Discrete & Computational Geometry

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 373–409 | Cite as

Combining Persistent Homology and Invariance Groups for Shape Comparison

Article

Abstract

Persistent homology has proven itself quite efficient in the topological and qualitative comparison of filtered topological spaces, when invariance with respect to every homeomorphism is required. However, we can make the following two observations about the use of persistent homology for application purposes. On the one hand, more restricted kinds of invariance are sometimes preferable (e.g., in shape comparison). On the other hand, in several practical situations filtering functions are not just auxiliary technical tools that can be exploited to study a given topological space, but instead the main aim of our analysis. Indeed, most of the data is usually produced by measurements, whose results are quite often functions defined on a topological space. As a simple example we can consider a 3D laser scanning of a surface, where the result of each measurement can be seen as a real-valued function defined on the manifold that describes the positions of the rangefinder measuring the distances. In fact, in many applications the dataset of interest is seen as a collection \({\varPhi }\) of real-valued functions defined on a given topological space X, instead of a family of topological spaces. As a natural consequence, in these cases observers can be seen as collections of suitable operators on \({\varPhi }\). Starting from these remarks, this paper proposes a way to combine persistent homology with the use of G-invariant non-expansive operators defined on \({\varPhi }\), where G is a group of self-homeomorphisms of X. Our goal is to give a method to study \({\varPhi }\) in a way that is invariant with respect to G. Some theoretical results concerning our approach are proven, and two experiments are presented. An experiment illustrates the application of the proposed technique to compare 1D-signals, when the invariance is expressed by the group of affinities, the group of orientation-preserving affinities, the group of isometries, the group of translations and the identity group. Another experiment shows how our technique can be used for image comparison.

Keywords

Natural pseudo-distance Filtering function Group action Persistent homology group Shape comparison 

Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary 55N35 Secondary 47H09 54H15 57S10 68U05 65D18 

References

  1. 1.
    Biasotti, S., De Floriani, L., Falcidieno, B., Frosini, P., Giorgi, D., Landi, C., Papaleo, L., Spagnuolo, M.: Describing shapes by geometrical-topological properties of real functions. ACM Comput. Surv. 40(4), 12:1–12:87 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cagliari, F., Di Fabio, B., Landi, C.: The natural pseudo-distance as a quotient pseudo-metric, and applications. Forum Math. 27(3), 1729–1742 (2015)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlsson, G., Zomorodian, A.: The theory of multidimensional persistence. Discrete Comput. Geom. 42(1), 71–93 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavazza, N., Ethier, M., Frosini, P., Kaczynski, T., Landi, C.: Comparison of persistent homologies for vector functions: from continuous to discrete and back. Comput. Math. Appl. 66, 560–573 (2013)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cerri, A., Di Fabio, B., Ferri, M., Frosini, P., Landi, C.: Betti numbers in multidimensional persistent homology are stable functions. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 36, 1543–1557 (2013)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chazal, F., Cohen-Steiner, D., Glisse, M., Guibas, L.J., Oudot, S.Y.: Proximity of persistence modules and their diagrams. In: SCG ’09: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, pp. 237–246. ACM, Aarhus (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, C., Edelsbrunner, H.: Diffusion runs low on persistence fast. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 423–430. IST Austria, Klosterneuburg (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen-Steiner, D., Edelsbrunner, H., Harer, J.L.: Stability of persistence diagrams. Discrete Comput. Geom. 37(1), 103–120 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Silva, V., Skraba, P., Vejdemo-Johansson, M.: Topological analysis of recurrent systems. Workshop on Algebraic Topology and Machine Learning, NIPS 2012 (2012). http://sites.google.com/site/nips2012topology/contributed-talks
  10. 10.
    Di Fabio, B., Frosini, P.: Filtrations induced by continuous functions. Topol. Appl. 160, 1413–1422 (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donatini, P., Frosini, P.: Natural pseudodistances between closed manifolds. Forum Math. 16(5), 695–715 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donatini, P., Frosini, P.: Natural pseudodistances between closed surfaces. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 9(2), 231–253 (2007)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donatini, P., Frosini, P.: Natural pseudodistances between closed curves. Forum Math. 21(6), 981–999 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doraiswamy, H., Natarajan, V.: Efficient algorithms for computing Reeb graphs. Comput. Geom. 42, 606–616 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edelsbrunner, H., Harer, J.L.: Persistent homology—a survey. Contemp. Math. 453, 257–282 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edelsbrunner, H., Harer, J.L.: Computational Topology: An Introduction. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frosini, P.: Measuring shapes by size functions. In: Proceedings of SPIE, Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision X: Algorithms and Techniques, pp. 122–133. SPIE, Boston (1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frosini, P.: G-invariant persistent homology. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 38(6), 1190–1199 (2015). doi:10.1002/mma.3139 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frosini, P., Landi, C.: Uniqueness of models in persistent homology: the case of curves. Inverse Probl. 27(12), 124005 (2011)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frosini, P., Mulazzani, M.: Size homotopy groups for computation of natural size distances. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. 6(3), 455–464 (1999)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hatcher, A.: Algebraic Topology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nelaturi, S., Shapiro, V.: Solving inverse configuration space problems by adaptive sampling. Comput. Aided Des. 45, 373–382 (2013)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perea, J., Harer, J.L.: Sliding windows and persistence: an application of topological methods to signal analysis. Found. Comput. Math. 15(3), 799–838 (2013)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reininghaus, J., Kotava, N., Gunther, D., Kasten, J., Hagen, H., Hotz, I.: A scale space based persistence measure for critical points in 2D scalar fields. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 17(12), 2045–2052 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uras, C., Verri, A.: Computing size functions from edge maps. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 23(2), 169–183 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verri, A., Uras, C.: Metric-topological approach to shape representation and recognition. Image Vis. Comput. 14(3), 189–207 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verri, A., Uras, C., Frosini, P., Ferri, M.: On the use of size functions for shape analysis. Biol. Cybern. 70, 99–107 (1993)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and ARCESUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Computer Science and Computational MathematicsJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations