Towards Robust Direction Invariance in Character Animation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In character animation, direction invariance is a desirable property. That is, a pose facing north and the same pose facing south are considered the same; a character that can walk to the north is expected to be able to walk to the south in a similar style. To achieve such direction invariance, the current practice is to remove the facing direction's rotation around the vertical axis before further processing. Such a scheme, however, is not robust for rotational behaviors in the sagittal plane. In search of a smooth scheme to achieve direction invariance, we prove that in general a singularity free scheme does not exist. We further connect the problem with the hairy ball theorem, which is better‐known to the graphics community. Due to the nonexistence of a singularity free scheme, a general solution does not exist and we propose a remedy by using a properly‐chosen motion direction that can avoid singularities for specific motions at hand. We perform comparative studies using two deep‐learning based methods, one builds kinematic motion representations and the other learns physics‐based controls. The results show that with our robust direction invariant features, both methods can achieve better results in terms of learning speed and/or final quality. We hope this paper can not only boost performance for character animation methods, but also help related communities currently not fully aware of the direction invariance problem to achieve more robust results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".