MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W71326899

Inverse kinodynamics: editing and constraining kinematic approximations of dynamic motion

2012· article· en· W71326899 on OpenAlexaff
Cyrus Rahgoshay, Amir Rabbani, Karan Singh, Paul G. Kry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman Motion and Animation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsInverse kinematicsComputer sciencePosition (finance)TrajectoryAnimationCharacter animationComputer animationInverseControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsGeometryComputer graphics (images)PhysicsClassical mechanicsRobotControl (management)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present inverse kinodynamics (IKD), an animator friendly kinematic workflow that both encapsulates short-lived dynamics and allows precise space-time constraints. Kinodynamics (KD), defines the system state at any given time as the result of a kinematic state in the recent past, physically simulated over a short temporal window to the present. KD is a well suited kinematic approximation to animated characters and other dynamic systems with dominant kinematic motion and short-lived dynamics. Given a dynamic system, we first choose an appropriate kinodynamic window size based on accelerations in the kinematic trajectory and the physical properties of the system. We then present an inverse kinodynamics (IKD) algorithm, where a kinodynamic system can precisely attain a set of animator constraints at specified times. Our approach solves the IKD problem iteratively, and is able to handle full pose or end effector constraints at both position and velocity level, as well as multiple constraints in close temporal proximity. Our approach can also be used to solve position and velocity constraints on passive systems attached to kinematically driven bodies. We show IKD to be a compelling approach to the direct kinematic control of character, with secondary dynamics via examples of skeletal dynamics and facial animation.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Motion and AnimationFrench-language works237,207