Learned motion matching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present a learned alternative to the Motion Matching algorithm which retains the positive properties of Motion Matching but additionally achieves the scalability of neural-network-based generative models. Although neural-network-based generative models for character animation are capable of learning expressive, compact controllers from vast amounts of animation data, methods such as Motion Matching still remain a popular choice in the games industry due to their flexibility, predictability, low preprocessing time, and visual quality - all properties which can sometimes be difficult to achieve with neural-network-based methods. Yet, unlike neural networks, the memory usage of such methods generally scales linearly with the amount of data used, resulting in a constant trade-off between the diversity of animation which can be produced and real world production budgets. In this work we combine the benefits of both approaches and, by breaking down the Motion Matching algorithm into its individual steps, show how learned, scalable alternatives can be used to replace each operation in turn. Our final model has no need to store animation data or additional matching meta-data in memory, meaning it scales as well as existing generative models. At the same time, we preserve the behavior of Motion Matching, retaining the quality, control, and quick iteration time which are so important in the industry.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".