Reconstructing Polygons from Scanner Data

  • Therese Biedl
  • Stephane Durocher
  • Jack Snoeyink
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5878)


A range-finding scanner can collect information about the shape of an (unknown) polygonal room in which it is placed. Suppose that a set of scanners returns not only a set of points, but also additional information, such as the normal to the plane when a scan beam detects a wall. We consider the problem of reconstructing the floor plan of a room from different types of scan data. In particular, we present algorithmic and hardness results for reconstructing two-dimensional polygons from points, point/normal pairs, and visibility polygons. The polygons may have restrictions on topology (e.g., to be simply connected) or geometry (e.g., to be orthogonal). We show that this reconstruction problem is NP-hard in most models, but for some assumptions allows polynomial-time reconstruction algorithms which we describe.


Span Tree Vertical Edge Reconstruction Problem Simple Polygon Horizontal Edge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amenda, N., Choi, S., Kolluri, R.: The power crust, union of balls and the medial axis. Comp. Geom.: Theory & App. 19(2–3), 127–153 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amenta, N., Choi, S., Kolluri, R.: The power crust. In: Proc. ACM Symp. Solid Model. & App., pp. 249–260 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeltaSphere, Inc. Deltasphere 3D laser scanner (2001),
  4. 4.
    Edmonds, J.: Paths, trees, and flowers. Can. J. Math. 17, 449–467 (1965)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Formann, M., Woeginger, G.J.: On the reconstruction of simple polygons. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Theor. Comp. Sc. 40, 225–230 (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability. W.H. Freeman, New York (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Karp, R.M.: An n5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs. SIAM J. Comp. 1(4), 472–484 (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Itai, A., Papadimitriou, C.H., Szwarcfiter, J.L.: Hamilton paths in grid graphs. SIAM J. Comp. 11(4), 676–686 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen, K., Woeginger, G.J.: The complexity of detecting crossingfree configurations in the plane. BIT 33(4), 580–595 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lovász, L., Plummer, M.D.: Matching theory. In: Ann. Disc. Math. North-Holland Mathematics Studies, vol. 29 (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nyland, L., Lastra, A., McAllister, D., Popescu, V., McCue, C.: Capturing, processing and rendering real-world scenes. In: El-Hakim, S.F., Gruen, A. (eds.) Videometrics and Optical Methods for 3D Shape Measurement, Electronic Imaging. SPIE Int. Soc. Optical. Eng. (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Rourke, J.: Uniqueness of orthogonal connect-the-dots. In: Toussaint, G.T. (ed.) Computational Morphology, pp. 97–104. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preparata, F., Shamos, M.: Computational Geometry: An Introduction. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rappaport, D.: On the complexity of computing orthogonal polygons from a set of points. Technical Report SOCS-86.9, McGill University, Montréal, Canada (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Therese Biedl
    • 1
  • Stephane Durocher
    • 2
  • Jack Snoeyink
    • 3
  1. 1.David R. Cheriton School of Computer ScienceUniversity of Waterloo 
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Manitoba 
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Personalised recommendations