1 Introduction
Persistent homology [15], which captures essential topological features of data, has proven to be a useful stable descriptor since Edelsbrunner et al. [16] first proposed the algorithm for its computation. The understanding of topological persistence was later expanded by several works [5, 9, 11, 29] in terms of both theory and computation. To make use of persistent homology, one typically computes a persistence diagram (also called barcode) which is a set of intervals with birth and death points. Besides just utilizing the set of intervals, some applications [13, 28] need persistence diagrams augmented with representative cycles for the intervals for gaining more insight into the data. These representative cycles, termed as persistent cycles [13], have been studied by Wu et al. [28], Obayashi [23], and Dey et al. [13] recently from the viewpoint of optimality.
Although the original persistence algorithm of Edelsbrunner et al. [16] implicitly computes persistent cycles, it does not necessarily provide minimal ones. In an earlier work [13], we showed that it is NPhard to compute minimal persistent cycles (cycles for 1dimensional homology groups) when the given interval is finite. Interestingly, the same for infinite intervals turned out to be computable in polynomial time [13]. This naturally leads to the following questions: Are there other interesting cases beyond dimension for which minimal persistent cycles can be computed in polynomial time? Also, what are the cases that are NPhard? In this paper, we settle the complexity question for computing minimal persistent cycles with coefficients in general dimensions. We first show that when , computing minimal persistent cycles for both finite and infinite intervals is NPhard in general. We then identify a special but important class of simplicial complexes, which we term as weak pseudomanifolds, whose minimal persistent cycles can be computed in polynomial time. A weak pseudomanifold^{1}^{1}1 The naming of weak pseudomanifold is adapted from the commonly accepted name pseudomanifold (see Definition 9). is a generalization of a manifold and is defined as follows:
Definition 1.
A simplicial complex is a weak pseudomanifold if each simplex is face of no more than two simplices in .
Specifically, we find that if the given complex is a weak pseudomanifold, the problem of computing minimal persistent cycles for finite intervals can be cast into a minimal cut problem (see Section 3) due to the fact that persistent cycles of such kind are nullhomologous in the complex. However, when and intervals are infinite, the computation of the same becomes NPhard (see Section 5). Nonetheless, for infinite intervals, if we assume that the weak pseudomanifold is embedded in , the minimal persistent cycle problem reduces to a minimal cut problem (see Section 4) and hence belongs to P. Note that a simplicial complex embedded in is automatically a weak pseudomanifold. Also note that while there is an algorithm [8] in the nonpersistence setting which computes minimal cycles by minimal cuts, the nonpersistence algorithm assumes the complex to be embedded in . Our algorithm for finite intervals, to the contrary, does not need the embedding assumption.
In order to make our statements about the hardness results precise, we let PCYCFIN denote the problem of computing minimal persistent cycles for finite intervals when the given simplicial complex is arbitrary, and let PCYCINF denote the same problem for infinite intervals (see definitions of Problem 1 and 2). We also let WPCYCFIN denote a subproblem^{2}^{2}2 For two problems and , is a subproblem of if any instance of is an instance of and asks for computing the same solutions as . of PCYCFIN and let WPCYCINF, WEPCYCINF denote two subproblems of PCYCINF, with the subproblems requiring additional constraints on the given simplicial complex. Table 1 lists the hardness results for all problems of interest, where the column “Restriction on ” specifies the additional constraints subproblems require on the given simplicial complex . Note that WPCYCINF being NPhard trivially implies that PCYCINF is NPhard.
Problem  Restriction on  Hardness  

PCYCFIN  NPhard  
WPCYCFIN  a weak pseudomanifold  Polynomial  
PCYCINF  Polynomial  
WPCYCINF  a weak pseudomanifold.  NPhard  
WEPCYCINF  a weak pseudomanifold in  Polynomial 
Main contributions.
We summarize our contributions as follows:

We prove the NPhardness of PCYCFIN and WPCYCINF for all .

We present two polynomial time algorithms for WPCYCFIN and WEPCYCINF when , based on the duality of minimal persistent cycles and minimal cuts. Other than the minimal cut computation, steps in both algorithms run in linear or almost linear time.
1.1 Related works
In the context of computing optimal cycles, most works have been done in the nonpersistence setting. These works compute minimal cycles for homology groups of a given simplicial complex. Only very few works address the problem while taking into account the persistence. We review some of the relevant works below.
Minimal cycles for homology groups.
In terms of computing minimal cycles for homology groups, two problems are of most interest: the localization problem and the minimal basis problem. The localization problem asks for computing a minimal cycle in a homology class and the minimal basis problem asks for computing a set of generating cycles for a homology group whose sum of weights is minimal. With coefficients, these two problems are in general hard. Specifically, Chambers et al. [4] proved that the localization problem over dimension one is NPhard when the given simplicial complex is a 2manifold. Chen and Freedman [8] proved that the localization problem is NPhard to approximate with fixed ratio over arbitrary dimension. They also showed that the minimal basis problem is NPhard to approximate with fixed ratio over dimension greater than one. For onedimensional homology, Dey et al. [14] proposed a polynomial time algorithm for the minimal basis problem. Several other works [7, 12, 18] address variants of the two problems while considering special input classes, alternative cycle measures, or coefficients for homology other than .
In this work, we use graph cuts and their duality extensively. The duality of cuts on a planar graph and separating cycles on the dual graph has long been utilized to efficiently compute maximal flows and minimal cuts on planar graphs, a topic for which Chambers et al. [4] provide a comprehensive review. In their paper [4], Chambers et al. discover the duality between minimal cuts of a surfaceembedded graph and minimal homologous cycles in a dual complex, and then devise algorithms for both problems assuming the genus of the surface to be fixed. Chen and Freedman [8] proposed an algorithm which computes a minimal nonbounding cycle given a complex embedded in , utilizing a natural duality of cycles in the complex and cuts in the dual graph. The minimal nonbounding cycle algorithm can be further extended to solve the localization problem and the minimal basis problem over dimension given a complex embedded in .
Persistent cycle.
As pointed out earlier, our main focus is the optimality of representative cycles in the persistence framework. Some early works [17, 19] address the representative cycle problem for persistence by computing minimal cycles at the birth points of intervals without considering what actually die at the death points. Wu et al. [28]
proposed an algorithm computing minimal persistent 1cycles for finite intervals using an annotation technique and heuristic search. However, the time complexity of the algorithm is exponential in the worstcase. Obayashi
[23]casts the minimal persistent cycle problem for finite intervals into an integer program, but the rounded result of the relaxed linear program is not guaranteed to be optimal. Dey et al.
[13] formalizes the definition of persistent cycles for both finite and infinite intervals. They also proved the NPhardness of computing minimal persistent 1cycles for finite intervals and proposed a polynomial time algorithm for computing nonoptimal ones which are still good in practice.2 Preliminaries
In this section we present some concepts necessary for presenting the results in this paper.
Simplicial complex and filtration.
A simplicial complex is a collection of simplices which are abstractly defined as subsets of a ground set called the vertex set of . If a simplex is in , then all its subsets called its faces are also in . The simplex is also referred to as a simplex if the cardinality of the vertex set of is . A face of is a simplex being face of and a coface of is a simplex having as a face. A simplicial set is a set of simplices. The closure of a simplicial set is the simplicial complex consisting of all the faces of the simplices in . A simplicial complex is finite if it contains finitely many simplices. In this paper, we only consider finite simplicial complexes.
If each vertex of a simplicial complex is a point in a Euclidean space, then each simplex of can be interpreted as the convex hull of its vertices. The simplicial complex is said to be embedded in the Euclidean space if the interiors of all its simplices are disjoint. The underlying space of , denoted by , is the pointwise union of all the simplices of .
A filtration of a simplicial complex is a filtered sequence of subcomplexes of , , such that and differ by one simplex denoted by . We let be the index of in and denote it as . A subcomplex in the filtered sequence of is also referred to as a partial complex.
Homology.
In this paper, two coefficients and are used for simplicial homology. When not explicitly stated, the coefficients are assumed to be in . For a simplicial complex , denotes the chain group, denotes the cycle group, denotes the boundary group, and denotes the homology group. The boundary operator for simplicial chains is denoted by . With coefficients, a cycle is a set of simplices so that every face of these simplices adjoins an even number of simplices. We recommend the book by Hatcher [21] for more details on homology groups and algebraic topology in general.
Definition 2 (weighted).
A simplicial complex is weighted if each simplex of has a nonnegative finite weight . The weight of a chain of is then defined as .
Definition 3 (connected).
Let be a simplicial complex, for , two simplices and of are connected in if there is a sequence of simplices of , , such that , , and for all , and share a face. The property of connectedness defines an equivalence relation on simplices of . Each set in the partition induced by the equivalence relation constitutes a connected component of . We say is connected if any two simplices of are connected in .
Remark 1.
See Figure (a)a for an example of 1connected components and 2connected components.
Definition 4 (connected cycle).
A cycle (with coefficients) is connected if the complex derived by taking the closure of the simplicial set is connected.
Persistent homology.
We will provide a brief description of persistent homology. We recommend the book by Edelsbrunner and Harer [15] for a detailed explanation of this topic and the book by Chazal et al. [6] for its underlying Mathematical structure, persistence module. Note that persistent homology in this paper is always assumed to be with coefficients. The persistence algorithm starts with a filtration of a simplicial complex , and for each simplex , inspects whether is a boundary in . If is a boundary in , is called positive; otherwise, it is called negative. The chains (or cycles) in that are not in are said to be born in or created by . A positive simplex creates some cycles and a negative simplex makes some cycles become boundaries. What is central to the persistence algorithm is a notion called pairing: A positive simplex is initially unpaired when introduced; when a negative simplex comes, the algorithm finds a cycle created by an unpaired positive simplex which is homologous to and pair with . Alongside the pairing, a finite interval is added to the persistence diagram, which is denoted by . After all simplices are processed, some positive simplices may still be unpaired. For each of these unpaired simplices, an infinite interval is added to , where is the dimension of .
We can now formally define the persistent cycle problems:
Problem 1 (PcycFin).
Given a finite weighted simplicial complex , a filtration , and a finite interval , this problem asks for computing a cycle with the minimal weight which is born in and becomes a boundary in .
Problem 2 (PcycInf).
Given a finite weighted simplicial complex , a filtration , and an infinite interval , this problem asks for computing a cycle with the minimal weight which is born in .
Remark 2.
The definitions of the above two problems are derived directly from the definition of persistent cycles [13].
Undirected flow network.
An undirected flow network consists of an undirected graph with vertex set and edge set , a capacity function , and two nonempty disjoint subsets and of . Vertices in are referred to as sources and vertices in are referred to as sinks. A cut of consists of two disjoint subsets and of such that , , and . We define the set of edges across the cut as
The capacity of a cut is defined as . A minimal cut of is a cut with the minimal capacity. Note that we allow parallel edges in (see Figure (a)a) to ease the presentation. These parallel edges can be merged into one edge during computation.
3 Minimal persistent cycles of finite intervals for weak pseudomanifolds
In this section, we present an algorithm which computes minimal persistent cycles for finite intervals given a filtration of a weak pseudomanifold when . The general process is as follows: Suppose the input weak pseudomanifold is which is associated with a filtration and the task is to compute the minimal persistent cycle of a finite interval . We first construct an undirected dual graph for where vertices of are dual to simplices of and edges of are dual to simplices of . One dummy vertex termed as infinite vertex which does not correspond to any simplices is added to for graph edges dual to those boundary simplices. We then build an undirected flow network on top of where the source is the vertex dual to and the sink is the infinite vertex along with the set of vertices dual to those simplices which are added to after . If a simplex is or added to before , we let the capacity of its dual graph edge be its weight; otherwise, we let the capacity of its dual graph edge be . Finally, we calculate a minimal cut of this flow network and return the chain dual to the edges across the minimal cut as a minimal persistent cycle of the interval.
The intuition of the above algorithm is best explained by an example in Figure 1, where . The key to the algorithm is the duality between persistent cycles of the input interval and cuts of the dual flow network having finite capacity. To see this duality, first consider a persistent cycle of the input interval . There exists a chain in created by whose boundary equals , making killed. We can let be the set of graph vertices dual to the simplices in and let be the set of the remaining graph vertices, then is a cut. Furthermore, must have finite capacity as the edges across it are exactly dual to the simplices in and the simplices in have indices in less than or equal . On the other hand, let be a cut with finite capacity, then the chain whose simplices are dual to the vertices in is created by . Taking the boundary of this chain, we get a cycle . Because simplices of are exactly dual to the edges across and each edge across has finite capacity, must reside in . We only need to ensure that contains in order to show that is a persistent cycle of . In Section 3.2, we argue that actually contains , so is indeed a persistent cycle. Note that while the above explanation introduces the general idea, the rigorous statement and proof of the duality are articulated by Proposition 2 and 3.
In the dual graph, an edge is created for each simplex. If a simplex has two cofaces, we simply let its dual graph edge connect the two vertices dual to its two cofaces; otherwise, its dual graph edge has to connect to the infinite vertex on one end. A problem about this construction is that some weak pseudomanifolds may have simplices being face of no simplices and these simplices may create self loops around the infinite vertex. To avoid self loops, we simply ignore these simplices by constructing the dual graph only from the connected component of . The reason why we can ignore these simplices is that they cannot be on the boundary of a chain and hence cannot be on a persistent cycle of minimal weight. Note that taking the connected component may also reduce the size of the dual graph.
We list the pseudocode in Algorithm 1 and it works as follows: Line 2 and 3 set up a complex that the algorithm mainly works on, where is taken as the closure of the connected component of containing . Line 4 constructs the dual graph from and line 513 builds the flow network on top of . Note that we denote the infinite vertex by . Line 14 computes a minimal cut for the flow network and line 15 returns the chain dual to the edges across the minimal cut. In the pseudocodes of this paper, to make presentation of algorithms and some proofs easier, we treat a Mathematical function as a computer program object. For example, the function returned by DualGraphFin in Algorithm 1 denotes the correspondence between the simplices of and their dual vertices or edges (see Section 3.1 for details). In practice, these constructs can be easily implemented in any computer programming language.
Complexity.
The time complexity of Algorithm 1 depends on the encoding scheme of the input and the data structure used for representing a simplicial complex. For encodings of the input, we assume and to be represented by a sequence of all the simplices of ordered by their indices in , where each simplex is denoted by its set of vertices. We also assume a simple yet reasonable simplicial complex data structure as follows: In each dimension, simplices are mapped to integral identifiers ranging from 0 to the number of simplices in that dimension minus 1; each simplex has an array (or linked list) storing all the id’s of its cofaces; a hash map for each dimension is maintained for the query of the integral id of each simplex in that dimension based on the spanning vertices of the simplex. We further assume to be constant. By the above assumptions, let be the size (number of bits) of the encoded input, then there are no more than elementary operations in line 2 and 3 so the time complexity of line 2 and 3 is . It is not hard to verify that the flow network construction also takes time so the time complexity of Algorithm 1 is determined by the minimal cut algorithm. Using the maxflow algorithm by Orlin [24], the time complexity of Algorithm 1 becomes .
In the rest of this section, we first describe the subroutine DualGraphFin, then close the section by proving the correctness of the algorithm.
3.1 Dual graph construction
In this subsection, we describe the DualGraphFin subroutine of Algorithm 1, which returns a dual graph and a denoting two bijections which we will explain later. Given the input , DualGraphFin constructs an undirected connected graph as follows:

Let each vertex of correspond to each simplex of . If there is any simplex of which has less than two cofaces in , we add an infinite vertex to . Simultaneously, we define a bijection
by letting . Note that in the above range notation of , may not be a subset of .

Let each edge of correspond to each simplex of . Note that has at least one coface in . If has two cofaces and in , then let connect and ; if has one coface in , then let connect and . We define another bijection
using the same notation as the bijection for , by letting .
Note that we can take the image of a subset of the domain under a function. Therefore, if is a cut for a flow network built on , then denotes the set of simplices dual to the edges across the cut. Also note that since simplicial chains with coefficients can be interpreted as sets, is also a chain.
3.2 Algorithm correctness
In this subsection, we prove the correctness of Algorithm 1. Some of the symbols we use refer to Algorithm 1.
Proposition 1.
In Algorithm 1, is not an empty set.
Proof.
For contradiction, suppose is an empty set, then and is the simplex of with the greatest index in . Because , any simplex of must be face of two simplices of , so the set of simplices of forms a cycle created by . Then must be a positive simplex in , which is a contradiction. ∎
The following two propositions specify the duality mentioned at the beginning of this section:
Proposition 2.
For any cut of with finite capacity, the chain is a persistent cycle of and .
Proof.
Let , we first want to prove , so that is a cycle. Let be any simplex of , then connects a vertex and a vertex . If , then cannot be face of another simplex in other than so is face of exactly one simplex of . If , then it is also true that is face of exactly one simplex of , so . On the other hand, let be any simplex of , then is face of exactly one simplex of . If is face of another simplex in , then and , so and connects and in . If is a face of exactly one simplex in , must connect and in . So we have , i.e., .
We then show that is created by . Suppose is created by a simplex . Because is finite, we have that . We can let be a persistent cycle of and where is a chain of . Then we have . Since and are both created by , then is created by a simplex with an index less than in . So is a cycle created by which becomes a boundary before is added. This means that is already paired when is added, contradicting the fact that is paired with . Similarly, we can prove that is not a boundary until is added, so is a persistent cycle of . Since has finite capacity, we must have
Proposition 3.
For any persistent cycle of , there exists a cut of such that .
Proof.
Let be a chain in such that . Note that is created by and is the set of simplices which are face of exactly one simplex of . Let and , we claim that . To prove this, first let be any simplex of , then is face of exactly one simplex of . Because , it is also true that , so . Then is face of exactly one simplex of , so . On the other hand, let be any simplex of , then is face of exactly one simplex of . Note that and we then want to prove that is face of exactly one simplex of . Suppose is face of another simplex of , then because . So we have , contradicting the fact that is face of exactly one simplex of . Then we have . Since , we have , which means that .
Let and , then it is true that is a cut of because is created by . We claim that . The proof of the equality is similar to the one in the proof of Proposition 2. It follows that . We then have that
because each simplex of has an index less than or equal to in .
Finally, because is a subchain of , we must have . ∎
Combining the above facts, we can conclude:
Theorem 4.
Algorithm 1 computes a minimal persistent cycle for the given interval .
Proof.
First, the flow network constructed by Algorithm 1 must be valid by Proposition 1. Next, because the interval must have a persistent cycle, by Proposition 3, the flow network has a cut with finite capacity. This means that is finite. By Proposition 2, the chain is a persistent cycle of . Suppose is not a minimal persistent cycle of and instead let be a minimal persistent cycle of . Then there exists a cut such that by Proposition 2 and 3, contradicting the fact that is a minimal cut. ∎
4 Minimal persistent cycles of infinite intervals for weak pseudomanifolds embedded in
We already mentioned that computing minimal persistent cycles () for infinite intervals is NPhard even if we restrict to weak pseudomanifolds (see Section 5.3 for a proof). However, when the complex is embedded in , the problem becomes polynomially tractable. In this section, we present an algorithm for this problem given a weak pseudomanifold embedded in , when ^{3}^{3}3 As mentioned earlier, when , this problem is polynomially tractable for arbitrary complexes [13].. The algorithm uses a similar duality described in Section 3. However, a direct use of the approach in Section 3 does not work. For example, in Figure (a)a, 1simplices that do not have any 2cofaces cannot reside in any connected component of the given complex. Hence, no cut in the flow network may correspond to a persistent cycle of the infinite interval created by such a simplex. Furthermore, unlike the finite interval case, we do not have a negative simplex whose dual can act as a source in the flow network.
Let be an input to the problem where is a weak pseudomanifold embedded in , is a filtration of , and is an infinite interval of . By the definition of the problem, the task boils down to computing a minimal cycle containing in . Note that is also a weak pseudomanifold embedded in .
Generically, assume is an arbitrary weak pseudomanifold embedded in and we want to compute a minimal cycle containing a simplex for . By the embedding assumption, the connected components of are well defined and we call them the voids of . The complex has a natural (undirected) dual graph structure as exemplified by Figure (a)a for , where the graph vertices are dual to the simplices as well as the voids and the graph edges are dual to the simplices. The duality between cycles and cuts is as follows: Since the ambient space is contractible (homotopy equivalent to a point), every cycle in is the boundary of a dimensional region obtained by pointwise union of certain simplices and/or voids. We can derive a cut^{4}^{4}4 The cut mentioned here is defined on a graph without sources and sinks, so a cut is simply a partition of the graph’s vertex set into two sets. of the dual graph by putting all vertices contained in the dimensional region into one vertex set and putting the rest into the other vertex set. On the other hand, for every cut of the graph, we can take the pointwise union of all the simplices and voids dual to the graph vertices in one set of the cut and derive a dimensional region. The boundary of the derived dimensional region is then a cycle in . We observe that by making the source and sink dual to the two simplices or voids that adjoins, we can build a flow network where a minimal cut produces a minimal cycle in containing .
The efficiency of the above algorithm is in part determined by the efficiency of the dual graph construction. This step requires identifying the voids that the boundary simplices are incident on. A straightforward approach would be to first group the boundary simplices into cycles by local geometry, and then build the nesting structure of these cycles to correctly reconstruct the boundaries of the voids. This approach has a quadratic worstcase complexity. To make the void boundary reconstruction faster, we assume that the simplicial complex being worked on is connected so that building the nesting structure is not needed. Our reconstruction then runs in almost linear time. To satisfy the connected assumption, we begin our algorithm by taking as a connected subcomplex of containing and continue only with this . The computed output is still correct because the minimal cycle in is again a minimal cycle in as shown in Section 4.2.
We list the pseudocode in Algorithm 2 and it works as follows: Line 25 set up the complex that the algorithm works on. Line 2 prunes to produce a complex . Given , the Prune subroutine iteratively deletes a simplex of such that there is a face of having as the only coface (i.e., is a dangled simplex), until no such simplex can be found. It is not hard to verify that Prune only deletes simplices not residing in any cycles, so a minimal cycle containing is never deleted. We perform the pruning because it can reduce the graph size for the minimal cut computation which is more time consuming. In line 35, we take the connected component of containing and add a set of simplices to the closure of to form . The set contains all simplices of whose faces reside in . The reason of adding the set is to reduce the number of voids for the complex and in turn reduce the running time of the subsequent void boundary reconstruction. For example, in Figure (b)b, we could treat the entire complex as , all 1simplices as , and all 2simplices as . If we do not add to the closure of , there will be seven more voids corresponding to the boundaries of the seven 2simplices. Line 6 reconstructs the void boundaries for . Each returned denotes a set of simplices forming the boundary of a void. As indicated in Section 4.1, the simplices in a void boundary are oriented. Line 7 constructs the dual graph based on the reconstructed void boundaries. Similar to Algorithm 1, the function returned by DualGraphInf denotes the bijection from simplices of to . Line 812 build the flow network on top of . The capacity of each edge is equal to the weight of its dual simplex and the source and sink are selected as previously described. Line 13 computes a minimal cut for the flow network and line 14 returns the chain dual to the edges across the minimal cut.
Complexity.
We make the same assumptions as in the complexity analysis for Algorithm 1. Since the void boundary reconstruction needs to sort the cofaces of certain simplices, its worstcase time complexity is . Then, all operations other than the minimal cut computation take time. Therefore, similar to Algorithm 1, Algorithm 2 achieves a complexity of by using Orlin’s maxflow algorithm [24].
In the rest of this section, we first describe the subroutine VoidBoundary invoked by Algorithm 2 and then prove the correctness of the algorithm.
4.1 Void boundary reconstruction
As previously stated, the object of the reconstruction is to identify which voids a boundary simplex of is incident on. The task becomes complicated because a void may have disconnected boundaries and a simplex may bound more than one void. This is exemplified in Figure (a)a. To address this issue, we orient the boundary simplices and determine the orientations consistently from the voids they bound. This is possible because an orientation of a simplex in associates exactly one of its two sides to the simplex. To describe the boundary reconstruction procedure, we define a boundary simplex of as a simplex with less than two cofaces in . We also denote the set of boundary simplices of as . To reconstruct the boundaries, we first inspect the neighborhood of each simplex being face of a boundary simplex and pair the oriented boundary simplices in the neighborhood which locally bound the same void. Figure (b)b gives an example of the oriented boundary simplices pairing for . In Figure (b)b, there are three local voids each colored differently. The oriented 1simplices with the same color bound the same void and are paired.
After pairing the oriented boundary simplices, we group them by putting paired ones into the same group. Each group then forms a cycle (with coefficients). This is exemplified by Figure 3 for . Note that in general, the above grouping does not fully reconstruct the void boundaries. This can be seen from Figure (a)a where the complex has four voids but the grouping produces six 1cycles. In order to fully reconstruct the boundaries, one has to retrieve the nesting structure of these cycles, which may take time in the worstcase. However, as we work on a complex that is connected, we cannot have voids with disconnected boundaries. Therefore, the grouping of oriented simplices can fully recover the void boundaries. Figure (b)b gives an example for this when , where we add two 1simplices to make the complex 1connected. The four 1cycles produced by the grouping are exactly the boundaries of the four voids.
In the rest of this subsection, we formalize the above ideas for reconstructing void boundaries and provide a proof for the correctness. Throughout this subsection, and are as defined in Algorithm 2. We first recall the definition of oriented simplices:
Definition 5 (Oriented simplex [22]).
An oriented simplex is a simplex with an ordering of its vertices. For each simplex (), there are exactly two equivalent classes of vertex orderings, resulting in two oriented simplices of . We refer them as the oppositely oriented simplices.
Remark 3.
Any simplex is by default unoriented. We denote an unoriented simplex spanned by vertices as and an oriented simplex as , where specify the ordering of the spanning vertices.
We then introduce the definition of the natural orientation of a simplex in . We use its induced orientation to canonically orient the boundary simplices.
Definition 6 (Natural orientation [22]).
Let and be a simplex in , an oriented simplex of is naturally oriented if . For each face of , the natural orientation of induces an orientation of which we term as the induced orientation.
We now formally define the boundary of a void as follows:
Definition 7 (Boundary of void).
Let be a simplicial complex embedded in where , we define each connected component of to be a void. An oriented simplex of is said to bound a void of if the following conditions are satisfied:

The simplex is contained in the closure of .

Let be an interior point of , be a point in such that the line segment is contained in and
is orthogonal to the hyperplane spanned by
. Furthermore, let be the naturally oriented simplex of . Then, has the induced orientation from .
The boundary of a void is then defined as the set of oriented simplices of bounding .
Remark 4.
We can also interpret the boundary of a void as a sum of oriented simplices, then the boundary defines a cycle (with coefficients).
We now describe the pairing algorithm of the oriented boundary simplices for . Let be a simplex which is a face of a simplex in
Comments
There are no comments yet.