Motion Annotation Programs: A Scalable Approach to Annotating Kinematic Articulations in Large 3D Shape Collections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D models of real-world objects are essential for many applications, including the creation of virtual environments for AI training. To mimic real-world objects in these applications, objects must be annotated with their kinematic mobilities. Annotating kinematic motions is time-consuming, and it is not well-suited to typical crowdsourcing workflows due to the significant domain expertise required. In this paper, we present a system that helps individual expert users rapidly annotate kinematic motions in large 3D shape collections. The organizing concept of our system is motion annotation programs: simple, re-usable procedural rules that generate motion for a given input shape. Our interactive system allows users to author these rules and quickly apply them to collections of functionally-related objects. Using our system, an expert annotated over 1000 joints in under 3 hours. In a user study, participants with no prior experience with our system were able to annotate motions 1.5x faster than with a baseline manual annotation tool.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".