MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811107675 · doi:10.1145/3197517.3201302

Robust solving of optical motion capture data by denoising

2018· article· en· W2811107675 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Holden

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUbisoft (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMotion captureNoise reductionArtificial intelligenceNoise (video)Reduction (mathematics)Data setMotion (physics)Pipeline (software)Computer visionTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Artificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Raw optical motion capture data often includes errors such as occluded markers, mislabeled markers, and high frequency noise or jitter. Typically these errors must be fixed by hand - an extremely time-consuming and tedious task. Due to this, there is a large demand for tools or techniques which can alleviate this burden. In this research we present a tool that sidesteps this problem, and produces joint transforms directly from raw marker data (a task commonly called "solving") in a way that is extremely robust to errors in the input data using the machine learning technique of denoising. Starting with a set of marker configurations, and a large database of skeletal motion data such as the CMU motion capture database [CMU 2013b], we synthetically reconstruct marker locations using linear blend skinning and apply a unique noise function for corrupting this marker data - randomly removing and shifting markers to dynamically produce billions of examples of poses with errors similar to those found in real motion capture data. We then train a deep denoising feed-forward neural network to learn a mapping from this corrupted marker data to the corresponding transforms of the joints. Once trained, our neural network can be used as a replacement for the solving part of the motion capture pipeline, and, as it is very robust to errors, it completely removes the need for any manual clean-up of data. Our system is accurate enough to be used in production, generally achieving precision to within a few millimeters, while additionally being extremely fast to compute with low memory requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations117
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207