MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403896079 · doi:10.1145/3677388.3696330

ReGAIL: Toward Agile Character Control From a Single Reference Motion

2024· article· en· W4403896079 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Boursin, Yannis Kedadry, Victor Zordan, Paul G. Kry, Marie‐Paule Cani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)Agile software developmentComputer scienceMotion controlMotion (physics)Control (management)Artificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringRobotMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an approach for training "agile" character control policies, able to produce a wide variety of motor skills from a single reference motion cycle. Our technique builds off of generative adversarial imitation learning (GAIL), with a key novelty of our approach being to provide modification to the observation map in order to improve agility and robustness. Namely, to support more agile behavior, we adjust the value measurements of the training discriminator through relative features - hence the name ReGAIL. Our state observations include both task relevant relative velocities and poses, as well as relative goal deviation information. In addition, to increase robustness of the resulting gaits, servo gains and damping values are included as part of the policy action to let the controller learn how to best combine tension and relaxation during motion. From a policy informed by a single reference motion, our resulting agent is able to maneuver as needed, at runtime, from walking forward to walking backward or sideways, turning and stepping nimbly. We demonstrate our approach for a humanoid and a quadruped, on both flat and sloped terrains, as well as provide ablation studies to validate the design choices of our framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.185 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207