MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957323419 · doi:10.1145/3306346.3322963

Physics-based full-body soccer motion control for dribbling and shooting

2019· article· en· W2957323419 on OpenAlexaff
Seok‐Pyo Hong, Daseong Han, Kyungmin Cho, Joseph S. Shin, Junyong Noh

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsBall (mathematics)Motion (physics)Motion captureComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMotion controlSimulationControl theory (sociology)Control (management)MathematicsRobotGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Playing with a soccer ball is not easy even for a real human because of dynamic foot contacts with the moving ball while chasing and controlling it. The problem of online full-body soccer motion synthesis is challenging and has not been fully solved yet. In this paper, we present a novel motion control system that produces physically-correct full-body soccer motions: dribbling forward, dribbling to the side, and shooting, in response to an online user motion prescription specified by a motion type, a running speed, and a turning angle. This system performs two tightly-coupled tasks: data-driven motion prediction and physics-based motion synthesis. Given example motion data, the former synthesizes a reference motion in accordance with an online user input and further refines the motion to make the character kick the ball at a right time and place. Provided with the reference motion, the latter then adopts a Model Predictive Control (MPC) framework to generate a physically-correct soccer motion, by solving an optimal control problem that is formulated based on dynamics for a full-body character and the moving ball together with their interactions. Our demonstration shows the effectiveness of the proposed system that synthesizes convincing full-body soccer motions in various scenarios such as adjusting the desired running speed of the character, changing the velocity and the mass of the ball, and maintaining balance against external forces.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207