skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Learning active quasistatic physics-based models from data

Published:19 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Humans and animals can control their bodies to generate a wide range of motions via low-dimensional action signals representing high-level goals. As such, human bodies and faces are prime examples of active objects, which can affect their shape via an internal actuation mechanism. This paper explores the following proposition: given a training set of example poses of an active deformable object, can we learn a low-dimensional control space that could reproduce the training set and generalize to new poses? In contrast to popular machine learning methods for dimensionality reduction such as auto-encoders, we model our active objects in a physics-based way. We utilize a differentiable, quasistatic, physics-based simulation layer and combine it with a decoder-type neural network. Our differentiable physics layer naturally fits into deep learning frameworks and allows the decoder network to learn actuations that reach the desired poses after physics-based simulation. In contrast to modeling approaches where users build anatomical models from first principles, medical literature or medical imaging, we do not presume knowledge of the underlying musculature, but learn the structure and control of the actuation mechanism directly from the input data. We present a training paradigm and several scalability-oriented enhancements that allow us to train effectively while accommodating high-resolution volumetric models, with as many as a quarter million simulation elements. The prime demonstration of the efficacy of our example-driven modeling framework targets facial animation, where we train on a collection of input expressions while generalizing to unseen poses, drive detailed facial animation from sparse motion capture input, and facilitate expression sculpting via direct manipulation.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

a129-srinivasan.mp4
3450626.3459883.mp4

References

  1. Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. 2017. Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In International conference on machine learning. 214--223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Timur Bagautdinov, Chenglei Wu, Jason Saragih, Pascal Fua, and Yaser Sheikh. 2018. Modeling Facial Geometry Using Compositional VAEs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Stephen W. Bailey, Dalton Omens, Paul Dilorenzo, and James F. O'Brien. 2020. Fast and Deep Facial Deformations. ACM Trans. Graph. 39, 4, Article 94 (July 2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Michael Bao, Matthew Cong, Stephane Grabli, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2019. High-Quality Face Capture Using Anatomical Muscles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. GG Barbarino, M Jabareen, J Trzewik, A Nkengne, G Stamatas, and E Mazza. 2009. Development and validation of a three-dimensional finite element model of the face. Journal of biomechanical engineering 131, 4 (2009), 041006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. James Bern, Grace Kumagai, and Stelian Coros. 2017b. Fabrication, Modeling, and Control of Plush Robots. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 3739 -- 3746. 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2017); Conference Location: Vancouver, Canada; Conference Date: September 24-28, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. James M Bern, Pol Banzet, Roi Poranne, and Stelian Coros. 2019. Trajectory optimization for cable-driven soft robot locomotion. Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. James M. Bern, Kai-Hung Chang, and Stelian Coros. 2017a. Interactive Design of Animated Plushies. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 4, Article 80 (July 2017), 11 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Volker Blanz and Thomas Vetter. 1999. A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 187--194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Silvia Salinas Blemker. 2004. 3D modeling of complex muscle architecture and geometry. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sofien Bouaziz, Sebastian Martin, Tiantian Liu, Ladislav Kavan, and Mark Pauly. 2014. Projective dynamics: fusing constraint projections for fast simulation. Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH 33, 4 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Matthew Cong, Kiran S Bhat, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2016. Art-directed muscle simulation for high-end facial animation. 119--127.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Stelian Coros, Sebastian Martin, Bernhard Thomaszewski, Christian Schumacher, Robert Sumner, and Markus Gross. 2012. Deformable objects alive! ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kai Ding, Libin Liu, Michiel van de Panne, and KangKang Yin. 2015. Learning Reduced-Order Feedback Policies for Motion Skills. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (Los Angeles, California) (SCA '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 83--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Carl Doersch. 2016. Tutorial on variational autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Tao Du, Kui Wu, Pingchuan Ma, Sebastien Wah, Andrew Spielberg, Daniela Rus, and Wojciech Matusik. 2021. DiffPD: Differentiable Projective Dynamics with Contact. arXiv:2101.05917 [cs.LG]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Paul Ekman and Wallace V Friesen. 1977. Facial action coding system. (1977).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ye Fan, Joshua Litven, and Dinesh K Pai. 2014. Active volumetric musculoskeletal systems. Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH 33, 4 (2014), 152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. François Faure, Christian Duriez, Hervé Delingette, Jérémie Allard, Benjamin Gilles, Stéphanie Marchesseau, Hugo Talbot, Hadrien Courtecuisse, Guillaume Bousquet, Igor Peterlik, et al. 2012. Sofa: A multi-model framework for interactive physical simulation. In Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery. Springer, 283--321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Cormac Flynn, Ian Stavness, John Lloyd, and Sidney Fels. 2015. A finite element model of the face including an orthotropic skin model under in vivo tension. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering 18, 6 (2015), 571--582.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Moritz Geilinger, David Hahn, Jonas Zehnder, Moritz Bächer, Bernhard Thomaszewski, and Stelian Coros. 2020. ADD: analytically differentiable dynamics for multi-body systems with frictional contact. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 6 (2020), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Zhenglin Geng, Daniel Johnson, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2020. Coercing machine learning to output physically accurate results. J. Comput. Phys. 406 (Apr 2020), 109099.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Evgeny Gladilin. 2003. Biomechanical modeling of soft tissue and facial expressions for craniofacial surgery planning. Freien University, Berlin (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 2672--2680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. David Hahn, Pol Banzet, James M Bern, and Stelian Coros. 2019. Real2sim: Visco-elastic parameter estimation from dynamic motion. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 6 (2019), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. I. Higgins, Loïc Matthey, A. Pal, C. Burgess, Xavier Glorot, M. Botvinick, S. Mohamed, and Alexander Lerchner. 2017. beta-VAE: Learning Basic Visual Concepts with a Constrained Variational Framework. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Yuanming Hu, Luke Anderson, Tzu-Mao Li, Qi Sun, Nathan Carr, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, and Frédo Durand. 2020. DiffTaichi: Differentiable Programming for Physical Simulation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Yuanming Hu, Jiancheng Liu, Andrew Spielberg, Joshua B Tenenbaum, William T Freeman, Jiajun Wu, Daniela Rus, and Wojciech Matusik. 2019. Chainqueen: A real-time differentiable physical simulator for soft robotics. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 6265--6271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Alexandru Ichim, Ladislav Kavan, Merlin Nimier-David, and Mark Pauly. 2016. Building and Animating User-Specific Volumetric Face Rigs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Alexandru-Eugen Ichim, Petr Kadleček, Ladislav Kavan, and Mark Pauly. 2017. Phace: Physics-based face modeling and animation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 4 (2017), 153.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Petr Kadlecek and Ladislav Kavan. 2019. Building Accurate Physics-Based Face Models from Data. In Symposium on Computer Animation.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. 2014. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014, Conference Track Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Gergely Klár, Andrew Moffat, Ken Museth, and Eftychios Sifakis. 2020. Shape Targeting: A Versatile Active Elasticity Constitutive Model. In Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Talks (SIGGRAPH '20). Association for Computing Machinery, Article 59, 2 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Yeara Kozlov, Derek Bradley, Moritz Bächer, Bernhard Thomaszewski, Thabo Beeler, and Markus Gross. 2017. Enriching Facial Blendshape Rigs with Physical Simulation. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 75--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Lana Lan, Matthew Cong, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2017. Lessons from the evolution of an anatomical facial muscle model. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Digital Production Symposium. ACM, 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. John P Lewis, Ken Anjyo, Taehyun Rhee, Mengjie Zhang, Frederic H Pighin, and Zhigang Deng. 2014. Practice and Theory of Blendshape Facial Models. Eurographics (State of the Art Reports) 1, 8 (2014), 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Jiaman Li, Zhengfei Kuang, Yajie Zhao, Mingming He, Karl Bladin, and Hao Li. 2020b. Dynamic facial asset and rig generation from a single scan. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 6 (2020), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ruilong Li, Karl Bladin, Yajie Zhao, Chinmay Chinara, Owen Ingraham, Pengda Xiang, Xinglei Ren, Pratusha Prasad, Bipin Kishore, Jun Xing, et al. 2020a. Learning Formation of Physically-Based Face Attributes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3410--3419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. John E Lloyd, Ian Stavness, and Sidney Fels. 2012. ArtiSynth: A fast interactive biomechanical modeling toolkit combining multibody and finite element simulation. In Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery. Springer, 355--394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Stephen Lombardi, Jason Saragih, Tomas Simon, and Yaser Sheikh. 2018. Deep appearance models for face rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Steve A Maas, Gerard A Ateshian, and Jeffrey A Weiss. 2017. FEBio: History and advances. Annual review of biomedical engineering 19 (2017), 279--299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Sebastian Martin, Bernhard Thomaszewski, Eitan Grinspun, and Markus Gross. 2011. Example-based elastic materials. In ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), Vol. 30. ACM, 72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Aleka McAdams, Yongning Zhu, Andrew Selle, Mark Empey, Rasmus Tamstorf, Joseph Teran, and Eftychios Sifakis. 2011. Efficient elasticity for character skinning with contact and collisions. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 30, 4 (2011), 37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Antoine McNamara, Adrien Treuille, Zoran Popović, and Jos Stam. 2004. Fluid Control Using the Adjoint Method. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3 (Aug. 2004), 449--456.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Nathan Mitchell, Court Cutting, and Eftychios Sifakis. 2015. GRIDiron: An interactive authoring and cognitive training foundation for reconstructive plastic surgery procedures. ACM Trans. Graph. (Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH) (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Paola Nardinocchi and Luciano Teresi. 2007. On the active response of soft living tissues. Journal of Elasticity 88, 1 (2007), 27--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Thomas Neumann, Kiran Varanasi, Stephan Wenger, Markus Wacker, Marcus Magnor, and Christian Theobalt. 2013. Sparse Localized Deformation Components. ACM Trans. Graph. 32, 6, Article 179 (Nov. 2013), 10 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Michael Schmidt and Hod Lipson. 2009. Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Experimental Data. Science 324, 5923 (2009), 81--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Gabriel Schwartz, Shih-En Wei, Te-Li Wang, Stephen Lombardi, Tomas Simon, Jason Saragih, and Yaser Sheikh. 2020. The eyes have it: an integrated eye and face model for photorealistic facial animation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 4 (2020), 91--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Eftychios Sifakis and Jernej Barbič. 2012. FEM Simulation of 3D Deformable Solids: A practitioner's guide to theory, discretization and model reduction. http://www.femdefo.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Eftychios Sifakis, Igor Neverov, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2005. Automatic determination of facial muscle activations from sparse motion capture marker data. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH, Vol. 24. 417--425.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Eftychios Sifakis, Tamar Shinar, Geoffrey Irving, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2007. Hybrid simulation of deformable solids. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation. Eurographics Association, 81--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Breannan Smith, Chenglei Wu, He Wen, Patrick Peluse, Yaser Sheikh, Jessica K Hodgins, and Takaaki Shiratori. 2020. Constraining dense hand surface tracking with elasticity. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39, 6 (2020), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Martin Spüler, Nerea Irastorza Landa, Andrea Sarasola Sanz, and Ander Ramos-Murguialday. 2016. Extracting Muscle Synergy Patterns from EMG Data Using Autoencoders. In Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning - ICANN 2016. 47--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Ian Stavness, Mohammad Ali Nazari, Cormac Flynn, Pascal Perrier, Yohan Payan, John E Lloyd, and Sidney Fels. 2014. Coupled biomechanical modeling of the face, jaw, skull, tongue, and hyoid bone. In 3D Multiscale Physiological Human. Springer, 253--274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Jie Tan, Greg Turk, and C Karen Liu. 2012. Soft body locomotion. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. J Rafael Tena, Fernando De la Torre, and Iain Matthews. 2011. Interactive region-based linear 3d face models. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 papers. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Joseph Teran, Sylvia Blemker, V Hing, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2003. Finite volume methods for the simulation of skeletal muscle. Eurographics Association, 68--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Joseph Teran, Eftychios Sifakis, Silvia S Blemker, Victor Ng-Thow-Hing, Cynthia Lau, and Ronald Fedkiw. 2005. Creating and simulating skeletal muscle from the visible human data set. IEEE TVCG 11, 3 (2005), 317--328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Shih-En Wei, Jason Saragih, Tomas Simon, Adam W Harley, Stephen Lombardi, Michal Perdoch, Alexander Hypes, Dawei Wang, Hernan Badino, and Yaser Sheikh. 2019. Vr facial animation via multiview image translation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 4 (2019), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Jeffrey A Weiss, Bradley N Maker, and Sanjay Govindjee. 1996. Finite element implementation of incompressible, transversely isotropic hyperelasticity. Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 135, 1 (1996), 107--128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Chris Wojtan, Peter J. Mucha, and Greg Turk. 2006. Keyframe control of complex particle systems using the adjoint method. In SCA '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on Computer animation (Vienna, Austria). Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland, Switzerland, 15--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Chenglei Wu, Derek Bradley, Markus Gross, and Thabo Beeler. 2016. An anatomically-constrained local deformation model for monocular face capture. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) 35, 4 (2016), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Felix E Zajac. 1989. Muscle and tendon Properties models scaling and application to biomechanics and motor. Critical reviews in biomedical engineering 17, 4 (1989), 359--411.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Xiaotian Zhang, Fan Kiat Chan, Tejaswin Parthasarathy, and Mattia Gazzola. 2019. Modeling and simulation of complex dynamic musculoskeletal architectures. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Learning active quasistatic physics-based models from data

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
      ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 40, Issue 4
      August 2021
      2170 pages
      ISSN:0730-0301
      EISSN:1557-7368
      DOI:10.1145/3450626
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 July 2021
      Published in tog Volume 40, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader