MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979292301 · doi:10.1145/2159516.2159519

Spacetime expression cloning for blendshapes

2012· article· en· W1979292301 on OpenAlexaff
Yeongho Seol, John Lewis, Jaewoo Seo, Byungkuk Choi, Ken Anjyo, Junyong Noh

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetargetingAnimationComputer scienceComputer facial animationExpression (computer science)Computer visionComputer animationArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of a practical facial animation retargeting system is to reproduce the character of a source animation on a target face while providing room for additional creative control by the animator. This article presents a novel spacetime facial animation retargeting method for blendshape face models. Our approach starts from the basic principle that the source and target movements should be similar. By interpreting movement as the derivative of position with time, and adding suitable boundary conditions, we formulate the retargeting problem as a Poisson equation. Specified (e.g., neutral) expressions at the beginning and end of the animation as well as any user-specified constraints in the middle of the animation serve as boundary conditions. In addition, a model-specific prior is constructed to represent the plausible expression space of the target face during retargeting. A Bayesian formulation is then employed to produce target animation that is consistent with the source movements while satisfying the prior constraints. Since the preservation of temporal derivatives is the primary goal of the optimization, the retargeted motion preserves the rhythm and character of the source movement and is free of temporal jitter. More importantly, our approach provides spacetime editing for the popular blendshape representation of facial models, exhibiting smooth and controlled propagation of user edits across surrounding frames.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207