MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579013894 · doi:10.1109/ism.2016.0060

Robust Human Animation Skeleton Extraction Using Compatibility and Correctness Constraints

2016· article· en· W2579013894 on OpenAlexaff
Nasim Hajari, Irene Cheng, Anup Basu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnimationSkeletal animationMotion captureCorrectnessComputer animationInteractive skeleton-driven simulationArtificial intelligenceComputer facial animationComputer graphics (images)Computer visionSoftwareMotion (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to automatically animate arbitrary 3D characters based on motion capture (MoCap) data has many applications in simulation, entertainment and multimedia transmission. However, defining trajectory key-points in human figures for animation without any manual intervention remains a challenging problem that makes complete automation difficult. To animate an articulated 3D character an animation skeleton needs to be extracted from, or be embedded into, a 3D model for deformation during animation. In conventional animation software, this process is mostly done manually by expert animators, which makes it a very tedious and time consuming step. The automatic rigging approaches proposed in the literature require a front facing model with neutral T-pose to accurately extract or embed an animation skeleton. We propose a fully automatic skeleton extraction approach based on optimization of constraints on human shape that can generate the animation skeleton, regardless of the model's orientation and position. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Robust skeleton extraction followed by efficient MoCap data compression can greatly improve the fidelity of 3D animated model transmission.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207