrid point cloud registration. In: VISIGRAPP (4: VISAPP), pp. 44–51 (2017)

  34. 34.

    Rusinkiewicz, S., Levoy, M.: Efficient variants of the ICP algorithm. In: IEEE International Conference on 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling, pp. 145–152 (2001)

  35. 35.

    Rusu, R.B., Blodow, N., Beetz, M.: Fast point feature histograms (FPFH) for 3D registration. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09, pp. 3212–3217 (2009)

  36. 36.

    Salti, S., Tombari, F., di Stefano, L.: Shot: unique signatures of histograms for surface and texture description. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 125, 251–264 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Salti, S., Tombari, F., Stefano, L.D.: A performance evaluation of 3D keypoint detectors. In: IEEE International Conference on 3D Imaging, Modeling, Processing, Visualization and Transmission, pp. 236–243 (2011)

  38. 38.

    Salvi, J., Matabosch, C., Fofi, D., Forest, J.: A review of recent range image registration methods with accuracy evaluation. Image Vis. Comput. 25(5), 578–596 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Schnabel, R., Klein, R.: Octree-based point-cloud compression. In: SPBG, pp. 111–120 (2006)

  40. 40.

    Sipiran, I., Bustos, B.: Harris 3D: a robust extension of the harris operator for interest point detection on 3D meshes. Vis. Comput. 27(11), 963–976 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Sun, J., Ovsjanikov, M., Guibas, L.: A concise and provably informative multi-scale signature based on heat diffusion. Comput. Graph. Forum 28, 1383–1392 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Tonioni, A., Salti, S., Tombari, F., Spezialetti, R., Stefano, L.D.: Learning to detect good 3D keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 126(1), 1–20 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Yang, J., Li, K., Li, K., Lai, Y.K.: Sparse non-rigid registration of 3D shapes. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 34, pp. 89–99. Wiley Online Library (2015)

  44. 44.

    Zaharescu, A., Boyer, E., Varanasi, K., Horaud, R.: Surface feature detection and description with applications to mesh matching. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 373–380 (2009)

  45. 45.

    Zhang, J., Sun, J.: Instance-based object recognition in 3D point clouds using discriminative shape primitives. Mach. Vis. Appl. 29(2), 285–297 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Zhong, Y.: Intrinsic shape signatures: a shape descriptor for 3D object recognition. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp. 689–696 (2009)

  47. 47.

    Zou, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, T., Liang, B., Song, J., Liu, H.: Broph: an efficient and compact binary descriptor for 3D point clouds. Pattern Recognit. 76, 522–536 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ferran Roure.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roure, F., Lladó, X., Salvi, J. et al. GridDS: a hybrid data structure for residue computation in point set matching. Machine Vision and Applications 30, 291–307 (2019).

Download citation


  • Data structures
  • Residue computation
  • Point clouds
  • 3D registration