skip to main content
10.1145/344779.344882acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Sampling plausible solutions to multi-body constraint problems

Published:01 July 2000Publication History

ABSTRACT

Traditional collision intensive multi-body simulations are difficult to control due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions or model parameters. Furthermore, there may be multiple ways to achieve any one goal, and it may be difficult to codify a user's preferences before they have seen the available solutions. In this paper we extend simulation models to include plausible sources of uncertainty, and then use a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to sample multiple animations that satisfy constraints. A user can choose the animation they prefer, or applications can take direct advantage of the multiple solutions. Our technique is applicable when a probability can be attached to each animation, with “good” animations having high probability, and for such cases we provide a definition of physical plausibility for animations. We demonstrate our approach with examples of multi-body rigid-body simulations that satisfy constraints of various kinds, for each case presenting animations that are true to a physical model, are significantly different from each other, and yet still satisfy the constraints.

References

  1. 1.Joel Auslander, Alex Fukunaga, Hadi Partovi, Jon Christensen, Lloyd Hsu, Peter Reiss, Andrew Shuman, Joe Marks, and J. Thomas Ngo. Further Experience with Controller- Based Automatic Motion Synthesis for Articulated Figures. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 14(4):311-336, October 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.Ronan Barzel and Alan H. Barr. A Modeling System Based on Dynamic Constraints. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH 88 Conf. Proc.), volume 22, pages 179-188, August 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.Ronan Barzel, John F. Hughes, and Daniel N. Wood. Plausible Motion Simulation for Computer Graphics Animation. In Computer Animation and Simulation '96, pages 184-197, 1996. Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop in Poitiers, France, August 31-September 1, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.David Brogan and Jessica Hodgins. Group Behaviors for Systems with Significant Dynamics. In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, volume 3, pages 528-534, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.Lynne Shapiro Brotman and Arun N. Netravali. Motion Interpolation by Optimal Control. In Computer Graphics (SIG- GRAPH 88 Conf. Proc.), volume 22, pages 309-315, August 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.Stephen Chenney. Asynchronous, Adaptive, Rigid-Body Simulation. SIGGRAPH 99 Technical Sketch. In Conference Abstracts and Applications, page 233, August 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.Stephen Chenney, Jeffrey Ichnowski, and David Forsyth. Dynamics Modeling and Culling. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19(2):79-87, March/April 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.Jon Christensen, Joe Marks, and J. Thomas Ngo. Automatic Motion Synthesis for 3D Mass-Spring Models. The Visual Computer, 13(3):20-28, January 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. 9.Michael F. Cohen. Interactive Spacetime Control for Animation. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH 92 Conf. Proc.), volume 26, pages 293-302, July 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.Afonso G. Ferreira and Janez ~;erovnik. Bounding the Probability of Success of Stochastic Methods for Global Optimization. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 25(10):1-8, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. 11.George S. Fishman. Monte Carlo : concepts, algorithms, and applications. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. 12.Walter R Gilks, Sylvia Richardson, and David J Spiegelhalter. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Chapman & Hall, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.Michael Gleicher. Motion Editing with Spacetime Constraints. In Proceedings 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, pages 139-148, April 1997. Providence, RI, April 27-30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.Radek Grzeszczuk and Demetri Terzopoulos. Automated Learning of Muscle-Actuated Locomotion Through Control Abstraction. In SIGGRAPH 95 Conference Proceedings, pages 63-70. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.Radek Grzeszczuk, Demetri Terzopoulos, and Geoffrey Hinton. NeuroAnimator: Fast Neural Network Emulation and Control of Physics-Based Models. In SIGGRAPH 98 Conference Proceedings, pages 9-20. ACM SIGGRAPH, July 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 16.Jessica Hodgins and Nancy Pollard. Adapting Simulated Behaviors for New Creatures. In SIGGRAPH 97 Conference Proceedings, pages 153-162. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 17.Jessica K. Hodgins, James F. O'Brien, and Jack Tumblin. Perception of Human Motion With Different Geometric Models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 4(4):307-316, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.Mark Jerrum and Alistair Sinclair. Approximating the Permanent. SIAM Journal of Computing, 18:1149-1178, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19.Mark Jerrum and Alistair Sinclair. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method: an approach to approximate counting and integration. In D.S.Hochbaum, editor, Approximation Algorithms for NP-hard Problems. PWS Publishing, Boston, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 20.Zicheng Liu, Steven J. Gortler, and Michael F. Cohen. Hierarchical Spacetime Control. In SIGGRAPH 94 Conference Proceedings, pages 35-42. ACM SIGGRAPH, July 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.J. Marks, B. Andalman, EA. Beardsley, W. Freeman, S. Gibson, J. Hodgins, T. Kang, B. Mirtich, H. Pfister, W. Ruml, K. Ryall, J. Seims, and S. Shieber. Design Galleries: A General Approach to Setting Parameters for Computer Graphics and Animation. In SIGGRAPH 97 Conference Proceedings, pages 389-400. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22.Brian Mirtich, Yan Zhuang, Ken Goldberg, John Craig, Rob Zanutta, Brian Carlisle, and John Canny. Estimating Pose Statistics for Robotic Part Feeders. In Proceedings 1996 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 2, pages 1140-1146, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.J. Thomas Ngo and Joe Marks. Spacetime Constraints Revisited. In SIGGRAPH 93 Conference Proceedings, pages 343- 350. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 24.Jovan Popovi6, Steven Seitz, Michael Erdmann, Zoran Popovi6, and Andrew Witkin. Interactive Manipulation of Rigid Body Simulations. In SIGGRAPH 2000 Conference Proceedings. ACM SIGGRAPH, July 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 25.Zoran Popovi6 and Andrew Witkin. Physically Based Motion Transformation. In SIGGRAPH 99 Conference Proceedings, pages 11-20. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26.Karl Sims. Evolving Virtual Creatures. In SIGGRAPH 94 Conference Proceedings, pages 15-22. ACM SIGGRAPH, July 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 27.Alistair Sinclair, 1999. Personal communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.Richard Szeliski and Demetri Terzopoulos. From Splines to Fractals. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH 89 Conf. Proc.), volume 23, pages 51-60, July 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. 29.Diane Tang, J. Thomas Ngo, and Joe Marks. N-Body Spacetime Constraints. The Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, 6:143-154, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. 30.Eric Veach and Leonidas J. Guibas. Metropolis Light Transport. In SIGGRAPH 97 Conference Proceedings, pages 65- 76. ACM SIGGRAPH, August 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 31.Baba C Vemuri, Chhandomay Mandal, and Shang-Hong Lai. A Fast Gibbs Sampler for Synthesizing Constrained Fractals. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 3(4):337-351, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 32.Andrew Witkin and Michael Kass. Spacetime Constraints. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH 88 Conf. Proc.), volume 22, pages 159-168, August 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Sampling plausible solutions to multi-body constraint problems

                      Recommendations

                      Comments

                      Login options

                      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                      Sign in

                      PDF Format

                      View or Download as a PDF file.

                      PDF

                      eReader

                      View online with eReader.

                      eReader