MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294534048 · doi:10.1145/3555858.3555928

SketchBetween: Video-to-Video Synthesis for Sprite Animation via Sketches

2022· preprint· en· W4294534048 on OpenAlexafffund
D L Loftsdóttir, Matthew Guzdial

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Machine Intelligence Institute
KeywordsAnimationComputer scienceSprite (computer graphics)WorkflowFocus (optics)Computer animationComputer graphics (images)Computer facial animationVideo editingTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceSkeletal animationFactor (programming language)Computer visionHuman–computer interactionMultimediaProgramming languageDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2D animation is a common factor in game development, used for characters, effects and background art. It involves work that takes both skill and time, but parts of which are repetitive and tedious. Automated animation approaches exist, but are designed without animators in mind. The focus is heavily on real-life video, which follows strict laws of how objects move, and does not account for the stylistic movement often present in 2D animation. We propose a problem formulation that more closely adheres to the standard workflow of animation. We also demonstrate a model, SketchBetween, which learns to map between keyframes and sketched in-betweens to rendered sprite animations. We demonstrate that our problem formulation provides the required information for the task and that our model outperforms an existing method. 1

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207