HairControl: A Tracking Solution for Directable Hair Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a method for adding artistic control to physics‐based hair simulation. Taking as input an animation of a coarse set of guide hairs, we constrain a subsequent higher‐resolution simulation of detail hairs to follow the input motion in a spatially‐averaged sense. The resulting high‐resolution motion adheres to the artistic intent, but is enhanced with detailed deformations and dynamics generated by physics‐based simulation. The technical core of our approach is formed by a set of tracking constraints, requiring the center of mass of a given subset of detail hair to maintain its position relative to a reference point on the corresponding guide hair. As a crucial element of our formulation, we introduce the concept of dynamically‐changing constraint targets that allow reference points to slide along the guide hairs to provide sufficient flexibility for natural deformations. We furthermore propose to regularize the null space of the tracking constraints based on variance minimization, effectively controlling the amount of spread in the hair. We demonstrate the ability of our tracking solver to generate directable yet natural hair motion on a set of targeted experiments and show its application to production‐level animations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".