A Bayesian interactive optimization approach to procedural animation design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The computer graphics and animation fields are filled with applications that require the setting of tricky parameters. In many cases, the models are complex and the parameters unintuitive for non-experts. In this paper, we present an optimization method for setting parameters of a procedural fluid animation system by showing the user examples of different parametrized animations and asking for feedback. Our method employs the Bayesian technique of bringing in “prior ” belief based on previous runs of the system and/or expert knowledge, to assist users in finding good parameter settings in as few steps as possible. To do this, we introduce novel extensions to Bayesian optimization, which permit effective learning for parameter-based procedural animation applications. We show that even when users are trying to find a variety of different target animations, the system can learn and improve. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method compared to related active learning methods. We also present a working application for assisting animators in the challenging task of designing curl-based velocity fields, even with minimal domain knowledge other than identifying when a simulation “looks right”.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it