MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377832148 · doi:10.1111/cgf.14740

Online Avatar Motion Adaptation to Morphologically‐similar Spaces

2023· article· en· W4377832148 on OpenAlexaff
Soojin Choi, Seokpyo Hong, Kyungmin Cho, Chaelin Kim, Junyong Noh

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersSamsung Advanced Institute of Technology
KeywordsAvatarRetargetingComputer scienceMotion (physics)Human–computer interactionObject (grammar)Space (punctuation)Computer visionAdaptation (eye)DeskArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In avatar‐mediated telepresence systems, a similar environment is assumed for involved spaces, so that the avatar in a remote space can imitate the user's motion with proper semantic intention performed in a local space. For example, touching on the desk by the user should be reproduced by the avatar in the remote space to correctly convey the intended meaning. It is unlikely, however, that the two involved physical spaces are exactly the same in terms of the size of the room or the locations of the placed objects. Therefore, a naive mapping of the user's joint motion to the avatar will not create the semantically correct motion of the avatar in relation to the remote environment. Existing studies have addressed the problem of retargeting human motions to an avatar for telepresence applications. Few studies, however, have focused on retargeting continuous full‐body motions such as locomotion and object interaction motions in a unified manner. In this paper, we propose a novel motion adaptation method that allows to generate the full‐body motions of a human‐like avatar on‐the‐fly in the remote space. The proposed method handles locomotion and object interaction motions as well as smooth transitions between them according to given user actions under the condition of a bijective environment mapping between morphologically‐similar spaces. Our experiments show the effectiveness of the proposed method in generating plausible and semantically correct full‐body motions of an avatar in room‐scale space.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207