You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Thank you for your excellent work on "Generating Diverse and Natural 3D Human Motions from Text." I have a question regarding the term "real motion", as mentioned in Section 5.1.2 Quantitative Evaluation:
"The high R precision of real motions evidences the reliability of the proposed R-precision metric, which sets an upper performance limit for all methods."
You describe real motion as setting an upper performance limit for the R-precision metric but do not explicitly define it in the paper. Could you clarify:
Does "real motion" refer to the ground-truth 3D motion data from the HumanML3D and KIT-ML datasets?
How exactly is this real motion data used in the evaluation, particularly in the R-precision setup?
If real motion represents the ground truth and is expected to serve as the benchmark for comparison, how does it achieve a score of 0.511 (Top-1) in the HumanML3D evaluation table? Shouldn't the ground truth ideally achieve a perfect R-precision score since it directly corresponds to the text descriptions?
Thank you for your time and for addressing these questions. I look forward to your clarification!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Dear team,
Thank you for your excellent work on "Generating Diverse and Natural 3D Human Motions from Text." I have a question regarding the term "real motion", as mentioned in Section 5.1.2 Quantitative Evaluation:
You describe real motion as setting an upper performance limit for the R-precision metric but do not explicitly define it in the paper. Could you clarify:
Thank you for your time and for addressing these questions. I look forward to your clarification!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: