MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000257662 · doi:10.5555/2422356.2422389

Misconceptions of PD control in animation

2012· article· en· W2000257662 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on Computer Animation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationOffset (computer science)Computer scienceController (irrigation)Control theory (sociology)Derivative (finance)Feed forwardTerm (time)Zero (linguistics)Control (management)InfinityCalculus (dental)Applied mathematicsMathematicsControl engineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)Mathematical analysisPhysicsEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we address certain misconceptions that have been perpetuated in the animation practice and research for quite some time related to the proportional-derivative (PD) control of physics-based systems. Because in animation we often think in terms of targeting keyframes, we tend to forget that PD control, in its simple form, has a very specific asymptotic behavior that approaches zero (or an offset) with zero velocity as time approaches infinity. We pay particular attention to the issue of introducing a desired or velocity term in the equation of a proportional-derivative controller, and discuss how this term should be interpreted and how it relates to feedforward control rather than an end derivative problem.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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