Expert-Driven Perceptual Features for Modeling Style and Affect in Human Motion
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
This paper presents a novel approach for modeling features of style and affect in human motion. Our approach is based on inputs collected from experienced animators. For this purpose, an interface is developed that allows for editing of motion sequences by adding a limited number of Gaussian radial basis functions (RBFs) to different joint trajectories in 3-D Cartesian space. Animators are asked to alter a neutral walking sequence to synthesize happy, sad, feminine, masculine, energetic, and tired variants. Through consolidating the sets of collected RBFs, we compute an expert-driven set of features that can transform neutral walks to the mentioned variations. Moreover, details regarding the use of posture versus movement features, the most frequently edited body joints, as well as shapes, intensities, and distributions of the edits are investigated and presented. Perception feedback from a group of nonexperts validates the proposed approach and the effectiveness, efficiency, scalability, and inversion of the proposed models. The perception study also sheds light on several aspects of perceiving style and affect from motion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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