arxiv: v3 [math.na] 7 Feb 2014

Transcription

1 Anisotropic Fast-Marching on cartesian grids sing Lattice Basis Redction Jean-Marie Mirebea arxi: [math.na] 7 Feb 2014 Febrary 10, 2014 Abstract We introdce a modification of the Fast Marching algorithm, which soles the anisotropic eikonal eqation associated to an arbitrary continos Riemannian metric M, on a two or three dimensional domain. The algorithm has a complexity O(N ln N +N ln κ(m)), where N is the discrete domain cardinality. The logarithmic dependency in the maximm anisotropy ratio κ(m) of the Riemannian metric allows to handle extreme anisotropies for a limited nmerical cost. We proe the consistence of the algorithm, and illstrate its efficiency by nmerical experiments. The algorithm relies on the comptation at each grid point z of a special system of coordinates: a redced basis of the lattice ZZ m, with respect to the symmetric positie definite matrix M(z) encoding the desired anisotropy at this point. Introdction The anisotropic Eikonal eqation, or static Hamilton-Jacobi eqation, is a Partial Differential Eqation (PDE) which describes an elementary front propagation model: the speed of the front depends only on the front position and orientation. This PDE is encontered in nmeros applications, sch as motion planning control problems [23], modeling of bio-medical phenomena [21], and image analysis [19]. It was also recently sed in the context of medical image analysis [4] for extracting essels in two dimensional projections or three dimensional scans of the hman body, and for performing irtal endoscopies. This application reqires to sole a highly anisotropic generalized eikonal eqation with a high resoltion on a cartesian grid, at a comptational cost compatible with ser interaction. It is one of or key motiations. This paper is deoted to the constrction and the stdy of a new algorithm, Fast Marching sing Lattice Basis Redction (FM-LBR), designed to sole the anisotropic eikonal eqation associated to a gien Riemannian metric M, and able to handle large or een extreme anisotropies. The domain mst be of dimension two or three, and discretized on a cartesian grid. The FM- LBR, as its name indicates, is a ariant of the classical Fast Marching algorithm [23, 26], an efficient method for soling the eikonal eqation when the metric is isotropic (proportional at each point to the identity matrix). Lattice Basis Redction [18] is a concept from discrete mathematics, sed in the FM-LBR to prodce sparse casal stencils for the discretization of the eikonal eqation; it allows to benefit in an optimal way of the interplay between the Riemannian geometric strctre of the PDE, and the arithmetic strctre of the discretization grid. A similar techniqe is sed in [7] to constrct sparse non-negatie stencils for anisotropic diffsion. This work was partly spported by ANR grant NS-LBR ANR-13-JS CNRS, Uniersity Paris Daphine, UMR 7534, Laboratory CEREMADE, Paris, France. 1

2 In order to illstrate the specificity of or approach, we need to introdce some notation. Denote by S m + the collection of m m symmetric positie definite matrices, and associate to each M S m + the norm M :=, M on IR m. Consider a bonded open domain Ω IR m, eqipped with a Riemannian metric M C 0 (Ω, S m). + We address the anisotropic eikonal eqation: find the niqe iscosity [14] soltion D : Ω IR of { D(z) M(z) 1 = 1 for almost eery z Ω, (1) D = 0 on Ω. See the end of 1 for different bondary conditions, and algorithmic restrictions on the dimension m. Introdce the Riemannian length of a Lipschitz path γ : [0, 1] Ω: length(γ) := 1 0 γ (t) M(γ(t)) dt, (2) and denote by D(x, y) the length of the shorted path joining x, y Ω, also referred to as the Riemannian distance between these points. The PDE (1) admits an optimal control interpretation: D(x) = min{d(x, y); y Ω} is the minimal distance from x Ω to the bondary. Consider a discrete set Z IR m, which in or case will be a cartesian grid. Discretizations of (1) take the form of a fixed point problem: find d : Z IR sch that { d(z) = Λ(d, z) for all z Z Ω, (3) d(z) = 0 for all z Z \ Ω. This formlation inoles the Hopf-Lax pdate operator Λ(d, z) [23, 5, 11, 8], which mimics at the discrete leel Belmann s optimality principle associated to the optimal control interpretation of (1). See Appendix B for details on this principle, the approximations nderlying its discretization, and their accracy. The definition of Λ(d, x) inoles a mesh (or stencil) V (x) of a small neighborhood of x Z Ω, with ertices on Z, and reads: Λ(d, x) := min x y M(x) + I V (x) d(y), (4) y V (x) where I V denotes piecewise linear interpolation on a mesh V. (In this paper, a mesh in IR m is a finite collection T of m-dimensional non-flat simplices, which is conforming in the sense that the intersection T T of any T, T T is the conex hll of their common ertices.) Nmerical solers of the eikonal eqation differ by (i) the constrction of the stencils V (z), z Ω, and (ii) the approach sed to sole the system (3), which is inspired by the algorithms of Bellmann-Ford or of Dijkstra sed for compting distances in graphs, instead of continos domains. The algorithm presented in this paper, FM-LBR, belongs to the category of Dijkstra inspired algorithms with static stencils, and among these is the first one to garantee a niform pper bond on the stencil cardinality, independently of the Riemannian metric M. The anisotropy ratio κ(m) of a matrix M S m, + and the maximm anisotropy κ(m) of the Riemannian metric M, are defined as follows: κ(m) := M max = M M = =1 1, M κ(m) := max κ(m(z)). (5) z Ω We denote by N := #(Z Ω) the cardinality of the discrete domain. Bellman-Ford inspired algorithms. The discrete fixed point problem (3) is soled ia Gass-Seidel iteration: the replacement rle d(z k ) Λ(d, z k ) is applied for k = 2

3 0, 1, 2,... to a mtable map δ : Z Ω IR, ntil a conergence criterion is met. In the fast sweeping methods, see [25] and references therein, the seqence of points (z k ) k 0 enmerates repeatedly the lines and the colmns of Z Ω. Alternatiely this seqence is obtained ia a priority qee in the Adaptie Gass-Seidel Iteration (AGSI) of Bornemann and Rasch [5]. The stencil V (z) of a point z Z Ω is sally the offset by z of a fixed stencil V gien at the origin, sch as those illstrated on Figre 1. Fast sweeping methods hae O(λ(M)N) complexity when the metric M is isotropic (proportional to the identity at each point), bt this reslt does not extend to anisotropic Riemannian metrics, see [30] for the proof and the expression of λ(m). The AGSI has complexity O(µ(M)N 1+ 1 m ), for arbitrary anisotropic Riemannian metrics, where µ(m) is a non explicit constant which depends on global geometrical featres of the metric [5]. The AGSI is a poplar, simple, and qite efficient method, which is inclded for comparison in or nmerical tests. Dijkstra inspired algorithms. The system (3) is soled in a single pass, non-iteratiely, sing an ordering of Z Ω determined at rn-time. This is possible proided the Hopf-Lax pdate operator satisfies the so-called casality property, see Proposition 1.1, which can be ensred if the stencil V (z) of each z Z Ω satisfies some geometrical properties depending on M(z), see Definition 1.2. The different Dijkstra inspired methods are characterized by the constrction of the stencils V (z), in contrast with Bellman-Ford inspired methods which are characterized by the choice of the seqence (z k ) k 0. Soling the system (3) with a Dijkstra inspired algorithm has complexity O(µ(M)N ln N), where µ(m) is an pper bond on the cardinality of the stencils (the nmber of simplices they are bilt of). In the Ordered Upwind Method (OUM) of Sethian and Vladimirsky [23, 29], the stencils are constrcted at rn-time; their cardinality is bonded by O(κ(M) m ) and drops to O(κ(M) m 1 ) as N. In contrast, the stencils are constrcted dring a preprocessing step and then static in the Monotone Acceptance Ordered Upwind Method (MAOUM) of Alton and Mitchell [2]; their cardinality is bonded by O(κ(M) m ). The FM-LBR introdced in the present work ses a similar approach, except that the stencils cardinality is O(1), flly independent of the Riemannian metric M. The complexity estimates are ths O(κ(M) m N ln N) for the OUM and the MAOUM (asymptotically O(κ(M) m 1 N ln N) for the OUM), and O(N ln N + N ln κ(m)) for or approach the FM-LBR, where the second term in the complexity acconts for the stencil constrction. The aboe mentioned algorithms are consistent for the anisotropic eikonal eqation associated to an arbitrary continos Riemannian metric M C 0 (Ω, S + m), in the sense that the discrete otpt d h of the algorithm exected on the grid Z h := hzz 2, of scale h > 0, conerges to the iscosity soltion D of the continos problem (1) as h 0. Some more specialized ariants of the fast marching algorithm are only consistent for a restricted set of metrics, bt can be exected nonetheless with an arbitrary anisotropic metric M; in that case the discrete system (3) may not be soled, and the nmerical reslts are ariable, see 3. For instance the original fast marching algorithm [26] is consistent if M(z) is proportional to the identity matrix for each z Ω, and more generally if M(z) is a diagonal matrix. In addition to these cases of isotropy and axis-aligned anisotropy, some ariants are also consistent if the metric anisotropy κ(m) is smaller than a gien bond κ 0, see [9] and Figre 1. Or nmerical experiments 3 inclde for comparison one of these methods: Fast Marching sing the 8 point stencil (FM-8, center left stencil on Figre 1), which is poplar in applications [4] thanks to its short comptation times and despite the lack of conergence garantee for arbitrary metrics. Depending on the 3

4 Figre 1: Some classical stencils sed in the discretization of two dimensional (left) or three dimensional (right) eikonal eqations. The meshes are M-acte, a property implying discrete casality, see Definition 1.2, for matrices M which are diagonal or of anisotropy ratio κ(m) bonded by respectiely 1, 1 + 2, 1, ( 3 + 1)/2 (from left to right). implementation [20, 23, 26], inoling either a sorted list or a bcket sort, these methods hae complexity O(N ln N) or O(Υ(M)N), where Υ(M) := max M(z) max z Ω z Ω M(z ) 1. In the applications for which or method is intended, one typically has ln(n) < κ(m) Υ(M) N, in sch way that the complexity O(N ln N + N ln κ(m)) of the proposed method is comparable to O(N ln N) and smaller than O(Υ(M)N). In smmary, the FM-LBR combines the niersal consistency (i.e. for any Riemannian metric) of the AGSI, OUM and MAOUM, with a qasi-linear complexity jst as the original Fast Marching algorithm. Remark. Each soler of the eikonal eqation comes with a specific constrction of the stencils V (z), z Ω. The highly efficient, bt specialized, approach sed in the FM-LBR limits its potential for generalization, see the end of 1. Static adaptie stencils also hae a memory impact, see Remark Since the Hopf-Lax pdate operator (4) depends on the stencils, the discrete soltion d of (3) is scheme dependent, and so is its accracy. See Appendix B for a heristic accracy analysis, and [15] for the case of constant metrics. Nmerical experiments 3, on application inspired test cases, show that the FM-LBR accracy is competitie. 1 Sparse casal stencils for the anisotropic eikonal eqation Or main contribtion is the constrction of discretization stencils for anisotropic eikonal eqations, which hae a niformly bonded cardinality and presere a strctral property of the PDE: casality, inherited from its interpretation as a deterministic control problem. Discrete casality, allowing to sole the fixed point system (3) in a single pass, is the following property. Proposition 1.1 (Casality property, J.A. Sethian, A. Vladimirsky, Appendix of [23]). Let x IR m, and let V be a finite mesh of a neighborhood of x. Let M S + m and let s assme that y x, M(z x) 0 for any ertices y, z of a common face of V (acteness condition). Consider a discrete map d defined on the ertices of V, and the optimization problem Λ := min y V x y M + I V d(y), where I denotes piecewise linear interpolation. Then the minimm defining Λ is attained on a k-face [y 1,, y k ] of V, with k m, sch that Λ > d(y i ) for all 1 i k. 4

5 A mesh V satisfying the geometric acteness condition of Proposition 1.1, is called a casal stencil, at the point x, and with respect to M. Consider the directed graph G, associated to the fixed point problem (3), where for all x, y Z we place an arrow x y iff the minimm defining d(x) = Λ(d, x) is attained on a face of the stencil V (x) containing y. The casality property, states that the presence of an arrow x y implies d(x) > d(y); in particlar the graph G has no cycles, hence the system of eqations (3) does not featre any dependency loop. The Fast-Marching algorithm [26] traces back theses dependencies, determining at rn-time an ordering (x i ) N i=1, of the discrete domain Z Ω, sch that the distances (d(x i )) N i=1 are increasing. We reprodce this method for completeness, see Algorithm 1, bt refer to its original introdction [26], or its se with alternatie static adaptie stencils in the MAOUM [1], for the proof that it soles the discrete system (3). Algorithm 1 The Fast Marching algorithm, with static stencils adapted to a metric. Inpt: The ales M(z) of a Riemannian metric, for all z Z Ω. Constrct casal stencils V (z), with respect to M(z), at all points z Z Ω. Constrct the reersed stencils, defined by V [y] := {z Z Ω; y is a ertex of V (z)}. Initialize a (mtable) table d : Z IR, to + on Z Ω, and to 0 elsewhere. Initialize a (mtable) boolean table b : Z {trial, accepted} with b(y) trial iff V [y]. While there remains a trial point (i.e. y Z sch that b(y) = trial) do Denote by y a trial point which minimizes d, and set b(y) accepted. For all x V [y], set d(x) min{d(x), Λ(d, x; b, y)}. Otpt: The map d : Z IR. We denoted by Λ(d, x; b, y) the modification of the Hopf-Lax pdate operator (4) in which the minimm is only taken oer faces (of any dimension) of V (x) which ertices (i) contain y, and (ii) are all accepted. Regarding the FM-LBR complexity O(N ln N + N ln κ(m)), we refer for details to the classical analysis in [26, 23, 1] and simply point ot that (i) each FM-LBR casal stencil costs O(ln κ(m)) to constrct, (ii) maintaining a list of Ω Z, sorted by increasing ales of the mtable map d, costs O(ln N) for each modification of a single ale of d, with a proper heap sort implementation, and (iii) the optimization problem defining the Hopf-Lax pdate (4), or its ariant Λ(d, x; b, y), has an explicit soltion: the minimm associated to each face of V (x) is the root of a simple niariate qadratic polynomial, see Appendix of [23]. Memory sage is discssed in detail in Remark As annonced, we limit or attention to PDE discretizations on cartesian grids, of the form Z = hr(ξ + ZZ m ), (6) where h > 0 is a scaling parameter, R a rotation, and ξ IR m an offset (in (6) and (7) we absiely apply geometric transformations not only to points, bt also to sets of points and meshes). The se of an nbonded grid (6) is a mathematical artifact aimed to simplify the exposition; only points of Z close to Ω (precisely: sch that V [y] ) play an actie role in Algorithm 1. We may constrct a casal stencil at x Z with respect to M S + m, by sitably scaling, translating and rotating an R T MR-acte mesh T, defined below: V = x + h R T. (7) Definition 1.2. An M-acte mesh, where M S + m, is an m-dimensional mesh T coering a neighborhood of the origin, and sch that the ertices 0,, m of any simplex T T satisfy (i) 0 = 0, (ii) ( 1,, m ) form a basis of ZZ m, and (iii) i, M j 0 for all 1 i < j m. 5

6 The condition det( 1,, m ) = 1 ensres that 0 (resp. x) is the only grid point in the interior of the domain coered by T (resp. V ), hence that information does not fly oer some grid points when soling (3). Applying the next proposition to the classical stencils of Figre 1, we obtain that they are casal for Riemannian metrics of limited anisotropy. Proposition 1.3. Let T be an m-dimensional mesh satisfying the reqirements of Definition 1.2, except (iii) (which does not make sense withot a gien matrix M S m). + Let 1 + γ(t ), κ(t ) :=, where γ(t ) := min 1 γ(t ) T,(,), (8) and where the minimm in γ(t ) is taken among all non-zero ertices, of a common simplex T T. The mesh T is M-acte for any M S + m sch that κ(m) κ(t ). Proof. Let, be two non-zero ertices of a common simplex T T, and let M S + m. Let := / and let := /. By constrction one has + 2 = 2(1 +, ) 2(1 + γ(t )), 2 = 2(1, ) 2(1 γ(t )). Let s assme for contradiction that, M < 0, which implies that + M < M. Obsering that κ(m) 2 = M M 1 2 M M > 1 + γ(t ) 1 γ(t ), we obtain that κ(m) > κ(t ), which concldes the proof of this proposition. Or constrction of M-acte meshes relies on special coordinate systems in the grid ZZ m, adapted to the anisotropic geometry encoded by M S + m. Definition 1.4 (Bases and sperbases). A basis of ZZ m is an m-plet (e 1,, e m ) (ZZ m ) m sch that det(e 1,, e m ) = 1. A sperbase of ZZ m is an m + 1-plet (e 0,, e m ) sch that e e m = 0, and (e 1,, e m ) is a basis of ZZ m. Definition 1.5. A sperbase (e 0,, e m ) of ZZ m is said to be M-obtse iff e i, Me j 0 for all 0 i < j m. There exists for each M S m, + m {2, 3} at least one M-obtse sperbase [6]. The constrction of 2D and 3D M-obtse sperbases relies on lattice basis redction algorithms [12, 18] (hence the name of or nmerical scheme) and has cost O(ln κ(m)), see 2. We arrie at the main contribtion of this paper: the FM-LBR stencils, which are casal and of bonded cardinality. Proposition 1.6 (The FM-LBR acte meshes). Let M S m, + and let (e 0,, e m ) be an M- obtse sperbase of ZZ m (if one exists). An M-acte mesh T (M) is obtained by collecting the simplices of ertices ( k 1 i=0 b i) m k=0 associated to all (m + 1)! permtations (b i) m i=0 of (e i) m i=0. It has 2 m+1 1 ertices. Proof. Proof of the properties of the simplices. Let (b i ) m i=0 be a permtation of (e i) m i=0, and let k := k 1 i=0 b i, for all 0 k m. Clearly (i) 0 = 0, and (ii) det( 1,, m ) = 6

7 e 1 e 2 e 3 e 1 e 2 e 0 e 0 e 0 e 2 e 1 e 2 e 0 e 2 e 2 e 3 1 Figre 2: Connectiity of the 2D (left) and 3D (center left, interior edges omitted, missing bondary edges are symmetric w.r.t. the origin) FM-LBR meshes T (M), see Proposition 1.6 (note that e i = j i e j). Mesh T (M) (center right) associated to M S 3 + of eigenales 3 2, 1, 1, and eigenector (3, 1, 2) for the first eigenale. Right: nit ball for the norm M. det(b 1,, b m ) = det(e 1,, e m ) = 1. Acteness condition (iii): for any 1 k < l m one has l = m j=l b j by Definition 1.4, hence by Definition 1.5 k, M l = e i, Me j 0. 0 i<k l j m Proof that T (M) is a conforming mesh coering a neighborhood of the origin. Consider the m + 1-dimensional Khn simplices T σ := {(λ 0,, λ m ); 0 λ σ(0) λ σ(1) λ σ(m) 1}, associated to all permtations σ of {0,, m}, which form a conforming mesh T 0 of [0, 1] m+1. The linear map A : IR m+1 IR m, defined by A(λ 0,, λ m ) := m i=0 λ ie i, has a kernel generated by 1 := (1,, 1). It sends [0, 1] m+1 onto a neighborhood of 0 IR m, and transforms T 0 into an m-dimensional conforming mesh T M of this neighborhood, collapsing onto 0 the common edge [0, 1 ] of the simplices T σ. Other ertices of [0, 1] m+1 hae pairwise distinct images by A, since their difference is not proportional to 1 ; hence T M has 2 m+1 1 ertices (one less than T 0 ). Noticing the identity m i=0 λ ie i = m k=1 (λ σ(k) λ σ(k 1) ) k 1 i=0 e σ(k), we find that the image of T σ by A is the simplex of T (M) associated to the permted sperbase (e σ(i) ) m i=0, hence T M = T (M), which concldes the proof. Obtse sperbases are similarly sed in [7] to prodce sparse non-negatie stencils for Anisotropic Diffsion (AD-LBR scheme), with different reslts: 3D stencils hae 12 non-zero ertices in [7], and 14 here. This illstrates the ersatility of this concept, which can be sed to design stencils satisfying arios geometric properties: an acteness condition for the FM- LBR (implying the scheme casality), and the non-negatie decomposition of a tensor for the AD-LBR (garanteeing the scheme monotonicity). Definition 1.7. A family of meshes (T (x)) x Ω, defined for all points of an open domain Ω IR m is admissible iff there exists two constants 0 < r and R < sch that: for each x Ω The mesh T (x) coers neighborhood of 0, and its ertices belong to ZZ m. (Bondedness) The ertices e of T (x) satisfy e R. (Stability) There exists a basis B(x) of ZZ m which elements, and their opposites, are ertices of T (y) for all y Ω sch that x y < r. 7

8 First Last First Last Figre 3: The nit sphere { IR 2 ; M = 1}, an M-redced basis (, ), and the bondary of the FM-LBR mesh T (M), for some M S 2 + of anisotropy ratio κ(m) = 6, and eigenector (cos θ, sin θ), θ [π/4, π/2], associated to the small eigenale. A fortnate bt non-triial fact is that the FM-LBR family of meshes (T (M(x))) x Ω is admissible, see Proposition 1.8 and Figres 3 and 4. This property implies the FM-LBR consistence, sing Proposition 1.9 which is a minor extension of the conergence reslts in [26, 5]. Proposition 1.8. Let Ω IR m be open and bonded, and let M C 0 (Ω, S + m). If m 3 then the FM-LBR family of meshes (T (M(x))) x Ω is admissible (with Bondedness constant R = C m κ(m), C 2 = 2, C 3 = 4). More generally, if m 4 then any family of meshes (T (x)) x Ω sch that T (x) is M(x)-acte for all x Ω, satisfies the (Stability) property. Proposition 1.9. Let Ω IR m be an open bonded set, eqipped with a Riemannian metric M C 0 (Ω, S + m), and an admissible family (T (z)) z Ω of meshes. For all h > 0 let Z h := hzz 2, and for all z Z h Ω consider the stencil V h (z) := z + ht (z). Then the soltions d h : Z h IR {+ } of the discrete system (3) conerge niformly as h 0 to the iscosity soltion D of the eikonal eqation (1): lim h 0 max d h(z) D(z) = 0. (9) z Z h Ω To sm p the FM-LBR strengths, this algorithm is niersally consistent, has a competitie accracy w.r.t. alternatie methods, and its comptational cost is almost naffected by the Riemannian metric anisotropy. For fairness we discss below the potential downsides of or original stencil constrction, which limits the potential for generalization (efficiency is as often at the cost of specialization), and impacts memory sage. (Finsler metrics) The FM-LBR only applies to the anisotropic eikonal eqation associated to a Riemannian metric, while other methods sch as the AGSI, OUM, MAOUM [5, 23, 2] can handle more general Finsler metrics. Indeed the strctre M(z) of the local norm at z associated to a Riemannian metric is reqired in the FM-LBR stencil constrction Proposition 1.6, which inoles an M(z)-obtse sperbase. Finsler metrics are in contrast defined by arbitrary asymmetric norms z, depending continosly on z. Constrcting casal static stencils is an actie sbject of research in the case of Finsler metrics. A characterization obtained in [27], was sed in [16] to deelop the FM-ASR (Fast Marching sing Anisotropic Stencil Refinement), which is close in spirit and in efficiency to the FM-LBR, bt has a different application range, since it handles Finsler metrics on two dimensional domains. It was also obsered in [22, 23, 1] that the canonical stencil 8

9 (Figre 1, left) is casal for Finsler metrics featring only axis-aligned anisotropy, in sch way that the original fast marching algorithm can be applied. (Domain discretization) The FM-LBR reqires a cartesian grid discretization. In contrast an important research effort [3, 5, 10, 13, 23] has been deoted to the more difficlt setting of meshed domains, with an nstrctred set of ertices. These methods are natral candidates for the comptation of distances on a manifold S IR m, while the FM- LBR wold reqire a (collection of) local chart(s) ϕ : Ω S eqipped with the metric M(z) := ϕ(z) T ϕ(z). The FM-LBR heaily relies on the cartesian grid arithmetic strctre, throgh the concept of obtse sperbases. (Bondary conditions) The nll bondary conditions chosen in the eikonal eqation (1) can be replaced with Dirichlet data D 0 : Ω IR, of 1-Lipschitz reglarity [14] with respect to the Riemannian distance D(, ), see (2). In that eent, Algorithm 1 reqires to extend the bondary data D 0 to a ghost layer, containing all grid points y Z \ Ω sch that the reerse stencil V [y] is non-empty. The FM-LBR ses large stencils, of eclidean radis O(hκ(M)) on a grid (6) of scale h, which complicates this extension in contrast with e.g. the AGSI [5] of stencil radis O(h). Otflow bondary conditions, on a portion Γ Ω of the domain s bondary, are natral in applications, see 3. They are implemented by exclding in the definition (4) of Λ(d, x), faces of V (x) containing an exterior ertex y Z \ Ω close to Γ. If x lies in a corner of Ω, and if the stencil V (x) is strongly anisotropic, then it may happen that all the ertices of V (x) lie otside Ω, so that the soltion of (3) satisfies d(x) = +. (In or experiments 3, this happened in the sqare domain s corners when test case 1 was rotated by an angle θ [0.56, 0.61] radians. These for infinite ales were rejected when estimating nmerical errors.) Despite these minor inconeniences, the FM-LBR behaes remarkably well in or nmerical experiments, 3 and Appendix B, with these more general bondary conditions. (Dimension) The FM-LBR casal stencils constrction, see Proposition 1.6, is limited to domains of dimension 2 and 3, becase some matrices M S 4 + do not admit any M-obtse sperbase [18]. An alternatie constrction of M-acte meshes of niformly bonded cardinality is proposed in [15], for all M S 4 + ; this cardinality is not small nfortnately, with 768 simplices. The FM-LBR howeer extends in a straightforward manner to Riemannian metrics M haing a block diagonal strctre, with blocks of size 1, 2 or 3, sing the following constrction. For i {1, 2} let m i be a positie integer, let M i S m + i, and let T i be an M i -acte mesh. Let m := m 1 + m 2 and let M S m + be the matrix of diagonal blocks M 1, M 2. An M-acte mesh T is obtained by collecting the m-dimensional simplices of ertices (0, 0), ( 1, 0),, ( m1, 0), (0, 1 ),, (0, m2 ), where the simplices of ertices 0, 1,, m1 and 0, 1,, m2 belong to T 1 and T 2 respectiely. Block diagonal metrics are not ncommon in the context of medical imaging [4], as they inherit the cartesian prodct strctre of the fast marching domain: Ω = Ω 0 Ω 1, where Ω 0 is a physical domain of dimension 3, and Ω 1 is an abstract parameter domain of dimension 2. Otline. Frther insight on the FM-LBR is gien in 2, inclding the proof of Propositions 1.8 and 1.9. Nmerical experiments are presented in 3. In addition, Appendix A describes 9

10 Last First First Last Figre 4: The nit sphere { IR 2 ; M = 1}, an M-redced basis (, ), and the bondary of the FM-LBR mesh T (M), for some M S 2 + of anisotropy ratio κ(m) ranging from 1 to 15, and eigenector (cos(3π/8), sin(3π/8)) associated to the small eigenale. a robst minimal path extraction method for the FM-LBR and other Dijkstra inspired solers of the eikonal eqation. A heristic analysis of the FM-LBR accracy, and a last nmerical experiment, appear in Appendix B. Remark 1.10 (Memory reqirements). The memory reqirements of nmerical methods for the eikonal eqation, sch as the AGSI, the OUM and the FM-LBR, are dominated by (I) storing the discrete soltion d and the Riemannian metric M, sampled on the discrete domain Ω Z, and (II) storing the graph strctre nderlying the nmerical scheme. Point (I) reqires two tables of N and Nm(m + 1)/2 reals, which may be represented in 32 bit (single precision) or 64 bit (doble precision) format. The storage cost for the metric can be aoided if it has an analytical expression. Point (II) can be aoided for the AGSI and the OUM when these methods are exected on a mesh with a triial periodic strctre, which is the case in or experiments. For the FM-LBR, Point (II) amonts to storing the non-empty reerse stencils V [y], at all points of Y := {y Z; V [y] }, since the direct ones can be recompted indiidally on demand for a minor cost. The set Y the nion of Ω Z and of a thin bondary layer (in or experiments, Y = Ω Z de to the se of otflow bondary conditions). The chosen data strctre ses two tables: one of ectors (the differences x y, for x V [y], y Y, enmerated consectiely), and one of #(Y ) N integers (the start, for each y Y, of the description of V [y] in the preios table). We represent integers in 32bit format, and ector components in 8bit format, since these are small integers by constrction. Smming p, we find that the memory reqirements of the FM-LBR are larger than those of the AGSI or the OUM (on a grid), by a factor ranging from 2 (metric and soltion stored in doble precision), to 9 (analytical metric, soltion stored in single precision), throgh 3 (metric and soltion stored in single precision), in two dimensions. Respectiely, in three dimensions, from 2.6 to 24, throgh Analysis of the FM-LBR We introdce in 2.1 the concepts of Lattice Basis Redction. They are sed in 2.2 to estimate the constrction cost of the FM-LBR meshes T (M), and to proe their admissibility in the sense of Definition 1.7, as annonced in Proposition 1.8. We finally proe in 2.3 the annonced 10

11 conergence reslt Proposition Introdction to Lattice Basis Redction We briefly introdce the framework of (low dimensional) Lattice Basis Redction, sed in the next sbsection to constrct and demonstrate the properties of M-acte meshes. See [18] and references therein for more details on this rich theory, from which we se only one reslt: Theorem 2.2 stated below. We denote by b 1 ZZ + + b k ZZ the sb-lattice of ZZ m generated by b 1,, b k ZZ m : b 1 ZZ + + b k ZZ := {b 1 z b k z k ; z 1,, z k ZZ}. If k = 0 then the aboe sm eqals {0} by conention. Definition 2.1. Let 1 m 4 and let M S + m. A basis (b 1,, b m ) of ZZ m is said M-redced iff for all 1 k m: b k argmin{ z M ; z ZZ m \ (b 1 ZZ + + b k 1 ZZ)}. (10) If M S m + is a diagonal matrix of coefficients (λ 1,, λ m ), and if 0 < λ σ(1) λ σ(m) for some permtation σ, then the permtation (e σ(i) ) m i=1 of the canonical basis of ZZm is an M-redced basis of ZZ m. See Figres 2, 3, 4, for some examples of M-redced bases associated to non-diagonal matrices M. In dimension m 5 there exists matrices M S m + sch that no basis of ZZ m satisfies the relations (10), see [18] (these relations state that b i M eqals the i-th Minkowski s minimm λ i (M)). Minkowski s redction [18] is the natral generalization of Definition 2.1 in dimension m 5. Theorem 2.2 (Ngyen, Stelhé, 2009). There exists an algorithm which, gien a matrix M S + m as inpt, 1 m 4, prodces an M-redced basis of ZZ m and has the nmerical cost O(1 + ln κ(m)). Proof. The proof is contained in [18], and we only point ot here the precise reference within the paper and the slight differences in notations. The algorithm described in [18] takes as inpt a basis (b 1,, b m ) (here: the canonical basis of IR m ) of a lattice L (here: ZZ m ), and its Gram matrix with respect to some scalar prodct (here: the Gram matrix is M). The algorithm otpts a greedy redced basis of the lattice L, a notion which coincides with Minkowski s redction if m 4 (Lemma in [18]), which itself coincides with Definition 2.1 if m 4. The main loop of the iteratie algorithm is exected at most the following nmber of times (Theorem in [18]): ( ) O 1 + ln max b i M ln min M, 1 i m L hence O(1 + ln M 1 2 ln M ) = O(1 + ln κ(m)) times in or setting. The complexity of each of these iterations is dominated by a closest ector search, described in Theorem in [18], which consists of the inersion of a k k Gram matrix, where 1 k m 1, and an exhastie search among O(1) candidate ectors. In terms of elementary operations (+,,, /) among reals, each iteration of this algorithm ths has cost O(1), and the oerall cost is the nmber of iterations O(1 + ln κ(m)). Note that an important part of the discssion in [18] is deoted to the special case where the ectors (b 1,, b m ) hae large integer coefficients, the Gram matrix is compted with respect to the standard eclidean scalar prodct, and the complexity of an elementary operation 11

12 (+,,, /) among integers is not O(1) bt depends on the size of these integers. This more sbtle notion of complexity, named bit complexity, is not releant in or setting. The two dimensional ersion of the algorithms mentioned in Theorem 2.2 dates back to Lagrange [12], and mimicks the search for the greatest common diisor of two integers. This algorithm ses only a pair (, ) of (mtable) ariables in ZZ 2, initialized as the canonical basis of IR 2. The pair (, ) becomes an M-redced basis at the end of the following loop, which takes at most O(ln κ(m)) iterations. Rond denotes ronding to a closest integer. Do (, ) (, Rond(, M / 2 M ) ), While M > M. We end this sbsection with a basic estimate of the norms and scalar prodcts of the elements of M-redced bases. Proposition 2.3. Let 1 m 4, let M S + m and let (b 1,, b m ) be an M-redced basis of ZZ m. Then for any 1 i m b i κ(m), and b i M κ(m) b 1 M. (11) For any integer combination z b 1 ZZ + + b i 1 ZZ + b i+1 ZZ + + b m ZZ, of the basis elements distinct from b i, one has 2 b i, Mz z 2 M. (12) Proof. Proof of 11. Let (e j ) m j=1 denote the canonical basis of IRm. By a dimensionality argment there exists 1 j m sch that e j / b 1 ZZ + + b i 1 ZZ. By constrction (10) we obtain b i M e j M M 1 2 since e j = 1, hence b i κ(m) as annonced in (11). Obsering that b 1 M M since b 1 1, and recalling that b i M M 1 2, we obtain the second annonced estimate. Proof of (12). Remark that b i + z / b 1 ZZ + + b i 1 ZZ, since otherwise the basis element b i wold be a linear combination of b 1,, b i 1, b i+1,, b m. Definition 2.1 ths implies: b i 2 M b i + z 2 M = b i 2 M + 2 b i, Mz + z 2 M, hence 2 b i, Mz z 2 M. Likewise 2 b i, Mz z 2 M, which concldes the proof. 2.2 Properties of M-acte meshes The FM-LBR stencil constrction has nmerical cost O(1 + ln κ(m)). The constrction of an FM-LBR mesh T (M), M S m, + has nit cost (for fixed m) gien an M-obtse sperbase, see Proposition 1.6. We gie below a nit cost constrction of an M-obtse sperbase gien an M-redced basis, in dimension m {2, 3}, which by Theorem 2.2 can itself be obtained at cost O(1 + ln κ(m)). Dimension 2. Let (b 1, b 2 ) be an M-redced basis. Up to replacing b 2 with its opposite, we may assme that b 1, Mb 2 0. Using (12) we obtain 2 b 1, Mb 2 b 1 2 M, hence Mb 1, b 1 b 2 0 and likewise Mb 2, b 1 b 2 0, so that (b 1, b 2, b 1 b 2 ) is an M-obtse sperbase. Dimension 3: we reprodce withot proof the constrction of [7]. Let (b 1, b 2, b 3 ) be the elements of an M-redced basis, permted and signed so that b 1, Mb 2 min{ b 1, Mb 3, b 2, Mb 3 }. An M-obtse basis is gien by (b 1, b 2, b 3, b 1 b 2 b 3 ) if b 1, Mb 2 0, and ( b 1, b 2, b 1 + b 3, b 2 b 3 ) otherwise. 12

13 Radis of the FM-LBR stencils. Assme that an FM-LBR acte mesh T (M) is bilt from an M-obtse sperbase obtained as in the preios paragraph 1 from an M-redced basis (b i ) m i=1. Then one easily checks that its ertices hae the form e = m i=1 ε ib i, where ε i { 1, 0, 1} and (b i ) m i=1 is the sed M-redced basis. Hence the ertices norm e m i=1 b i mκ(m) obeys the annonced bond. An M-redced basis of ZZ m contains by definition small ectors with respect to the norm M : the smallest linearly independent ones with integer coordinates. As a reslt, the FM-LBR meshes T (M) hae a small radis with respect to the norm M. In constrast, these meshes can be large from the eclidean perspectie. This has conseqences on the FM-LBR accracy, see Appendix B. Stability of M-acte meshes. Consider the following distance on the set S m + of symmetric positie definite matrices: for all M, N S m + dist(m, N) := sp ln M ln N. (13) 0 This distance allows to compare the norms of ectors mltiplicatiely, in contrast with the classical operator norm which is tailored for additie comparisons. Indeed denoting α := dist(m, N) and β := M 1 2 N 1 2, one has for all IR 2 sch that = 1 e α M / N e α, and β M N β. The next lemma establishes a lower bond on the M norm of points with integer coordinates otside of an N-redced mesh, when the matrices M, N S + m are close enogh. Lemma 2.4. Let M, N S + m, with m 4. Let 1,, m be an arbitrary M-redced basis of ZZ m, and let T be an N-redced mesh. Consider a point z ZZ m which is not a ertex of T. Then there exists 1 l m sch that z 1 ZZ + + l ZZ and z 2 M e 4 dist(m,n) l 2 M M. Proof. Since T coers a neighborhood of the origin, there exists a simplex T T and a real λ > 0 sch that λz T. Denoting by 1,, m the non-zero ertices of T, there exists therefore non-negatie reals α 1,, α m IR + sch that z = α α m m. Since ( 1,, m ) form a basis of ZZ m, these coefficients are integers. Up to reordering the ertices 1,, m, we may assme that α 1,, α k are positie, and that α k+1,, α m are zero, for some 1 k m. Let l be the smallest integer sch that z 1 ZZ + + l ZZ. There exists 1 i k sch that i / 1 ZZ + + l 1 ZZ, hence i M l M ; other ertices satisfy j M 1 M, 1 j k, since they are non-zero and hae integer coordinates. Therefore, denoting δ := dist(m, N) e 4δ z 2 M e 2δ z 2 N = e 2δ αi 2 i 2 N + 2 α i α j i, N j e 2δ 1 i k 1 i k 1 i k 1 i<j k αi 2 i 2 N αi 2 i 2 M l 2 M + αi M. 1 i k Obsering that α α2 k 2, since z is not a ertex of T, we conclde the proof. 1 This implementation is sed in or nmerical experiments. See Corollary 2.6 for a proof with no assmption. 13

14 We proe in the next corollary that the ertices of an M-acte mesh contain the elements of an N-redced basis, and their opposites, when the matrices M, N are sfficiently close. This reslt, and the compactness of Ω, immediately implies the second point of Proposition 1.8. Corollary 2.5. Let M, N S + m, with m 4, be sch that dist(m, N) < ln(1 + κ(m) 2 )/4. (14) Let (b 1,, b m ) be an M-redced basis of ZZ m, and let T be an N-redced mesh. Then b 1,, b m and b 1,, b m are ertices of T. Proof. Let 1 l m. We hae b l / b 1 ZZ + + b l 1 ZZ, since (b i ) m i=1 is a basis, and Proposition 2.3 implies b l 2 Me 4 dist(m,n) < b l 2 M + κ(m) 2 b l 2 M b l 2 M + b 1 2 M. Hence b l is a ertex of T, and likewise b l, by Lemma 2.4. We finally estimate the radis of the FM-LBR meshes T (M), see Proposition 1.6, in terms of the condition nmber of the matrix M S + m. This concldes the proof of Proposition 1.8. Corollary 2.6. Let M S + m, with m {2, 3}. Then any ertex e of T (M) satisfies e C m κ(m), with C 2 := 2 and C 3 := 4. Proof. Gien m linearly independent ertices (b i ) m i=1 of T (M), one can express any other ertex nder the form e = m i=1 α ib i. A simple check by exhastie enmeration shows that m i=1 α i C m (these coefficients are independent of M), hence e C m max{ b i ; 1 i m}. Applying Corollary 2.5 with M = N, we find that the ertices of T (M) contain an M-redced basis (b i ) m i=1, which by Proposition 2.3 satisfies b i κ(m) for all 1 i m. This concldes the proof. 2.3 Conergence of the FM-LBR We proe in this section the niform conergence of the discrete system (3) soltions towards the anisotropic eikonal PDE (1) soltion, nder the assmptions of Proposition 1.9 and with its notations. Following the steps of [5], we begin with a discrete Lipschitz reglarity estimate for the maps d h : Z h IR. Lemma 2.7. There exists constants h 0 > 0 and C 0 < sch that for all 0 < h h 0 and all x, y Z h one has d h (x) d h (y) C 0 x y. (15) Proof. We proe below that d h (x) d h (y) C 1 h when x y = h, in other words when x and y are neighbors on the grid Z h := hzz m. This immediately implies d h (x) d h (y) C 1 x y 1, where (λ 1,, λ m ) 1 := m i=1 λ i, hence also (15) with C 0 := C 1 m. If x / Ω and y / Ω, then d h (x) = d h (y) = 0, and the reslt is proed. Up to exchanging x and y, we may therefore assme that x Ω. Let B := B(x) be the basis corresponding to the property (Stability) of the admissible family of meshes (T (x)) x Ω, see Definition 1.7. Each element e of B is a ertex of T (x), hence satisfies e R, see Definition 1.7 (Bondedness). We absiely regard B as an m m matrix which colmns are the basis elements, and obsere that B R m and det(b) = 1. Therefore B 1 B m 1 / det B C 2 := (R m) m 1. Since we assmed x y = h, we hae y = x + εhe j, for some ε { 1, 1}, 1 j m, and where (e j ) m j=1 denotes the canonical basis of IRm. Hence denoting by (b i ) m i=1 the elements 14

15 of the basis B, and by (α ij ) m i,j=1 the coefficients of B 1, we obtain y = x + εh m i=1 α ijb i. Let s := m i=1 α ij, and let (x k ) s k=0 be a finite seqence of points of Z h sch that x 0 := x, x s := y, and x k+1 x k {±hb i ; 1 i m} for all 0 k < s. By Cachy-Schwartz s ineqality one has s/ m ( m i=1 α2 ij ) 1 2 B 1 C 2, hence x k x hrc 2 m for any 0 k s. We choose the pper grid scale bond h0 so that this constant smaller than the radis r inoled in property (Stability) of Definition 1.7. If x k Ω, then by property (Stability) a grid point x l, with k l 1 and 0 l s, is a ertex of the stencil V h (x). Hence inserting x l in (4) we obtain d h (x k ) = Λ h (d h, x k ) x k x l M(x) + d h (x l ) hrc 3 + d h (x l ), with C 3 := max{ M(z) 1 2 ; z Ω}. If x k / Ω then d h (x k ) = 0, hence obiosly d h (x k ) d h (x l ). Exchanging the roles of of k and l we obtain d h (x k ) d h (x l ) hrc 3, hence by the trianglar ineqality d h (x) d h (y) hrc 3 s hrc 3 C 2 m, which concldes the proof. The rest of the proof is only sketched, since it amonts to a minor adaptation of Theorem 11 in [5]. The only difference lies in the presence, in [5], of a canonical interpolation operator on Ω (piecewise linear interpolation on a prescribed mesh). Denote by D h the bilinear interpolant 2 of d h on the grid Z h, and obsere that D h (x) D h (y) KC 0 x y, for all x, y IR 2 and all 0 < h h 0, where K is an absolte constant depending only on the interpolation scheme, and C 0, h 0, are the constants of Lemma 2.7. Note also that spp(d h ) {z + e; z Ω, e h m}, hence by Lipschitz reglarity D h is bonded niformly independently of h, and therefore by Arzelà- Ascoli s theorem the family (D h ) 0<h h0 is pre-compact. Considering an arbitrary conerging sb-seqence D h(n), with h(n) 0 as n, one obseres that the limit is spported on Ω, and applying the argments of Theorem 11 in [5] that it is a iscosity soltion of the eikonal PDE (1). Uniqeness of sch a soltion [14] implies the pointwise conergence D h (x) D(x), as h 0, for all x Ω. Finally the annonced niform conergence (9) follows from the niform KC 0 -Lipschitz reglarity of D h, for all 0 < h h 0. 3 Nmerical experiments We compare nmerically the FM-LBR with two poplar solers (AGSI, FM-8) of the eikonal eqation, which enjoy a reptation of simplicity and efficiency in applications, and with the recent and closely related MAOUM. The Adaptie Gass Seidel Iteration 3 (AGSI) [5] prodces nmerical approximations which are garanteed to conerge towards the soltion of the continos anisotropic eikonal eqation as one refines the comptation grid 4, for an arbitrary continos Riemannian metric M. Fast Marching sing the 8 point stencil (FM-8, stencil illstrated on Figre 1, center left) does not offer this conergence garantee, bt has a qasi-linear complexity O(N ln N), in contrast with the sper-linear complexity O(µ(M)N 1+ 1 m ) of the AGSI. Fast Marching sing Lattice Basis Redction 5 (FM-LBR) aims to offer the best of both worlds: a conergence garantee, and fast comptation times 6. 2 Other interpolation schemes cold be sed, sch as piecewise linear interpolation on a triial periodic mesh, proided one can control the Lipschitz reglarity constant and the spport of the interpolated fnction. 3 As sggested in [5], the stopping criterion tolerance for the AGSI iterations is set to The grid is trianglated with a triial periodic mesh, for the AGSI and the MAOUM. As a reslt the AGSI ses a 6 point stencil. 5 The FM-LBR stencil V (z), at each grid point z Ω Z, is bilt (7) from the M(z)-redced mesh T (M(z)) of Proposition 1.6, except if the matrix M(z) is detected to be exactly diagonal. In that case we se the standard 4 ertices neighborhood in 2D (resp. 6 ertices in 3D), which is an M(z)-redced mesh, see Figre 1 (left and center right). This modification has little impact on accracy or CPU time, bt aoids to pointlessly break symmetry. 6 Note that the FM-LBR memory reqirement is higher than that of the AGSI and FM-8, see Remark

16 Figre 5: Leel lines of the soltions of the two dimensional test cases. We also implemented the Monotone Acceptance Ordered Upwind Method (MAOUM) [2], a Dijkstra inspired method sing static stencils, like the FM-LBR. The difference between these two methods is that the MAOUM stencil 7 V (z) at a grid point z Ω Z, is isotropic, only depends on the anisotropy ratio κ(m(z)), and its bondary has cardinality O(κ(M(z)) m 1 ); in contrast the FM-LBR stencil is anisotropic, aligned with the ellipse defined by M(z), and of cardinality O(1). The MAOUM stencils were precompted and stored in a look-p table, reslting in a complexity O(κ(M)N ln N) for this algorithm in 2D. We consider application inspired test cases, which iolate some of the simplifying assmptions sed in or conergence analysis Proposition 1.9: they inole otflow bondary conditions, non-triial Dirichlet bondary conditions in Appendix B, and discontinos Riemannian metrics in cases 3 and 4. Their exact technical description is gien in Remark 3.1. The first test is a distance comptation on a parametrized srface, considered in [27]. As shown on Figre 6, the FM-LBR is the fastest in terms of CPU time 8, bt is less accrate than the AGSI or the FM-8. Rotating this test case by the angle θ = π/6, and condcting the same experiment, shows a different story: the nmerical errors of the AGSI and the FM-8 increase by a factor larger than 5, while the FM-LBR, naffected, is now the most accrate method, see Figre 6. The FM-LBR cts L and L 1 nmerical errors by 40% in comparison with the AGSI and the MAOUM, and CPU time by 85%, while the FM-8 prodces een larger errors. Figre 6 shows that the FM-LBR offers the best accracy for more grid orientations θ than its alternaties. The maximal error and aeraged error with respect to θ are also in faor of the FM-LBR. The strong dependence of the AGSI and the FM-8 accracy on the test case orientation is pzzling, and contrasts with the more consistent behaior of the MAOUM and the FM-LBR. The athor s heristic and personal interpretation of this phenomenon, which is open to debate and pt into qestion by a reiewer, is that this test case is for θ = 0 dominated by (close to) axis-aligned anisotropy. The AGSI and the FM-8, which are based on small and fixed stencils, benefit from this special configration; the FM-8 also works well for θ = π/4, becase its stencil incldes the for diagonals. The second benchmark, discssed in [28, 23], is inspired by seismic imaging. There is no bias here towards axis-aligned anisotropy. As shown on the table Figre 6, the FM-LBR takes 7 The stencils for the MAOUM are here bilt sing the CompteUpdateSet stencil constrction rotine described and sed in all the nmerical experiments of [2]. The paper [2] also otlines sfficient conditions (called δ-nga or DRB) for anisotropic stencils to be casal, bt no explicit anisotropic stencil constrction. 8 All timings obtained on a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Do, sing a single core. Timings of the FM-LBR inclde the stencil constrction, which typically acconts for 25%. 16

17 FM-LBR FM-8 AGSI MAOUM First test CPU time L error L 1 error First test, rotated by π/6 CPU time L error L 1 error Second test CPU time L error L 1 error L error L 1 error FM 8 FM 8 MAOUM AGSI FM LBR MAOUM AGSI FM LBR Figre 6: Tables of CPU time in seconds, L error an aeraged L 1 error (left). Accracy, in the first test rotated by an angle θ [0, π/4] (this interal is enogh, since the dependence in θ is π/2-periodic and een). In aerage oer theta, CPU times are 0.21s, 0.20s, 1.37s, 1.31s, L errors 5.16, 7.64, 6.86, 8.57 and aeraged L 1 errors 1.34, 2.58, 1.95, 2.40 for the FM-LBR, FM-8, AGSI and MAOUM respectiely. All errors are mltiplied by 100, for better readability. Figre 7: Reference soltion for the third test case (left). The Riemannian metric M is anisotropic only on a thin band along a spiraling cre, wide of a few grid points. Detail at resoltions n n, where n eqals 200 (center left), 500 (center right) and 1000 (right). 17

18 AGSI FM 8 FM LBR L error n FM LBR FM 8 AGSI n FM LBR FM 8 AGSI n Figre 8: CPU Time (left, in seconds), L error (center), and aeraged L 1 error (right) of the FM-LBR, FM-8 and AGSI, at seeral resoltions ranging from 120 to 1200 (log-log scale). a smaller CPU time and offers a better accracy than its alternaties. Note that one can also constrct configrations in which anisotropy is not axis-aligned and the AGSI is more accrate than the FM-LBR. In some cases, the accracy adantage of the AGSI een grows nbondedly as the anisotropy ratio of the metric tends to infinity. A heristic analysis and prediction of this phenomenon is presented in Appendix B, where it is illstrated with a fifth test case. The third [4] and forth test cases are releant benchmarks if one s objectie is to se fast marching methods for the segmentation of tblar strctres, in medical images or olme data respectiely. The FM-LBR reeals its fll potential, and stands ot as the only practical option, in this more difficlt setting which inoles a discontinos and highly anisotropic metric. The Riemannian metric tensor M(z) is the identity matrix, except at points z on the neighborhood of a cre Γ, where M(z) has a small eigenale δ0 2 associated to an eigenector tangent to Γ, and the other eigenale is 1 on the orthogonal space. The shortest path joining the point (1, 1) (resp. (0, 0, 3)) to the origin is extracted ia gradient descent on the Riemannian manifold (Ω, M), see Appendix A for details: γ (t) = M(γ(t)) 1 D(γ(t)). (16) By constrction of the Riemannian metric M, traeling close and tangentially to the cre Γ is cheap. This is reflected by the leel lines of D, and by the allre of the minimal path, see Figres 5, 7 and 10. Heristically, this path joins the neighborhood of the cre Γ in straight line, almost orthogonally, and then follows it. The alignment of the minimal path with the direction of anisotropy, obsered in this test case, is not an ncommon phenomenon. The FM- LBR presmably benefits a lot from this behaior in terms of accracy, since its stencils typically proide a good anglar resoltion in the direction of anisotropy, see Figres 3, 4, 7. Since in addition the stencil radii remain rather small for most anisotropy orientations, see [15] for details, sally most pdates for points in the fast band come from the fast band when the FM-LBR is rn on these examples. When the fast band is missed howeer, accracy degrades and zig-zag artifacts appear in the extracted path, see Figre 11. Third test case [4], in 2D. The different method s performance is illstrated on Figre 8, except for the MAOUM which showed a poor accracy, presmably de to the hge stencils it generated. The CPU time/resoltion cre of the AGSI shows a stronger slope than for the one pass solers, presmably reflecting its sper-linear complexity O(µ(M)N 3 2 ). The L and L 1 error cres sggest that the FM-8 is not consistent in this test case, contrary to the FM-LBR and the AGSI. At the resoltion , typical in image analysis, the FM-LBR cts the L error by 80% and the L 1 error by 75% with respect to the AGSI, while redcing CPU time from 11 18

19 Method \ Grid 200x x x1000 FM-LBR FM-8 AGSI Figre 9: Visal comparison of the accracy of three algorithms, at three resoltions, in the 2D test case. Qalitatiely, the approximate geodesic has the right behaior for a resoltion as low as with the FM-LBR, and with the AGSI. This is presmably neer the case for the FM-8, which is not consistent here. mintes to 2.5 seconds (!). As illstrated on Figre 9, the better accracy of the FM-LBR in this test case effectiely translates into a better extraction of minimal paths. The reason for the, nrialed, performance of the FM-LBR in this specific test case is partly elcidated in Appendix B. Forth test case, in 3D. CPU time was 105s for the FM-LBR, while the AGSI took 480s and failed to recoer the minimal path presented on Figre 10 (center) (a straight line joining the two endpoints was obtained instead). The FM-LBR is capable of addressing a large scale (more than 10 millions grid points), strongly anisotropic (κ(m) = 50) three dimensional shortest path problem, with a good accracy and within reasonable CPU time on standard laptop compter. Remark 3.1. The for application inspired test cases. Otflow bondary conditions, except for D(0) = 0; hence the soltion is the Riemannian distance to the origin: D(z) = D(z, 0). Nmerical errors with respect to a reference soltion, bi-linearly interpolated, obtained in cases 1,2, with the AGSI, and in case 3 with the FM-ASR [16]. 1. (Geometry processing [28], κ(m) 5.1) Compte the Riemannian distance from the origin (0, 0, 0) on parametric srface of height map z(x, y) := (3/4) sin(3πx) sin(3πy). Riemannian metric: M(x, y) = Id + z(x, y) z(x, y) T. Coordinates (x, y) restricted to the sqare [ 0.5, 0.5] 2, discretized on a grid, or in a second step to this sqare rotated by the indicated angle θ. 2. (Seismic imaging [28, 23], κ(m) = 4) The metric M(x, y) has the two eigenales 0.8 2, 19

20 Figre 10: Reslts of the FM-LBR in the forth, 3D, test case. Iso-srface {d(z) = 2} (left), and shortest path joining the points (0, 0, 0) and (3, 0, 0) (center). Detail of the discrete points (represented by small cbes), in the neighborhood of the cre Γ(t) = (cos ω 0 t, sin ω 0 t, t), for which the Riemannian metric is not eclidean (right) , the former associated to the eigenector (1, (π/2) cos(4πx)). Domain [0.5, 0.5] 2, discretized on a grid. 3. (Tblar segmentation [4], κ(m) = 100) Define the cre Γ(t) = t(cos ω 0 t, sin ω 0 t), t [0, 1]. Set M(z) = Id, except if there exists 0 t 1 and 0 r r 0 sch that z = Γ(t) + r(cos ω 0 t, sin ω 0 t). In that case M(z) has the eigenales δ0 2 and 1, the former with eigenector Γ (t). Parameters: ω 0 := 6π, r 0 := δ 0 := Domain: [ 1, 1] 2, grid sizes n n with 120 n (Tblar segmentation, κ(m) = 50, 3D) Define the cre Γ(t) = (cos ω 0 t, sin ω 0 t, t), with ω 0 := (5/2)π. Set M(z) = Id, except if there exists t, λ, µ IR sch that z = Γ(t) + (λ cos ω 0 t, λ sin ω 0 t, µ) and λ 2 + µ 2 (r 0 /2) 2. In that case M(z) has the eigenales δ 2 0 and 1, the former with eigenector Γ (t) and the latter with mltiplicity 2. Parameters: ω 0 := (5/2)π, δ 0 = r 0 = Domain: [ 1.1, 1.1] 2 [0, 3], grid size Conclsion The FM-LBR, introdced in this paper, combines the Fast Marching algorithm with a concept from discrete geometry named Lattice Basis Redction. It has the following strongpoints. (I, Conergence) The FM-LBR is consistent for the anisotropic eikonal eqation associated to any continos Riemannian metric, of arbitrary anisotropy. (II, Complexity) It has a nmerical cost comparable to classical isotropic Fast Marching, independently of the problem anisotropy. (III, Accracy) The accracy of the FM-LBR is competitie in general, and striking in test cases, related to tblar segmentation in medical images, where the Riemannian metric has a prononced anisotropy close to and tangentially to a cre. These qalities come at the price of the specialization of the FM-LBR: (i) the Riemannian metric may not be replaced with a more general Finsler metric, see [16] for an adaptation to this setting in 2D, (ii) the domain needs to be discretized on a cartesian grid, and (iii) of dimension 2 or 3. Hopeflly these reqirements are met in many applications, and ftre work will be deoted to the application of the proposed algorithm in the context of medical image processing. 20