To Rate or Not To Rate: Investigating Evaluation Methods for Generated Co-Speech Gestures
Pieter Wolfert, Jeffrey M. Girard, Taras Kucherenko, Tony Belpaeme

TL;DR
This study compares rating and pairwise comparison methods for evaluating co-speech gestures in avatars, finding both effective but pairwise comparisons are faster and more reliable for small-scale assessments.
Contribution
It provides an empirical comparison of rating versus pairwise comparison methods for subjective evaluation of artificial human-like behaviour.
Findings
Both methods effectively rank gesture quality.
Pairwise comparisons are slightly faster.
Pairwise comparisons have better inter-rater reliability.
Abstract
While automatic performance metrics are crucial for machine learning of artificial human-like behaviour, the gold standard for evaluation remains human judgement. The subjective evaluation of artificial human-like behaviour in embodied conversational agents is however expensive and little is known about the quality of the data it returns. Two approaches to subjective evaluation can be largely distinguished, one relying on ratings, the other on pairwise comparisons. In this study we use co-speech gestures to compare the two against each other and answer questions about their appropriateness for evaluation of artificial behaviour. We consider their ability to rate quality, but also aspects pertaining to the effort of use and the time required to collect subjective data. We use crowd sourcing to rate the quality of co-speech gestures in avatars, assessing which method picks up more detail…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
