Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) methods have demonstrated impressive results for skilled motion synthesis of physically based characters, and while these methods perform well in terms of tracking reference motions or achieving complex tasks, several concerns arise when evaluating the naturalness of the motion. In this paper, we conduct a preliminary study of specific quantitative metrics for measuring the naturalness of motion produced by DRL control policies beyond their visual appearance. Namely, we propose to study the stiffness of the control policy, in anticipation that it will influence how the character behaves in the presence of external perturbation. Second, we establish two baselines for strength that allow evaluating the use of joint torques in comparison to human performance. Third, we propose the study of variability to reveal the unnatural precision of control policies and how they compare to real human motion. In sum, we aim to establish repeatable measures to assess the naturalness of control policies produced by DRL methods, and we present a set of comparisons from state-of-the-art systems. Finally, we propose simple modifications to improve realism on these axes.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it