What is the Best Automated Metric for Text to Motion Generation?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10248v1
• Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 01:59:54 GMT
• Title: What is the Best Automated Metric for Text to Motion Generation?
• Authors: Jordan Voas, Yili Wang, Qixing Huang, and Raymond Mooney
• Abstract summary: There is growing interest in generating skeleton-based human motions from natural language descriptions. Human evaluation is the ultimate accuracy measure for this task, and automated metrics should correlate well with human quality judgments. This paper systematically studies which metrics best align with human evaluations and proposes new metrics that align even better.
• Score: 19.71712698183703
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: There is growing interest in generating skeleton-based human motions from natural language descriptions. While most efforts have focused on developing better neural architectures for this task, there has been no significant work on determining the proper evaluation metric. Human evaluation is the ultimate accuracy measure for this task, and automated metrics should correlate well with human quality judgments. Since descriptions are compatible with many motions, determining the right metric is critical for evaluating and designing effective generative models. This paper systematically studies which metrics best align with human evaluations and proposes new metrics that align even better. Our findings indicate that none of the metrics currently used for this task show even a moderate correlation with human judgments on a sample level. However, for assessing average model performance, commonly used metrics such as R-Precision and less-used coordinate errors show strong correlations. Additionally, several recently developed metrics are not recommended due to their low correlation compared to alternatives. We also introduce a novel metric based on a multimodal BERT-like model, MoBERT, which offers strongly human-correlated sample-level evaluations while maintaining near-perfect model-level correlation. Our results demonstrate that this new metric exhibits extensive benefits over all current alternatives.

Related papers

• Is Reference Necessary in the Evaluation of NLG Systems? When and Where? [58.52957222172377]
  We show that reference-free metrics exhibit a higher correlation with human judgment and greater sensitivity to deficiencies in language quality. Our study can provide insight into the appropriate application of automatic metrics and the impact of metric choice on evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T10:31:11Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated Text [64.81682222169113]
  We show that reference-free metrics are inherently biased and limited in their ability to evaluate generated text. We argue that they should not be used to measure progress on tasks like machine translation or summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T22:12:06Z)
• The Glass Ceiling of Automatic Evaluation in Natural Language Generation [60.59732704936083]
  We take a step back and analyze recent progress by comparing the body of existing automatic metrics and human metrics. Our extensive statistical analysis reveals surprising findings: automatic metrics -- old and new -- are much more similar to each other than to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-31T01:13:46Z)
• SMART: Sentences as Basic Units for Text Evaluation [48.5999587529085]
  In this paper, we introduce a new metric called SMART to mitigate such limitations. We treat sentences as basic units of matching instead of tokens, and use a sentence matching function to soft-match candidate and reference sentences. Our results show that system-level correlations of our proposed metric with a model-based matching function outperforms all competing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-01T17:58:05Z)
• A Study on the Evaluation of Generative Models [19.18642459565609]
  Implicit generative models, which do not return likelihood values, have become prevalent in recent years. In this work, we study the evaluation metrics of generative models by generating a high-quality synthetic dataset. Our study shows that while FID and IS do correlate to several f-divergences, their ranking of close models can vary considerably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T09:27:31Z)
• TRUE: Re-evaluating Factual Consistency Evaluation [29.888885917330327]
  We introduce TRUE: a comprehensive study of factual consistency metrics on a standardized collection of existing texts from diverse tasks. Our standardization enables an example-level meta-evaluation protocol that is more actionable and interpretable than previously reported correlations. Across diverse state-of-the-art metrics and 11 datasets we find that large-scale NLI and question generation-and-answering-based approaches achieve strong and complementary results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T10:14:35Z)
• Dynamic Human Evaluation for Relative Model Comparisons [8.843915018287476]
  We present a dynamic approach to measure the required number of human annotations when evaluating generated outputs in relative comparison settings. We propose an agent-based framework of human evaluation to assess multiple labelling strategies and methods to decide the better model in a simulation and a crowdsourcing case study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T11:32:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.