Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artists routinely use gesture drawings to communicate ideated character poses for storyboarding and other digital media. During subsequent posing of the 3D character models, they use these drawing as a reference, and perform the posing itself using 3D interfaces which require time and expert 3D knowledge to operate. We propose the first method for automatically posing 3D characters directly using gesture drawings as an input, sidestepping the manual 3D posing step. We observe that artists are skilled at quickly and effectively conveying poses using such drawings, and design them to facilitate a single perceptually consistent pose interpretation by viewers. Our algorithm leverages perceptual cues to parse the drawings and recover the artist-intended poses. It takes as input a vector-format rough gesture drawing and a rigged 3D character model, and plausibly poses the character to conform to the depicted pose. No other input is required. Our contribution is two-fold: we first analyze and formulate the pose cues encoded in gesture drawings; we then employ these cues to compute a plausible image space projection of the conveyed pose and to imbue it with depth. Our framework is designed to robustly overcome errors and inaccuracies frequent in typical gesture drawings. We exhibit a wide variety of character models posed by our method created from gesture drawings of complex poses, including poses with occlusions and foreshortening. We validate our approach via result comparisons to artist-posed models generated from the same reference drawings, via studies that confirm that our results agree with viewer perception, and via comparison to algorithmic alternatives.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.317 | 0.185 |
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".