Affect-expressive movement generation with factored conditional Restricted Boltzmann Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expressivity of virtual, animated agents plays an important role in their believability. While the planning and goal-oriented aspects of agent movements have been addressed in the literature extensively, expressing the emotional state of the agents in their movements is an open research problem. We present our interactive animated agent model with controllable affective movements. We have recorded a corpus of affect-expressive motion capture data of two actors, performing various movements, and annotated based on their arousal and valence levels. We train a Factored, Conditional Restricted Boltzmann Machine (FCRBM) with this corpus in order to capture and control the valence and arousal qualities of movement patterns. The agents are then able to control the emotional qualities of their movements through the FCRBM for any given combination of the valence and arousal. Our results show that the model is capable of controlling the arousal level of the synthesized movements, and to some extent their valence, through manually defining the level of valence and arousal of the agent, as well as making transitions from one state to the other. We validate the expressive abilities of the model through conducting an experiment where participants were asked to rate their perceived affective state for both the generated and recorded movements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".