Volume 7, number 1 INFORMATION PROCESSING LETTERS q January 197g

A REEVALUATION OF AN EFFICIENT AI.GORITHM FOR DETERMINING

THE CONVEX HULL OF A FINITE PLANAR SET

Kenneth R. ANDERSON
Dept. Earth and PlanetarySciences, Massadwei~s Institute of Technology, Chnbridie, MA 02139, USA

Received 3 Janwuy 1977; revised version received 20 Ob&ober 1977

Convex hull algorithm, structure programming

I Introduction

Graham [l] proposed an algorithm for determining

the convex hull of a finite set of points in the plane
which takes no more than N log2 (N)l + CN “opera-
tions”, where N is the number of points in the set.
Jarvis [2] pointed out that Cin Graham’s algorithm
is actually quite large and developed an algorithm
which takes at most A@¶ + 1) simpler operations,
where Mis the number of points on the hull. This
paper presents a reevaluation of Graham’s algorithm
which shows it to be much more efficient than it
appears from his description. The basic conclusion is m

that although angles are obviously useful for describ- Fig. 1.

ing an algorithm, sines and cosines are usually a more
“natural” representation computationally.
2. Convex hull algorithm
The following notation is adopted: S is a set of
points. Each point, i, in S has x and y coordinates xi
and yj respectively. Points will be deleted from S as
the algorithm progresses until only the extreme points
of the hull remain.
Step 1. Find the point, m, in S which is the bottom-
most point. If there is more than one such point,
choose the leftmost. Thus all points in S are either
above or .to the right of m.
Step 2. Order the points, except m, by the angle 8i,
between the x axis and a ray drawn between the
points i and m. At the same time, remove from S any
points at the same location as m. If there is more than
one point on any ray, i.e. 8i =cOi+r, remove the point
closer to m.
8i is used to define two functions, clock(i) and
cclock(i). clock(i) returns the next point of S clock-
wise from i. cclock(i) returns the next point in S
counter-clockwise from i.
The ordered points remaining in S (taken cyclical
ly) can be considered the vertices of a polygon as
shown Ly the dotted outline in Fig. 1. This polygon
is not necessarily convex. A polygon can be made
convex by removing its concave vertices. (A vc rtex
is concave if its interior angle > 7r.)The object og
Step 4 below is to successively remove such vertices

53
V&ms3, number 1 INFORMATION PROCESSING LETTERS
until only the vertices of the convex huh remain as
&owl; by the solid outline in Fig. Il.
Step 3. Let i = m, j = cclock(~), and k = cclock(j).
Step 4, Do the following whae k is not equal to mr.
If point j is not an concave vertex, it is possibly an
extreme point of the hull. Let i = j, j = k, arrd k =
cclock(J:).
Othcrsie, point j cannot be an extreme pdnt of
the hull. Remove j from S. Let j = i and i = clock(i).
This is to check if any point tentatively retained in S
as a possible extreme point can now be removed
from S.
At the completion of Step 4, S will contain the
extreme points of the hull. k will be set equal to
every point in S, except m and cclock(m), at least
once during Step 4, and every point not in the hull
will cause another point to be reexamined. Thus Step
4 will be done at most (Iv - 2) + (IV- M’)times.
3. Discussion and &inement
It is useful to think of an algorithm, whether
expressed in English or in a programming language,
as 2 description of 2 process [3]. For example, even
though Step 2 says essentially to “draw 2 ray*‘, we
realize that this is only 2 convenient geometrical
description of what is to be done. The ray would
never be drawn in practice on a computer. Although
it is obvious that one can avoid drawing rays, it is not
so obvious that one can avoid computing angles. When
implementing or describing an algorithm, it is impor-
tant to distinguish between those parts which are
incidental and those which are necessary. With this
in mind, let us consider wtlat refinements can be made
to the algorithm described above and compare it to
ti e original Graham algorithm. We will find that his
description actually hides its computational simplicity.
Graham initially searches for a point inside the
hull t make his new origin. He does this by finding
3 points that are not coiint:ar and using the center of
gravity of thestl points 2s the origin. Choosing inste;id
2 point on the hull, such 2s m in Step 1, is a distinct
advantage in the computation of Steps 2 and 4.
Rather than ixdering by angle, one may use any
54
January 1970
method that will produce an equivalent ordering.
Jarvis [2] pointed out that rather than evaluating
the arctangent to determine the angle, the points may
be ordered properly by using only their tangents.
However, care must be taken to avoid dividing by
zero. An alternative approach is to order by -sign(cos
(0)) cos*(O)which can be evaluated in 2 multiplica-
tions, 1 division and 2 subtractiaxrsusing:
-sign(x - x,)& - x,)*
-sign(cos (0)) cos2(t9)= -s
(x - x,,)* + (y - JQ* ’ (l)
Division by zero can be eliminated since any point
.
coincident with m need not be considered further.
Tangents need not be used since Step 1 guarantees
that n>8 20.
Graham’s concavity test was originally written in
terms of the angles (k j m) and (:ij m). The order im-
posed on the points in Step 2 reduces this to deter-
mining if j is on the same side 01’the line (j k) as m is.
This can be done in 2 multipiica tions and 4 subtrac-
tions as:
if C-X]
- XI)@R- Yt) > @i - Y&Q - Xi) 9 (2)
then j is on the other side of the line.
Determining which of two pr#nts on the same ray,
j or k is farthest from m can be {Determined
by:
iryk >yj Or & =yj andxk >Xf), (3)
&en k is farther from m.
Here use was made of the fat t that all points in S
are either above or to the right of m
Thus a careful analysis of Griham’s algorithm
shows that it is much less difficult to compute than
is first apparent. Excluding the ordering process which j
takes O(N log2 (N)) operations, be rest of the algo-
rithm can be performed in at most 6 multiplications,
1 division, and 10 subtractions F$erpoint.
A comment on the presen tati on of algorithms is
in order. Following the guide lines of structured pro-
gramming, the description of an algorithm should be
thought of as the first step in thy top-down design
of a structured program which will become the im-
plementation of the algorithm. I~Sthe first step, it
should be a clear presentation of‘the basic method.
Graham presents a clean, easily undsrstood descrip
tion of his method, but does not provide any hint as
to how it might be implemented efficiently. After
Volume 7, number 1 INFORMATDN ?k,::SS?NC
the initial presentation, each step should be refined
as necess8ry to expand on complex substeps, show
which parts of the algorithm interact strongly, which
parts are absolutely necessary, and which parts can
be implemented efficiently with special techniques.
This approach of presenting an algorithm as a set of
successiverefinements is followed by this paper and
that of Jarvis [2].
When this paper was submitted for publication, a
reviewerpointed out that Preparata and Hong [4]
showed that for two and three dimensions the com-
plexity of the hull problem is O(N log&V)). Graham
showed that at least for two dimensions this com-
plexity can be decomposed into two parts, one for
ordering which is O(N log8(/V))and the other for
actually determining the hull which is O(N).
Adcnowkdgements
That the evaluation of trigonometric’function can
sometimes be avoided w8s first pointed out to me by
LETTERS JanuaIy 1978
B.K.P. Hcrrn in his course “Makingmachines see alld
feel”. I wolrld fike to thank Peter Neilson, Jack Sax,
and Bob Walton for critically previewingthe manu-
script. Computational facilities were provided by the
Uncoln Laboratory, Applied SeismologyCroup,
M.I.T.6
References
R.L. Graham, An efficient algorithm for deterniiing
the convex hull of a fmite p&&r set, information Pk
cessing Lett. 1(1972) 132-133.
R.A.J&s, On the identification of the convex hull of
a ftite set of points in the plane, Information Processing
Lett. 2 (1973) 18-21.
P.J. Hayes, Computer programming as a cognitive para-
digm, Nature 254 (1975) 563-566.
F.P. Preparata and S.J. Hong, Convex hulls of ftite sets
of points Qwo and three dimensions, C.A.C.M. 20 (2)
(1977) 87-93.