MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728472544 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v11i1.12800

A Lightweight Algorithm for Procedural Generation of Emotionally Affected Behavior and Appearance

2015· article· en· W2728472544 on OpenAlexaff
Yathirajan Brammadesam Manavalan, Vadim Bulitko, Marcia L. Spetch

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScripting languageComputer scienceCharacter (mathematics)TestbedVirtual actorFidelityHuman–computer interactionComponent (thermodynamics)Scope (computer science)Virtual realityBaseline (sea)Artificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Displaying believable emotional reactions in virtual characters is required in applications ranging from virtual-reality trainers to video games. Manual scripting is the most frequently used method and enables an arbitrarily high fidelity of the emotions displayed. However, scripting is labour intense and greatly reduces the scope of emotions displayed and emotionally affected behavior in virtual characters. As a result, only a few virtual characters can display believable emotions and only in pre-scripted encounters. In this paper we implement and evaluate a lightweight algorithm for procedurally controlling both emotionally affected behavior and emotional appearance of a virtual character. The algorithm is based on two psychological models of emotions: conservation of resources and appraisal. The former component controls emotionally affected behavior of a virtual character whereas the latter generates explicit numeric descriptors of the character's emotions which can be used to drive the character's appearance. We implement the algorithm in a simple testbed and compare it to two baseline approaches via a user study. Human participants judged the emotions displayed by the algorithm to be more believable than those of the baselines.

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 score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207