skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: QuadriFlow: A Scalable and Robust Method for Quadrangulation
QuadriFlow is a scalable algorithm for generating quadrilateral surface meshes based on the Instant Field-Aligned Meshes of Jakob et al. (ACM Trans. Graph. 34(6):189, 2015). We modify the original algorithm such that it efficiently produces meshes with many fewer singularities. Singularities in quadrilateral meshes cause problems for many applications, including parametrization and rendering with Catmull-Clark subdivision surfaces. Singularities can rarely be entirely eliminated, but it is possible to keep their number small. Local optimization algorithms usually produce meshes with many singularities, whereas the best algorithms tend to require non-local optimization, and therefore are slow. We propose an efficient method to minimize singularities by combining the Instant Meshes objective with a system of linear and quadratic constraints. These constraints are enforced by solving a global minimum-cost network flow problem and local boolean satisfiability problems. We have verified the robustness and efficiency of our method on a subset of ShapeNet comprising 17,791 3D objects in the wild. Our evaluation shows that the quality of the quadrangulations generated by our method is as good as, if not better than, those from other methods, achieving about four times fewer singularities than Instant Meshes. Other algorithms that produce similarly few singularities are much slower; we take less than ten seconds to process each model. Our source code is publicly available.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1729205
NSF-PAR ID:
10081562
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Symposium on Geometry Processing
ISSN:
1727-8384
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ( , Quantum)
    null (Ed.)
    Quantum computational supremacy arguments, which describe a way for a quantum computer to perform a task that cannot also be done by a classical computer, typically require some sort of computational assumption related to the limitations of classical computation. One common assumption is that the polynomial hierarchy ( P H ) does not collapse, a stronger version of the statement that P ≠ N P , which leads to the conclusion that any classical simulation of certain families of quantum circuits requires time scaling worse than any polynomial in the size of the circuits. However, the asymptotic nature of this conclusion prevents us from calculating exactly how many qubits these quantum circuits must have for their classical simulation to be intractable on modern classical supercomputers. We refine these quantum computational supremacy arguments and perform such a calculation by imposing fine-grained versions of the non-collapse conjecture. Our first two conjectures poly3-NSETH( a ) and per-int-NSETH( b ) take specific classical counting problems related to the number of zeros of a degree-3 polynomial in n variables over F 2 or the permanent of an n × n integer-valued matrix, and assert that any non-deterministic algorithm that solves them requires 2 c n time steps, where c ∈ { a , b } . A third conjecture poly3-ave-SBSETH( a ′ ) asserts a similar statement about average-case algorithms living in the exponential-time version of the complexity class S B P . We analyze evidence for these conjectures and argue that they are plausible when a = 1 / 2 , b = 0.999 and a ′ = 1 / 2 .Imposing poly3-NSETH(1/2) and per-int-NSETH(0.999), and assuming that the runtime of a hypothetical quantum circuit simulation algorithm would scale linearly with the number of gates/constraints/optical elements, we conclude that Instantaneous Quantum Polynomial-Time (IQP) circuits with 208 qubits and 500 gates, Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) circuits with 420 qubits and 500 constraints and boson sampling circuits (i.e. linear optical networks) with 98 photons and 500 optical elements are large enough for the task of producing samples from their output distributions up to constant multiplicative error to be intractable on current technology. Imposing poly3-ave-SBSETH(1/2), we additionally rule out simulations with constant additive error for IQP and QAOA circuits of the same size. Without the assumption of linearly increasing simulation time, we can make analogous statements for circuits with slightly fewer qubits but requiring 10 4 to 10 7 gates. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ( , ACM Transactions on Graphics)
    The Finite Element Method (FEM) is widely used to solve discrete Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) in engineering and graphics applications. The popularity of FEM led to the development of a large family of variants, most of which require a tetrahedral or hexahedral mesh to construct the basis. While the theoretical properties of FEM basis (such as convergence rate, stability, etc.) are well understood under specific assumptions on the mesh quality, their practical performance, influenced both by the choice of the basis construction and quality of mesh generation, have not been systematically documented for large collections of automatically meshed 3D geometries. We introduce a set of benchmark problems involving most commonly solved elliptic PDEs, starting from simple cases with an analytical solution, moving to commonly used test problem setups, and using manufactured solutions for thousands of real-world, automatically meshed geometries. For all these cases, we use state-of-the-art meshing tools to create both tetrahedral and hexahedral meshes, and compare the performance of different element types for common elliptic PDEs. The goal of this benchmark is to enable comparison of complete FEM pipelines, from mesh generation to algebraic solver, and exploration of relative impact of different factors on the overall system performance. As a specific application of our geometry and benchmark dataset, we explore the question of relative advantages of unstructured (triangular/ tetrahedral) and structured (quadrilateral/hexahedral) discretizations. We observe that for Lagrange-type elements, while linear tetrahedral elements perform poorly, quadratic tetrahedral elements perform equally well or outperform hexahedral elements for our set of problems and currently available mesh generation algorithms. This observation suggests that for common problems in structural analysis, thermal analysis, and low Reynolds number flows, high-quality results can be obtained with unstructured tetrahedral meshes, which can be created robustly and automatically. We release the description of the benchmark problems, meshes, and reference implementation of our testing infrastructure to enable statistically significant comparisons between different FE methods, which we hope will be helpful in the development of new meshing and FEA techniques. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ( , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))
    Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)
    The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should produce identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues. 
    more » « less
  4. ( , arXivorg)
    Constraint satisfaction problems are an important area of computer science. Many of these problems are in the complexity class NP which is exponentially hard for all known methods, both for worst cases and often typical. Fundamentally, the lack of any guided local minimum escape method ensures the hardness of both exact and approximate optimization classically, but the intuitive mechanism for approximation hardness in quantum algorithms based on Hamiltonian time evolution is poorly understood. We explore this question using the prototypically hard MAX-3-XORSAT problem class. We conclude that the mechanisms for quantum exact and approximation hardness are fundamentally distinct. We qualitatively identify why traditional methods such as quantum adiabatic optimization are not good approximation algorithms. We propose a new spectral folding optimization method that does not suffer from these issues and study it analytically and numerically. We consider random rank-3 hypergraphs including extremal planted solution instances, where the ground state satisfies an anomalously high fraction of constraints compared to truly random problems. We show that, if we define the energy to be E=Nunsat−Nsat, then spectrally folded quantum optimization will return states with energy E≤AEGS (where EGS is the ground state energy) in polynomial time, where conservatively, A≃0.6. We thoroughly benchmark variations of spectrally folded quantum optimization for random classically approximation-hard (planted solution) instances in simulation, and find performance consistent with this prediction. We do not claim that this approximation guarantee holds for all possible hypergraphs, though our algorithm's mechanism can likely generalize widely. These results suggest that quantum computers are more powerful for approximate optimization than had been previously assumed. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics)
    Safe control designs for robotic systems remain challenging because of the difficulties of explicitly solving optimal control with nonlinear dynamics perturbed by stochastic noise. However, recent technological advances in computing devices enable online optimization or sampling-based methods to solve control problems. For example, Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) have been proposed to numerically solve convex optimization problems that ensure the control input to stay in the safe set. Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control uses forward sampling of stochastic differential equations to solve optimal control problems online. Both control algorithms are widely used for nonlinear systems because they avoid calculating the derivatives of the nonlinear dynamic functions. In this paper, we use Stochastic Control Barrier Functions (SCBFs) constraints to limit sample regions in the samplingbased algorithm, ensuring safety in a probabilistic sense and improving sample efficiency with a stochastic differential equation. We also show that our algorithm needs fewer samples than the original MPPI algorithm does by providing a sampling complexity analysis. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email