{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/gaia-rethinking-action-quality-assessment-for","title":"GAIA: Rethinking Action Quality Assessment for AI-Generated Videos","arxiv_id":"2406.06087","date":"2024-06-10","proceeding":null,"authors":["Zijian Chen","Wei Sun","Yuan Tian","Jun Jia","ZiCheng Zhang","Jiarui Wang","Ru Huang","Xiongkuo Min","Guangtao Zhai","Wenjun Zhang"],"abstract":"Assessing action quality is both imperative and challenging due to its significant impact on the quality of AI-generated videos, further complicated by the inherently ambiguous nature of actions within AI-generated video (AIGV). Current action quality assessment (AQA) algorithms predominantly focus on actions from real specific scenarios and are pre-trained with normative action features, thus rendering them inapplicable in AIGVs. To address these problems, we construct GAIA, a Generic AI-generated Action dataset, by conducting a large-scale subjective evaluation from a novel causal reasoning-based perspective, resulting in 971,244 ratings among 9,180 video-action pairs. Based on GAIA, we evaluate a suite of popular text-to-video (T2V) models on their ability to generate visually rational actions, revealing their pros and cons on different categories of actions. We also extend GAIA as a testbed to benchmark the AQA capacity of existing automatic evaluation methods. Results show that traditional AQA methods, action-related metrics in recent T2V benchmarks, and mainstream video quality methods perform poorly with an average SRCC of 0.454, 0.191, and 0.519, respectively, indicating a sizable gap between current models and human action perception patterns in AIGVs. Our findings underscore the significance of action quality as a unique perspective for studying AIGVs and can catalyze progress towards methods with enhanced capacities for AQA in AIGVs.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06087v2","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.06087v2.pdf","source":{"archive":"pwc-archive (Hugging Face), CC BY-SA 4.0","snapshot":"2025-07-28","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","row_kind":"abstracts"},"code_links":[{"paper_slug":"gaia-rethinking-action-quality-assessment-for","repo_url":"https://github.com/zijianchen98/gaia","is_official":1,"mentioned_in_paper":1,"mentioned_in_github":1,"framework":"none","reach":{"status":"ok","spdx":"Apache-2.0"}}],"tasks":[{"task_slug":"action-quality-assessment","task_name":"Action Quality Assessment"}],"methods":[{"method_slug":"focus","method_name":"Focus"}],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"syntology_url":"https://syntology.ai/paper/2406.06087","atlas_url":"https://app.syntology.ai/?focus=2406.06087","mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers"},"arxiv_metadata":null,"syntology_extracted_results":null}