Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

CARING-AI: Towards Authoring Context-aware Augmented Reality INstruction through Generative Artificial Intelligence

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By walking through a space, authors can give generative AI the spatial and temporal context it needs to make avatar-based AR instructions, with a diffusion-model change and temporal smoothing cutting motion discontinuity to 0.03 m while…

desk verdict A useful AR authoring pipeline with a real diffusion-model tweak, but the spatial context claim needs better perception evidence and more careful statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16557 v1 pith:ZO76S5VH submitted 2025-01-27 cs.HC

Jingyu Shi , Rahul Jain , Seungguen Chi , Hyungjun Doh , Hyunggun Chi , Alexander J. Quinn , Karthik Ramani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords augmentedrealitygenerativeAIhumanoidavatarinstructionscontext-awareauthoringmotiondiffusionmodeltemporalsmoothingtext-to-motionARinstruction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the missing ingredient for AI-generated AR instructions is context, and that a short authoring walk can supply that context. CARING-AI lets a user speak a task, edit the resulting step list, and then walk through the environment while the headset records the trajectory and object locations; a modified diffusion model turns the text plus this context into humanoid-avatar animation overlaid in AR. The quantitative claim is that the modification plus temporal smoothing cuts motion discontinuity between steps from 0.15 m to 0.03 m while keeping spatial alignment under 0.1 m. In two user studies, participants rated the system usable and found it less mentally and physically demanding, faster, and less error-prone than authoring by physical demonstration. If the claims hold, non-experts can author situated AR instructions without programming, motion-capture hardware, or performing the task themselves.

What carries the argument

The carrying engine is a per-frame-conditioned motion diffusion model: instead of conditioning the entire motion sequence with one text embedding, each frame receives its own action and trajectory condition, so multiple actions can be generated in one pass. Around this sits a temporal smoothing function that blends the last frames of one action with the first frames of the next using a shifted sigmoid weight $f(K^1_t,K^2_t,\alpha_t)=\alpha_t K^1_t+(1-\alpha_t)K^2_t$, then linearly resamples the blended segment back to full length. The scan module supplies the context: the author's walked trajectory gives global spatial routing, and object detection plus six-degree-of-freedom pose estimation on headset screenshots gives local object anchors for hand-object interactions. A large language model refines spoken task descriptions into editable step labels drawn from the motion dataset's vocabulary, keeping the generated text compatible with the motion generator.

What would settle it

Run CARING-AI in the same kitchen and living-room settings with ground-truth markers at each object, and compare the generated avatar's hand positions against those markers at interaction frames; if the root-to-object distance exceeds 0.1 m or the transition discontinuity stays near the 0.15 m baseline, the spatial and temporal context claims fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that state-of-the-art text-to-motion generation is context-blind: it produces motions that are spatially offset from objects, temporally disconnected between steps, and presented at the wrong scale for AR instruction. CARING-AI's contribution is a workflow that feeds context into the generator by having the author walk through the target space and take screenshots at interaction locations. The system then generates humanoid-avatar animations that are globally routed along the author's trajectory, locally grounded at detected objects through six-degree-of-freedom pose estimation, and temporally stitched by a smoothing function so multi-step instructions play as one continuous demonstration. The reported result is a transition distance of 0.03 m versus 0.15 m for the baseline, with avatar-to-object absolute distance staying under 0.1 m.

Load-bearing premise

The local-spatial grounding relies on the headset's camera accurately detecting each relevant object and locating it in six degrees of freedom from a screenshot; if an object is missed or its location is wrong, the avatar interacts with empty space and the context-awareness claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-experts can author animated AR how-tos from speech plus a short walkthrough, with no programming and no motion-capture hardware.
  • Multi-step instructions render as one continuous animation instead of independent clips, removing the visible breaks that made earlier AI-generated tutorials feel disjointed.
  • The same textual instruction can be recontextualized in a new physical space by re-scanning, so instructions adapt to changed room layouts.
  • Compared with demonstration-based authoring, users in the study experienced lower mental and physical demand, fewer errors, and faster authoring time.
  • Spatial grounding keeps the avatar within 0.1 m of target objects, meeting the threshold the authors cite for plausible motion.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the workflow is sound, the same walk-to-contextualize loop should transfer to non-avatar AR cues such as arrows, text labels, images, and video, since those cues also need spatial placement and timing; the paper names this direction but does not build it.
  • Because context is captured separately from the motion generator, a CARING-AI-style pipeline could regenerate instructions for a new room by re-scanning, without rewriting the task description.
  • The per-frame conditioning plus sigmoid blending is a general recipe for stitching diffusion-generated motion clips into arbitrarily long sequences, and could be tested on motion vocabularies beyond the one used here.
  • The remote-authoring scenario suggests the headset scan itself could be replaced by any aligned spatial map, letting an author create instructions in one environment and deploy them in another.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. CARING-AI is an AR authoring system that combines an LLM (ChatGPT) for step-by-step text instructions, a HoloLens 2 scan mode that records user trajectories and runs YOLO-based object detection plus MegaPose 6DoF pose estimation, and a modified Motion Diffusion Model (MDM/GMD) that generates humanoid avatar motion conditioned on text, trajectories, and object locations. A temporal smoothing stage blends transition segments to produce longer seamless animations. The paper reports a design space (spatial/temporal context by local/global content), three application scenarios (asynchronous, remote, ad hoc), a quantitative comparison against GMD on 10 tasks, and two user studies (N=12 each): one on usability of the system and one within-subject comparison with a video-based Programming-by-Demonstration baseline. The central claim is that CARING-AI enables code-less, mocap-free authoring of context-aware AR avatar instructions that are spatially grounded and temporally continuous.

Significance. The contribution is timely and addresses a real gap: state-of-the-art text-to-motion models produce animations that are not situated in a physical workspace, and prior AR authoring tools require programming or motion capture. The design-space decomposition and the asynchronous/remote/ad hoc scenario demonstrations provide a useful framework for AIGC-in-AR research. The authors evaluate against an external baseline (GMD) and external data (HumanML3D), borrow the 0.1 m plausibility threshold from GMD rather than fitting it, and use standard instruments (SUS, NASA-TLX) in the user studies. They also report limitations candidly, including subpar hand motion, rigid-object-only interactions, and HoloLens FOV constraints. If the central claims are substantiated, the system would be a practical step toward democratizing AR instruction authoring. However, the quantitative support is thin in several load-bearing places, particularly the statistical reporting of the smoothing result, the unmeasured perception accuracy behind spatial grounding, and the multiple-comparison issues in User Study 2.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2–5.3, Table 2] The central quantitative claim that temporal smoothing reduces transition distance to 0.03 m (p<0.05) is reported as two aggregate means across 10 tasks, with no variance, no per-scenario breakdown, no number of generated sequences or transitions, and no value for the smoothing length L in Eq. (1). The choice of 90 frames per instruction and the training/masking details of the modified diffusion model are also not specified. As written, the p-value cannot be checked and the magnitude of the effect relative to variance is unknown; the claim that discontinuities are "eliminated" is stronger than the metric supports. Please provide per-scenario results, sample sizes, effect sizes or confidence intervals, and the exact hyperparameters (L, frame counts, seeds) needed for reproduction.
  2. [§4.3–4.4.2, §4.6, §5.3] The spatial context-awareness claim rests on the local-spatial grounding pipeline: fine-tuned YOLO detection, MegaPose 6DoF estimation on HoloLens RGB frames, and overlay of virtual objects. The paper reports no detection recall, pose error, or frequency of manual 6DoF correction in the kitchen/living-room environments, even though §6.1 includes an explicit user step to adjust misaligned virtual objects. Since the authors themselves state in §5.3 that hand-object motion quality is subpar and User Study 1 records P12's confusion about the hand "automatically sticking" to the object, the quantitative support for "blending in the context spatially" is incomplete. In addition, Eq. (4) measures the root-joint distance to a keypoint, not hand-object alignment, so it does not substantiate local spatial grounding. Please report perception accuracy on the study scenes or an ablation separating automatic grounding from manual alignment, and report a hand-object alignment metric.
  3. [§4.4.3, Eq. (1)–(2)] The temporal smoothing function is a per-joint convex combination (sigmoid) followed by linear-interpolation resampling. Minimizing the joint-position distance between the last frame of one action and the first frame of the next does not guarantee physical plausibility of the interpolated frames: blended poses can exhibit foot sliding, global drift, or violation of joint-angle limits, all of which are unmeasured. The manuscript's claim that the result is "fluid," "connected," and free of discontinuity requires either a velocity/acceleration-continuity metric, a kinematic-plausibility check, or a perceptual evaluation; a single scalar transition distance is not sufficient.
  4. [§7.2] User Study 2 performs multiple paired comparisons without correction for multiple testing: the NASA-TLX subscales, error rate, time, and five Likert items are each tested at α=0.05, and several p-values are near the threshold (0.025–0.046). With N=12, the family-wise error rate is material. The PbD baseline is a home-built video-to-3D pipeline requiring manual segmentation and camera calibration, and no comparison with mature MoCap or video-based authoring systems is provided. The comparative conclusion should therefore be framed as "vs. this particular PbD setup" and supported with effect sizes and corrected p-values (or a pre-registered primary outcome).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 2] The update reads \tilde{K}_t = \alpha_t K_t + (1-\alpha_t) K_t, which is algebraically K_t; the two operands should be K^1_t and K^2_t as in Eq. (1). Please fix.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The sigmoid expression is typeset incorrectly (missing the closing parenthesis in the exponent, '−( 𝑡−( 𝐿/2)'); as written it is not a well-formed function.
  3. [§7, §5.3, §6.2.1] There are several typographical errors: "compared wt" should be "compared with," "disconuity" should be "discontinuity," and "A vatar" should be "Avatar." The title's capitalized "INstruction" also appears nonstandard.
  4. [Table 1] The task list contains duplicated and inconsistent entries: "Closing a Window" appears twice, and "Eating an apple" includes "Pick up the remote," which conflicts with the task description. Please normalize the scenarios and ensure the instructions match the intended task.
  5. [§6.2.3] The SUS result is reported only as M=83.21, SD=7.34; with N=12, a confidence interval or boxplot of individual scores would strengthen the usability claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One supporting quantitative metric (transition distance) is satisfied by construction via the temporal-smoothing equation, while the central authoring claim rests on independent user studies and external baselines.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.4.3 (Eq. 1) and Section 5.3 (Eq. 3, Table 2)]
    "Consequently, the resultant mixed frames, represented as ˜K_t, can be expressed as ˜K_t = f(K^1_t, K^2_t, α_t) = α_t K^1_t + (1−α_t) K^2_t. (1) ... GMD [55] exhibits a transition distance of 0.15m when frames are simply concatenated. In contrast, our method substantially decreases this transition distance to 0.03m (p < 0.05), eliminating any motion discontinuity."

    The temporal-smoothing algorithm (Eq. 1) constructs the transition frames as a convex combination αK1 + (1−α)K2 of the two neighboring action segments, with a shifted-sigmoid weight α_t. The headline quantitative result, transition distance (Eq. 3), is exactly the distance between adjacent frames at action boundaries. After applying Eq. 1, that distance is controlled by the chosen α schedule and the transition length L, not by the diffusion model or by any learned prediction. Comparing GMD's raw concatenation (0.15 m) with the smoothed output (0.03 m) therefore measures the smoother's own construction; the 'eliminating motion discontinuity' claim is true by construction rather than established as an independent empirical finding.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The context-aware authoring workflow is evaluated through two user studies with external comparison to a PbD baseline, and the quantitative motion evaluation uses the external GMD model and HumanML3D dataset. The plausible-motion threshold of 0.1 m is taken from the GMD paper rather than fit in the present work, and the modified diffusion model is benchmarked against GMD on spatial alignment. Self-citations to prior group work frame the design space and context taxonomy but do not define the measured quantities; the taxonomy is also supported by the independent reference [38]. The one genuine by-construction step is the temporal-smoothing evaluation: Eq. 1 explicitly blends transition segments to minimize the very transition distance quantified by Eq. 3, so the reported 0.03 m improvement is a direct consequence of the smoothing construction. Because this issue affects only a supporting metric and not the central user-facing authoring claim, the overall circularity score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central workflow depends on pre-trained models and hand-chosen smoothing parameters; none of the reported predictions are derived from first principles. The paper's contribution is integration and evaluation rather than a parameter-free derivation. No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Temporal smoothing transition length L = not reported
    The sigmoid blending in Eq. 1 and the interpolation in Eq. 2 depend on hand-chosen L; the paper does not report its value or an ablation, and the quantitative evaluation fixes each instruction at 90 frames (Section 5.2).
  • Per-action frame count in quantitative evaluation = 90 frames
    Chosen for consistent comparison between baseline and CARING-AI (Section 5.2); no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained GMD/MDM weights on HumanML3D generalize to the action labels and environments used in the user studies
    The system uses the pre-trained model without fine-tuning on the tasks; Sections 4.4 and 5.1 rely on this generalization. The authors acknowledge generalizability limits in Section 9.2.
  • domain assumption YOLO object detection and MegaPose 6DoF estimates from HoloLens screenshots are sufficiently accurate in the study environments
    Section 4.3 overlays virtual objects using these estimates; no detection or 6DoF accuracy is reported for the kitchen and living-room scenes.
  • domain assumption ChatGPT-generated step descriptions can be reliably aligned to the action vocabulary of HumanML3D
    Section 4.2 prompts ChatGPT to return step-by-step action labels; the alignment is not evaluated quantitatively.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear interpolation and sigmoid blending of joint positions produces physically plausible avatar motion
    Section 4.4.3 introduces Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 as smoothing; the paper does not compare against physics-based retargeting or validate biomechanical plausibility beyond the transition-distance metric.
  • domain assumption HoloLens built-in SLAM trajectory is accurate enough for global spatial grounding
    Section 4.3 records the user's global trajectory with built-in SLAM; no accuracy measurement is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CARING-AI: Towards Authoring Context-aware Augmented Reality INstruction through Generative Artificial Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZO76S5VH

@misc{pith2026250116557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CARING-AI: Towards Authoring Context-aware Augmented Reality INstruction through Generative Artificial Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZO76S5VH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16557}
}
read the original abstract

Context-aware AR instruction enables adaptive and in-situ learning experiences. However, hardware limitations and expertise requirements constrain the creation of such instructions. With recent developments in Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI), current research tries to tackle these constraints by deploying AI-generated content (AIGC) in AR applications. However, our preliminary study with six AR practitioners revealed that the current AIGC lacks contextual information to adapt to varying application scenarios and is therefore limited in authoring. To utilize the strong generative power of GenAI to ease the authoring of AR instruction while capturing the context, we developed CARING-AI, an AR system to author context-aware humanoid-avatar-based instructions with GenAI. By navigating in the environment, users naturally provide contextual information to generate humanoid-avatar animation as AR instructions that blend in the context spatially and temporally. We showcased three application scenarios of CARING-AI: Asynchronous Instructions, Remote Instructions, and Ad Hoc Instructions based on a design space of AIGC in AR Instructions. With two user studies (N=12), we assessed the system usability of CARING-AI and demonstrated the easiness and effectiveness of authoring with Gen-AI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of CARING-AI system authoring workflow. CARING-AI enables authors to create contextualized AR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Problems of AI-generated humanoid avatar anima [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our consideration of the design space of AIGC in AR instructions is composed of two dimensions: context and content. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The overall pipeline of the CARING-AI system. Users start by generating textual instructions by speech or text. These [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Some examples of our motion generation models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The comparison of the diffusion training overview [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The illustration of the temporal smoothing algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: AR User Interface of CARING-AI. In (a), users can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of humanoid animation generated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Likert-type questionnaire results from User Study 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: AR animation generated by users using CARING-AI in User Study 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: AR animation generated by users using our PbD baselines in User Study 2. (a) users demonstrating the task, (b) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: NASA TLX Scores, where * denotes 𝑝 < 0.05 7.2.2 Error Rate and Time Performance. The collected data was nor￾mally distributed in both Error Rate (𝑝𝑃𝑏𝐷 = 0.515, 𝑝𝑂𝑢𝑟𝑠 = 0.242) and Time Performance (𝑝𝑃𝑏𝐷 = 0.487, 𝑝𝑂𝑢𝑟𝑠 = 0.987). The reported Error Rates were high in PbD…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Average Time Spent in Authoring Task, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Subjective Likert-scale Ratings of the easiness, animation quality, and interactions of CARING-AI and PbD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: CARING-AI for Ad Hoc AR Instructions. For the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: CARING-AI for authoring asynchronous Instruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: CARING-AI’s capability of authoring Remote In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: We showcase more examples of humanoid animation generated from our backend algorithm. Specifically, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: We showcase more examples of humanoid animation contextualized by CARING-AI, (a) Walk to the chair and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Canvas3D: Empowering Precise Spatial Control for Image Generation with Constraints from a 3D Virtual Canvas

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Canvas3D lets users arrange objects in a 3D canvas generated from a text prompt, then feeds depth, skeleton, and lighting constraints to diffusion models to produce images that match the layout.

  2. MultiFluxAI Enhancing Platform Engineering with Advanced Agent-Orchestrated Retrieval Systems

    cs.AI 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors claim their MultiFluxAI orchestration framework achieves 95% accuracy and 0-10 ms responses by combining rule-based routing, caching, and graph knowledge stores for multi-service RAG queries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Midjourney

    2023. Midjourney. https://www.midjourney.com/ Accessed: 2023/08/02

    2023

  2. [2]

    Fahad M Alblehai. 2022. Individual Experience and Engagement in Avatar- Mediated Environments: The Mediating Effect of Interpersonal Attraction. Jour- nal of Educational Computing Research 60, 4 (2022), 986–1007

    2022

  3. [3]

    Nikos Athanasiou, Mathis Petrovich, Michael J Black, and Gül Varol. 2022. Teach: Temporal action composition for 3d humans. In 2022 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 414–423

    2022

  4. [4]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. 2009. Determining what indi- vidual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies 4, 3 (2009), 114–123

    2009

  5. [5]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An empirical evalua- tion of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 24, 6 (2008), 574–594

    2008

  6. [6]

    Majid Behravan and Denis Gracanin. 2024. Generative Multi-Modal Artificial Intelligence for Dynamic Real-Time Context-Aware Content Creation in Aug- mented Reality. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 1–2

    2024

  7. [7]

    Daniel Black. 2017. Why can I see my avatar? Embodied visual engagement in the third-person video game. Games and Culture 12, 2 (2017), 179–199

    2017

  8. [8]

    Doug A Bowman, Joseph Gabbard, Daniel Auerbach, Nazila Roofigari-Esfahan, Kathryn Britt, Cory I Ilo, and Keerthana Adapa. 2022. BuildAR: a proof-of- concept prototype of intelligent augmented reality in construction. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 508–512

    2022

Show all 147 references
  1. [9]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  2. [10]

    Jacky Cao, Xiaoli Liu, Xiang Su, Sasu Tarkoma, and Pan Hui. 2021. Context- aware augmented reality with 5G edge. In 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 1–6

    2021

  3. [11]

    Yuanzhi Cao, Anna Fuste, and Valentin Heun. 2022. MobileTutAR: a Lightweight Augmented Reality Tutorial System using Spatially Situated Human Segmenta- tion Videos. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–8

    2022

  4. [12]

    Yihan Cao, Siyu Li, Yixin Liu, Zhiling Yan, Yutong Dai, Philip S Yu, and Lichao Sun. 2023. A comprehensive survey of ai-generated content (aigc): A history of generative ai from gan to chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04226 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Yuanzhi Cao, Xun Qian, Tianyi Wang, Rachel Lee, Ke Huo, and Karthik Ramani

  6. [14]

    Rao, Manav Wadhawan, Ke Huo, and Karthik Ramani

    Yuanzhi Cao, Tianyi Wang, Xun Qian, Pawan S. Rao, Manav Wadhawan, Ke Huo, and Karthik Ramani. 2019. GhostAR: A Time-Space Editor for Embodied Authoring of Human-Robot Collaborative Task with Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface S...

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Junuk Cha, Jihyeon Kim, Jae Shin Yoon, and Seungryul Baek. 2024. Text2HOI: Text-guided 3D Motion Generation for Hand-Object Interaction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1577– 1585

    2024

  8. [16]

    Vinay Chamola, Gaurang Bansal, Tridib Kumar Das, Vikas Hassija, Naga Siva Sai Reddy, Jiacheng Wang, Sherali Zeadally, Amir Hussain, F Richard Yu, Mohsen Guizani, et al. 2023. Beyond Reality: The Pivotal Role of Generative AI in the Metaverse. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06272 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Vinay Chamola, Gaurang Bansal, Tridib Kumar Das, Vikas Hassija, Siva Sai, Jiacheng Wang, Sherali Zeadally, Amir Hussain, Fei Richard Yu, Mohsen Guizani, et al. 2024. Beyond reality: The pivotal role of generative ai in the metaverse. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine 7, 4 (2024...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Chen Chen, Cuong Nguyen, Jane Hoffswell, Jennifer Healey, Trung Bui, and Nadir Weibel. 2023. PaperToPlace: Transforming Instruction Documents into Spatialized and Context-Aware Mixed Reality Experiences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13924 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Long Chen, Wen Tang, Nigel John, Tao Ruan Wan, and Jian Jun Zhang. 2018. Context-aware mixed reality: A framework for ubiquitous interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05541 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Long Chen, Wen Tang, Nigel W John, Tao Ruan Wan, and Jian J Zhang. 2020. Context-Aware Mixed Reality: A Learning-Based Framework for Semantic- Level Interaction. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 39. Wiley Online Library, 484–496

    2020

  13. [21]

    Hyung-gun Chi, Seunggeun Chi, Stanley Chan, and Karthik Ramani. 2023. Pose Relation Transformer Refine Occlusions for Human Pose Estimation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 6138– 6145

    2023

  14. [22]

    Subramanian Chidambaram, Hank Huang, Fengming He, Xun Qian, Ana M Villanueva, Thomas S Redick, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and Karthik Ramani. 2021. Processar: An augmented reality-based tool to create in-situ procedural 2d/3d ar instructions. In Designing Interactive Systems Confe...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Subramanian Chidambaram, Sai Swarup Reddy, Matthew Rumple, Ananya Ipsita, Ana Villanueva, Thomas Redick, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and Karthik Ramani. 2022. EditAR: A Digital Twin Authoring Environment for Creation of AR/VR and Video Instructions from a Single Demonstration. In 2...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Athanasios Christopoulos, Nikolaos Pellas, Justyna Kurczaba, and Robert Ma- credie. 2022. The effects of augmented reality-supported instruction in tertiary- level medical education. British Journal of Educational Technology 53, 2 (2022), 307–325

    2022

  17. [25]

    Shakiba Davari, Feiyu Lu, and Doug A Bowman. 2022. Validating the benefits of glanceable and context-aware augmented reality for everyday information access tasks. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 436–444

    2022

  18. [26]

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . Ieee, 248–255

    2009

  19. [27]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. 2021. Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , M. Ran- zato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan (Eds.), Vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc., 8780–8794....

    2021

  21. [29]

    Mitchell Doughty, Karan Singh, and Nilesh R Ghugre. 2021. Surgeonassist-net: Towards context-aware head-mounted display-based augmented reality for sur- gical guidance. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, S...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Zicong Fan, Omid Taheri, Dimitrios Tzionas, Muhammed Kocabas, Manuel Kaufmann, Michael J Black, and Otmar Hilliges. 2023. ARCTIC: A Dataset for Dexterous Bimanual Hand-Object Manipulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Jianwei Fei, Zhihua Xia, Peipeng Yu, and Fengjun Xiao. 2021. Exposing AI- generated videos with motion magnification. Multimedia Tools and Applications 80 (2021), 30789–30802

    2021

  24. [32]

    Blender Foundation. 2023. Blender - Open Source 3D Creation Software. Re- trieved 12.09.2023 from https://www.blender.org/

    2023

  25. [33]

    Leonardo Frizziero, Christian Leon-Cardenas, Marco Freddi, Alessandro Gras- soni, and Alfredo Liverani. 2023. Augmented reality applied to design for disas- sembly assessment for a volumetric pump with rotating cylinder. Production & Manufacturing Research 11, 1 (2023), 2199815

    2023

  26. [34]

    Alec Guerrero Gallardo, María Lucía Barrón Estrada, Ramón Zatarain Cabada, Mese Z Giannina Dalle, and Aldo Uriarte Portillo. 2022. EstelAR: an Augmented Reality Astronomy learning tool for STEM students. In 2022 IEEE Mexican International Conference on Computer Science (ENC) ....

    2022

  27. [35]

    Epic Games. 2023. Unreal Engine. Retrieved 12.09.2023 from https://www. unrealengine.com/

    2023

  28. [36]

    Michele Gattullo, Alessandro Evangelista, Vito M Manghisi, Antonio E Uva, Michele Fiorentino, Antonio Boccaccio, Michele Ruta, and Joseph L Gabbard

  29. [37]

    Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela and Eduardo C Garrido-Merchan. 2023. ChatGPT is not all you need. A State of the Art Review of large Generative AI models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04655 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Applied sciences 10, 3 (2020), 780

    Towards next generation technical documentation in augmented reality using a context-aware information manager. Applied sciences 10, 3 (2020), 780

    2020

  31. [39]

    Chuan Guo, Shihao Zou, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, Wei Ji, Xingyu Li, and Li Cheng

  32. [40]

    Jens Grubert, Tobias Langlotz, Stefanie Zollmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2016. Towards pervasive augmented reality: Context-awareness in augmented reality. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 23, 6 (2016), 1706–1724

    2016

  33. [41]

    Jaylin Herskovitz, Yi Fei Cheng, Anhong Guo, Alanson P Sample, and Michael Nebeling. 2022. XSpace: An Augmented Reality Toolkit for Enabling Spatially- Aware Distributed Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, ISS (2022), 277–302

    2022

  34. [42]

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Proba- bilistic Models. arXiv:2006.11239 [cs.LG]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Francisco Gutiérrez, Katrien Verbert, and Nyi Nyi Htun. 2018. PHARA: an augmented reality grocery store assistant. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. 339–345

    2018

  36. [44]

    Yongquan Hu, Wen Hu, and Aaron Quigley. 2023. Towards Using Generative AI for Facilitating Image Creation in Spatial Augmented Reality. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR- Adjunct). IEEE, 441–443

    2023

  37. [45]

    Yongquan Hu, Mingyue Yuan, Kaiqi Xian, Don Samitha Elvitigala, and Aaron Quigley. 2023. Exploring the Design Space of Employing AI-Generated Content for Augmented Reality Display. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16593 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Melynda Hoover, Jack Miller, Stephen Gilbert, and Eliot Winer. 2020. Measuring the performance impact of using the microsoft hololens 1 to provide guided assembly work instructions. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 20, 6 (2020), 061001

    2020

  39. [47]

    Qiuyuan Huang, Jae Sung Park, Abhinav Gupta, Paul Bennett, Ran Gong, Sub- hojit Som, Baolin Peng, Owais Khan Mohammed, Chris Pal, Yejin Choi, et al

  40. [48]

    Rahul Jain, Jingyu Shi, Runlin Duan, Zhengzhe Zhu, Xun Qian, and Karthik Ramani. 2023. Ubi-TOUCH: Ubiquitous Tangible Object Utilization through Consistent Hand-object interaction in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software ...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Gaoping Huang, Xun Qian, Tianyi Wang, Fagun Patel, Maitreya Sreeram, Yuanzhi Cao, Karthik Ramani, and Alexander J Quinn. 2021. Adaptutar: An adaptive tutoring system for machine tasks in augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Dongsik Jo, Ki-Hong Kim, and Gerard Jounghyun Kim. 2015. SpaceTime: adap- tive control of the teleported avatar for improved AR tele-conference experience. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 26, 3-4 (2015), 259–269

    2015

  43. [51]

    BRENNAN Jones, Y Xu, MARY ANNE Hood, MOHAMMAD SHAHIDUL Kader, and HAMID Eghbalzadeh. 2023. Using generative ai to produce situated action recommendations in augmented reality for high-level goals

    2023

  44. [52]

    Daniel Justus, John Brennan, Stephen Bonner, and Andrew Stephen McGough

  45. [53]

    Simi- lar

    Heeyoon Jeong and Gerard Jounghyun Kim. 2023. Table2Table: Merging “Simi- lar” Workspaces and Supporting Adaptive Telepresence Demonstration Guid- ance. In 2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 402–406

    2023

  46. [54]

    Cholmin Kang, Inhwa Yeom, Amirsaman Ashtari, Woontack Woo, and Junyong Noh. 2023. ARbility: re-inviting older wheelchair users to in-store shopping via wearable augmented reality. Virtual Reality (2023), 1–18

    2023

  47. [55]

    Korrawe Karunratanakul, Konpat Preechakul, Supasorn Suwajanakorn, and Siyu Tang. 2023. GMD: Controllable Human Motion Synthesis via Guided Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12577 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for controllable generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05858 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Do Yuon Kim, Ha Kyung Lee, and Kyunghwa Chung. 2023. Avatar-mediated experience in the metaverse: The impact of avatar realism on user-avatar rela- tionship. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 73 (2023), 103382. CARING-AI CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan

    2023

  50. [58]

    Dhiraj Kalamkar, Dheevatsa Mudigere, Naveen Mellempudi, Dipankar Das, Kunal Banerjee, Sasikanth Avancha, Dharma Teja Vooturi, Nataraj Jammala- madaka, Jianyu Huang, Hector Yuen, et al. 2019. A study of BFLOAT16 for deep learning training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12322 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Sangpil Kim, Hyung-gun Chi, and Karthik Ramani. 2021. Object synthesis by learning part geometry with surface and volumetric representations. Computer- Aided Design 130 (2021), 102932

    2021

  52. [60]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. 2023. Segment Anything. arXiv:2304.02643 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Sarah Krings, Enes Yigitbas, Ivan Jovanovikj, Stefan Sauer, and Gregor En- gels. 2020. Development framework for context-aware augmented reality ap- plications. In Companion Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems . 1–6

    2020

  54. [62]

    Yann Labbé, Lucas Manuelli, Arsalan Mousavian, Stephen Tyree, Stan Birchfield, Jonathan Tremblay, Justin Carpentier, Mathieu Aubry, Dieter Fox, and Josef Sivic. 2022. Megapose: 6d pose estimation of novel objects via render & compare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06870 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Minji Kim, Kyungjin Lee, Rajesh Balan, and Youngki Lee. 2023. Bubbleu: Explor- ing Augmented Reality Game Design with Uncertain AI-based Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  56. [64]

    Traian Lavric. 2022. Methodologies and tools for expert knowledge sharing in manual assembly industries by using augmented reality . Ph. D. Dissertation. Institut Polytechnique de Paris

    2022

  57. [65]

    Benjamin Lee, Michael Sedlmair, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2023. Design Patterns for Situated Visualization in Augmented Reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09157 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Lee, Gerard J

    Gun A. Lee, Gerard J. Kim, and Mark Billinghurst. 2005. Immersive Authoring: What You EXperience Is What You Get (WYXIWYG). Commun. ACM 48, 7 (jul 2005), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/1070838.1070840

    2005

  59. [67]

    Jaewook Lee and Andrew Lan. 2023. SmartPhone: Exploring Keyword Mnemonic with Auto-generated Verbal and Visual Cues. In International Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence in Education . Springer, 16–27

    2023

  60. [68]

    Jérémy Lacoche and Eric Villain. 2022. Prototyping context-aware augmented reality applications for smart environments inside virtual reality. In GRAPP 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    Daquan Liu, Chengjiang Long, Hongpan Zhang, Hanning Yu, Xinzhi Dong, and Chunxia Xiao. 2020. Arshadowgan: Shadow generative adversarial network for augmented reality in single light scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . ...

    2020

  62. [70]

    Jen-Shuo Liu, Barbara Tversky, and Steven Feiner. 2022. Precueing Object Placement and Orientation for Manual Tasks in Augmented Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 11 (2022), 3799–3809. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3203111

    2022

  63. [71]

    Shi Liu, Peyman Toreini, and Alexander Maedche. 2022. Designing Gaze-Aware Attention Feedback for Learning in Mixed Reality. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2022. 503–508

    2022

  64. [72]

    Vivian Liu, Jo Vermeulen, George Fitzmaurice, and Justin Matejka. 2023. 3DALL- E: Integrating text-to-image AI in 3D design workflows. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1955–1977

    2023

  65. [73]

    Wanwan Li, Changyang Li, Minyoung Kim, Haikun Huang, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2023. Location-Aware Adaptation of Augmented Reality Narratives. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

    2023

  66. [74]

    Ryan Louie, Andy Coenen, Cheng Zhi Huang, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai

  67. [75]

    Shunlin Lu, Ling-Hao Chen, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Ruimao Zhang, Lei Zhang, and Heung-Yeung Shum. 2023. Humantomato: Text-aligned whole-body motion generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12978 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Yan Luo, Fang Liu, Yingying She, and Baorong Yang. 2023. A context-aware mobile augmented reality pet interaction model to enhance user experience. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 34, 1 (2023), e2123

    2023

  69. [77]

    Zhihan Lv. 2023. Generative artificial intelligence in the metaverse era.Cognitive Robotics 3 (2023), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogr.2023.06.001

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    Ziyi Liu, Zhengzhe Zhu, Enze Jiang, Feichi Huang, Ana M Villanueva, Xun Qian, Tianyi Wang, and Karthik Ramani. 2023. InstruMentAR: Auto-Generation of Augmented Reality Tutorials for Operating Digital Instruments Through Recording Embodied Demonstration. In Proceedings of the 2...

    2023

  71. [79]

    Microsoft. 2021. HoloLens 2. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/ hardware. Accessed on September 12, 2023

    2021

  72. [80]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Novice-AI music co-creation via AI-steering tools for deep generative models. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2020

  73. [81]

    Alexis Morris, Jie Guan, Nadine Lessio, and Yiyi Shao. 2020. Toward mixed reality hybrid objects with iot avatar agents. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) . IEEE, 766–773

    2020

  74. [82]

    Gary R Morrison, Steven J Ross, Jennifer R Morrison, and Howard K Kalman

  75. [83]

    Fabian Muff and Hans-Georg Fill. 2022. A Framework for Context-Dependent Augmented Reality Applications Using Machine Learning and Ontological Rea- soning.. In AAAI Spring Symposium: MAKE

    2022

  76. [84]

    Rafael Maio, André Santos, Bernardo Marques, Carlos Ferreira, Duarte Almeida, Pedro Ramalho, Joel Batista, Paulo Dias, and Beatriz Sousa Santos. 2023. Perva- sive Augmented Reality to support logistics operators in industrial scenarios: a shop floor user study on kit assembly....

    2023

  77. [85]

    NASA NASA. 1986. Task load index (tlx) v. 1.0 manual. NASA, NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field (1986)

    1986

  78. [86]

    Kyzyl Monteiro, Ritik Vatsal, Neil Chulpongsatorn, Aman Parnami, and Ryo Suzuki. 2023. Teachable Reality: Prototyping Tangible Augmented Reality with Everyday Objects by Leveraging Interactive Machine Teaching. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comp...

    2023

  79. [87]

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. 2022. GLIDE: Towards Photo- realistic Image Generation and Editing with Text-Guided Diffusion Models. arXiv:2112.10741 [cs.CV]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [88]

    OpenAI. 2021. ChatGPT: A large-scale generative language model. https: //www.openai.com/research/chatgpt. Accessed on September 12, 2023

    2021

  81. [89]

    Xingyu Pan, Mengya Zheng, Xuanhui Xu, and Abraham G Campbell. 2021. Knowing your student: Targeted teaching decision support through asymmetric mixed reality collaborative learning. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 164742–164751

    2021

  82. [90]

    Georgios Pavlakos, Vasileios Choutas, Nima Ghorbani, Timo Bolkart, Ahmed AA Osman, Dimitrios Tzionas, and Michael J Black. 2019. Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern reco...

    2019

  83. [91]

    Hyeongjin Nam, Daniel Sungho Jung, Gyeongsik Moon, and Kyoung Mu Lee

  84. [92]

    Xun Qian. 2023. Explore the Design and Authoring of Ai-driven Context-aware Augmented Reality Experiences. Ph. D. Dissertation. Purdue University

    2023

  85. [93]

    Xun Qian, Fengming He, Xiyun Hu, Tianyi Wang, Ananya Ipsita, and Karthik Ramani. 2022. Scalar: Authoring semantically adaptive augmented reality expe- riences in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2022

  86. [94]

    Michael Nebeling, Katy Lewis, Yu-Cheng Chang, Lihan Zhu, Michelle Chung, Piaoyang Wang, and Janet Nebeling. 2020. XRDirector: A Role-Based Col- laborative Immersive Authoring System. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, H...

    2020

  87. [95]

    Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. (2018)

    2018

  88. [96]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9

    2019

  89. [97]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer. arXiv:1910.10683 [cs.LG]

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen

  91. [99]

    Marius Preda and Traian Lavric. 2023. Augmented Reality Training in Manufac- turing Sectors. In The Digital Twin. Springer, 447–496

    2023

  92. [100]

    Vedapalle Sri Sai Swarup Reddy. 2022. An Exploration of the Virtual Digital Twin Capture for Spatial Tasks and its Applications . Ph. D. Dissertation. Purdue University

    2022

  93. [101]

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick, and Ali Farhadi. 2016. You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2016

  94. [102]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. arXiv:2103.000...

    2021 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2021. High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models. arXiv:2112.10752 [cs.CV]

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-Resolution Image Synthesis With Latent Diffusion Mod- els. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 10684–10695. CHI ’25, April 26-M...

    2022

  97. [105]

    ZHAO Ruizhi. 2021. Context-Aware AR Scheduling Assistant Using Personalized Avatars. (2021)

    2021

  98. [106]

    Manjul Singh Sachan and Roshan L Peiris. 2022. Designing Augmented Reality Based Interventions to Encourage Physical Activity During Virtual Classes. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts . 1–6

    2022

  99. [107]

    arXiv:2204.06125 [cs.CV]

    Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents. arXiv:2204.06125 [cs.CV]

    arXiv

  100. [108]

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Rad- ford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generation. arXiv:2102.12092 [cs.CV]

    2021 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Asangika Sandamini, Chamodi Jayathilaka, Thisara Pannala, Kasun Karunanayaka, Prabhash Kumarasinghe, and Dushani Perera. 2022. An Augmented Reality-based Fashion Design Interface with Artistic Contents Generated Using Deep Generative Models. In 2022 22nd International Conferen...

    2022

  102. [110]

    Tim Scargill. 2021. Context-Aware Markerless Augmented Reality for Shared Ed- ucational Spaces. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 469–472

    2021

  103. [111]

    Patrick Reipschläger, Frederik Brudy, Raimund Dachselt, Justin Matejka, George Fitzmaurice, and Fraser Anderson. 2022. Avatar: An immersive analysis environ- ment for human motion data combining interactive 3d avatars and trajectories. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference...

    2022

  104. [112]

    Arne Seeliger, Raphael P Weibel, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2022. Context-Adaptive Visual Cues for Safe Navigation in Augmented Reality Using Machine Learning. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2022), 1–21

    2022

  105. [113]

    Jingyu Shi, Rahul Jain, Hyungjun Doh, Ryo Suzuki, and Karthik Ramani. 2023. An HCI-Centric Survey and Taxonomy of Human-Generative-AI Interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07127 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Domen Šoberl. 2023. Mixed Reality and Deep Learning: Augmenting Visual Information Using Generative Adversarial Networks. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27166-3_1

    2023 doi

  107. [115]

    Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

  108. [116]

    Sara Mah- davi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Burcu Karagol Ayan, S. Sara Mah- davi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022. Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffu...

    2022 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022. Pho- torealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Lan...

    2022

  110. [118]

    Guy Tevet, Sigal Raab, Brian Gordon, Yonatan Shafir, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Amit H Bermano. 2022. Human motion diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14916 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Aldo Uriarte-Portillo, María Blanca Ibáñez, Ramón Zatarain-Cabada, and María Lucía Barrón-Estrada. 2023. Comparison of using an augmented reality learning tool at home and in a classroom regarding motivation and learning outcomes. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 7, 3 (...

    2023

  112. [120]

    Timothy Scargill, Ying Chen, Sangjun Eom, Jessilyn Dunn, and Maria Gorlatova

  113. [121]

    In 2022 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3d user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW)

    Environmental, user, and social context-aware augmented reality for supporting personal development and change. In 2022 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3d user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW) . IEEE, 155–162

    2022

  114. [122]

    Xuanyu Wang, Yang Wang, Yan Shi, Weizhan Zhang, and Qinghua Zheng

  115. [123]

    X Wang, AWW Yew, Soh-Khim Ong, and Andrew YC Nee. 2020. Enhancing smart shop floor management with ubiquitous augmented reality. International Journal of Production Research 58, 8 (2020), 2352–2367

    2020

  116. [124]

    Zeyu Wang, Cuong Nguyen, Paul Asente, and Julie Dorsey. 2021. Distanciar: Authoring site-specific augmented reality experiences for remote environments. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2021

  117. [125]

    Maheshya Weerasinghe, Aaron Quigley, Klen Čopič Pucihar, Alice Toniolo, Angela Miguel, and Matjaž Kljun. 2022. Arigat ¯o: Effects of Adaptive Guidance on Engagement and Performance in Augmented Reality Learning Environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Grap...

    2022

  118. [126]

    Florian Weidner, Gerd Boettcher, Stephanie Arevalo Arboleda, Chenyao Diao, Luljeta Sinani, Christian Kunert, Christoph Gerhardt, Wolfgang Broll, and Alexander Raake. 2023. A Systematic Review on the Visualization of Avatars and Agents in AR & VR displayed using Head-Mounted Di...

    2023

  119. [127]

    M Soliman and MK Al Balushi. 2023. Unveiling destination evangelism through generative AI tools. ROBONOMICS: The Journal of the Automated Economy 4, 54 (2023), 1

    2023

  120. [128]

    Unity Technologies. 2023. Unity3D. Retrieved 12.09.2023 from https://unity. com/

    2023

  121. [129]

    Hui Ye and Hongbo Fu. 2022. ProGesAR: Mobile AR Prototyping for Proxemic and Gestural Interactions with Real-world IoT Enhanced Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2022

  122. [130]

    Hui Ye, Jiaye Leng, Chufeng Xiao, Lili Wang, and Hongbo Fu. 2023. ProObjAR: Prototyping Spatially-aware Interactions of Smart Objects with AR-HMD. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

    2023

  123. [131]

    Tianyi Wang. 2022. Supporting the Design and Authoring of Pervasive Smart Environments. Ph. D. Dissertation. Purdue University

    2022

  124. [132]

    Tianyi Wang, Xun Qian, Fengming He, Xiyun Hu, Ke Huo, Yuanzhi Cao, and Karthik Ramani. 2020. CAPturAR: An augmented reality tool for authoring human-involved context-aware applications. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 328–341

    2020

  125. [133]

    Zhenjie Zhao and Xiaojuan Ma. 2018. A Compensation Method of Two-Stage Image Generation for Human-AI Collaborated In-Situ Fashion Design in Aug- mented Reality Environment. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR) . 76–83. htt...

    2018

  126. [134]

    In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Avatarmeeting: An augmented reality remote interaction system with personalized avatars. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 4533–4535

  127. [135]

    Zhengzhe Zhu, Ziyi Liu, Youyou Zhang, Lijun Zhu, Joey Huang, Ana M Vil- lanueva, Xun Qian, Kylie Peppler, and Karthik Ramani. 2023. LearnIoTVR: An End-to-End Virtual Reality Environment Providing Authentic Learning Experi- ences for Internet of Things. InProceedings of the 202...

    2023

  128. [139]

    instruction

    AndrÉ M Weitzenhoffer. 1974. When is an “instruction” an “instruction”? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 22, 3 (1974), 258– 269

    1974

  129. [140]

    Jules White, Quchen Fu, Sam Hays, Michael Sandborn, Carlos Olea, Henry Gilbert, Ashraf Elnashar, Jesse Spencer-Smith, and Douglas C Schmidt. 2023. A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  130. [143]

    Xuyue Yin, Xiumin Fan, Wenmin Zhu, and Rui Liu. 2018. Synchronous AR as- sembly assistance and monitoring system based on ego-centric vision.Assembly Automation 39, 1 (2018), 1–16

    2018

  131. [144]

    Kyongsik Yun, Thomas Lu, and Edward Chow. 2018. Occluded object recon- struction for first responders with augmented reality glasses using conditional generative adversarial networks. In Pattern Recognition and Tracking XXIX , Vol. 10649. SPIE, 225–231

    2018

  132. [146]

    Juntian Zheng, Qingyuan Zheng, Lixing Fang, Yun Liu, and Li Yi. 2023. CAMS: CAnonicalized Manipulation Spaces for Category-Level Functional Hand-Object Manipulation Synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 585–594

    2023

  133. [2015]

    arXiv:1503.03585 [cs.LG]

    Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics. arXiv:1503.03585 [cs.LG]

    arXiv

  134. [2018]

    In 2018 IEEE international conference on big data (Big Data)

    Predicting the computational cost of deep learning models. In 2018 IEEE international conference on big data (Big Data) . IEEE, 3873–3882

    2018

  135. [2019]

    John Wiley & Sons

    Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons

  136. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    An exploratory study of augmented reality presence for tutoring machine tasks. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2020

  137. [2022]

    In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Generating Diverse and Natural 3D Human Motions From Text. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 5152–5161

  138. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00970 (2023)

    ArK: Augmented Reality with Knowledge Interactive Emergent Ability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00970 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  139. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Joint Reconstruction of 3D Human and Object via Contact-Based Re- finement Transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.