5
$\begingroup$

I am trying to render implicit surfaces given by a polynomial equation $F(x,y,z) = 0$ using Sturm's theorem.

Plugging the parametric ray equation $r(t) = o + td$, where $o\in\mathbb{R}^3$ is the ray origin and $d\in\mathbb{R}^3\backslash\{0\}$ is the ray direction, into $F$ yields a polynomial equation $p(t) = 0$ for the intersections of the ray with the surface. I noticed that the straightforward implementation of calculating a Sturm sequence as

$$p_0 = p, \\ p_1 = p', \\ p_{i} = -\text{rem}(p_{i-2},p_{i-1}) \quad\forall i\ge2$$

is numerically unstable. When rendering a torus for example, the equation for one particular ray in my program was

$$p(t) := t^4 + 0.00329589844t^2 - 660.766052t + 9627.17676 = 0.$$

In single precision, the associated Sturm sequence is computed as

$$p_0(t) = t^4 + 0.00329589844t^2 - 660.766052t + 9627.17676,\\ p_1(t) = 4t^3+0.00659179688t-660.766052,\\ p_2(t) = -0.001647949220t^2+495.5745390t-9627.17676,\\ p_3(t) = -3.617114498\cdot 10^{11}t+7.027166964\cdot 10^{12},\\ p_4(t) = 0,$$

which indicates that (up to multiplicity) $p$ has exactly one real root. But in fact $p$ has no real roots, which can easily be verified with a computer algebra system. If the same computation is done with higher precision, it turns out that $p_4(t)\approx 0.000039>0$. In this case the correct number of roots is calculated.

Is there anything that can be done to avoid this problem when calculating a Sturm sequence?

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.