/ / 19 min read

Controllable Group Choreography using Contrastive Diffusion (Part 6)

Ablation Studies and User Studies

In previous part, we have discovered the qualitative and quantitative expriments. In this part, let investigate ablation studies and user studies.

Our code can be found at: https://github.com/aioz-ai/GCD

1. Ablation Analysis

Loss Terms. The contribution of the geometric loss Lgeo\mathcal{L}_{\rm geo} and contrastive loss Lnce\mathcal{L}_{\rm nce} in GCD is thoroughly analyzed and presented in Table 1. The results demonstrate that both losses play a crucial role in enhancing the overall performance across all four evaluation protocols. In particular, it can be seen that the effect of Lgeo\mathcal{L}_{\rm geo} on realism metrics (FID, GMR, and PFC) is significant. This observation can be attributed to the fact that this loss improves the physical plausibility and naturalness of the dance motions, empirically mitigating common artifacts such as jittery motion or foot skating. By enforcing the geometric constraints, GCD can generate faithful motions that are on par with real dances. Moreover, the contrastive loss Lnce\mathcal{L}_{\rm nce} contributes positively to the favorable results in the synchrony measures (GMR and GMC). This loss term encourages the model to synchronize the movements of multiple dancers within a group, thus improving the harmonious coordination and cohesion of the generated choreographies. In general, the results of Lgeo\mathcal{L}_{\rm geo} and Lnce\mathcal{L}_{\rm nce} validate their importance across various evaluation metrics.

Table. 1. Global module contribution and loss analysis. Experiments are conducted on GCD with γ=0\gamma = 0 (neutral mode).

Group Global Attention. Results presented in first two lines of Table 1 demonstrate substantial improvements obtained by incorporating Group Global Attention into GCD. It clearly shows that without the Group Global Attention, the performance on the group dance metrics (GMR and GMC) is significantly degraded. We also observe that the removal of this block resulted in inconsistent movements across dancers, where they seem to dance in freestyle without any group choreographic rules and collide with each other in many cases, although they may still follow the rhythm of the music. Results suggest the vital importance of ensuring coherency and regulating collisions for visually appealing group dance animations.

2. User Study

Qualitative user studies are important for evaluating generative models as the perception of users tends to be the most relevant metric for many downstream applications. Therefore, we conduct user studies to evaluate our approach in terms of group choreography generation. We organized two separate studies and enlisted roughly 50 individuals with diverse backgrounds to participate in our experiment. Each participant should have some relevant experience in music and dance (at least 1 month of studying or working in dance-related professions). The age of participants varied between 20 and 50, with approximately 55\% female and 45\% male.

In the initial study, we requested the participants to evaluate the dancing animations based on three criteria: the naturalness of the dancing motions (Realism), how well the movements match the music (Music-Motion Correspondence), and how well the dancers interact or synchronize with each other (Synchronization between Dancers). Participants were asked to rate scores from 0 to 10 for each criterion, ranging from 0-very poor, 5-acceptable, to 10-very good. The collected scores were then normalized to range [0,1][0,1].

This user study encompassed a total of 1893189 * 3 samples with songs that are not present in the train set, including those generated from GDanceR, real dance clips from the dataset, and generated results from our proposed method in neutral mode. Figure.1 shows average scores for all mentioned targets across three experiments. Notably, the ratings of our method are significantly higher than GDanceR across all three criteria. We also perform Tukey honest significance tests to determine the significant differences among the three methods. For the first two criteria (Realism and Music-Motion Correspondence), we observe that the mean scores of all methods are significantly different with p<0.05p < 0.05. For synchronization critera, the differences are significant except for the scores between our method and real dances (p0.07p\approx0.07). This highlights that our method can even achieve comparable scores with real dances, especially in the synchronization evaluation. This can be attributed to the proposed contrastive diffusion strategy, which can effectively maintain a balance between the consistency of the movements and the group/audio context, as well as diversity in generated dances.

Figure. 1. User study results in three criteria: Realism; Music-Motion Correspondence; and Synchronization between Dancers

In the second study, we aim to assess the diversity and consistency of the generated dance outputs and determine if they met the expectations of the users. Specifically, participants were asked to assign scores ranging from 0 to 10 to evaluate the consistency and diversity of each dance clip, i.e., how synchronized or how distinctive movements between dancers does the group dance present. A lower score indicated higher consistency, while a higher score indicated greater diversity. These scores were subsequently normalized to [1,1][-1,1] to align with the studying range of the control parameter employed in our proposed method.

Figure 2 depicts a scatter plot illustrating the relationship between the scores provided by the participants and the γ\gamma parameter that was used to generate the dance samples. The parameter values were randomly drawn from a uniform distribution with range [1,1][-1,1] to create the animations along with randomly sampled musical pieces. The survey shows a strong correlation between the user scores and the control parameter, in which we calculated the correlation coefficient to be approximately 0.88. The results indicate that the diversity and consistency level of the generated group choreography samples is mostly in agreement with the user evaluation, as indicated by the scores obtained.

Figure. 2. Correlation between the controlling consistency/diversity and the scores provided by the users.

3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

While controlling consistency and diversity in group dance generation by using our proposed GCD has numerous advantages and potentials, there are certain limitations. Firstly, it requires tuning the parameters and a complex system that is not trivial to train, to ensure that the generated dance motions can produce the desired level of similarity among dancers while still presenting enough variation to avoid repetitive or monotonous movements. This may involve long inference processes and may require significant computational resources in both the training and testing phases.

Secondly, over-controlling consistency and diversity may introduce constraints on the creative freedom of generated dances. While enforcing consistency can lead to synchronized and harmonious group movements, it may limit the possibility of exploring unconventional or new experimental dance styles. On the other hand, promoting diversity results in unique and innovative dance sequences, but it may sacrifice coherence and coordination among dancers.

{Although our model can synthesize semantically faithful group dance animation with effective coordination among dancers, it does not capture clear physical contact between dancers such as hand touching. This is because the data we used in training does not contain such detailed hand motion information. We think that exploring group dance with realistic physical hand interactions is a promising area for future work. Additionally, while our method offers a trade-off between diversity and consistency, achieving perfect alignment between high-diversity movements and music remains a challenging task. The diversity level among dancers and the alignment with music are also heavily influenced by the training data. We believe further efforts are required to reach this.}

Lastly, the subjective nature of evaluating consistency and diversity poses a challenge. Metrics for measuring these aspects may not be best fitted. We believe it is essential to consider diverse perspectives and demand domain experts to validate the effectiveness and quality of the generated dance motions.

To conclude, we have introduced GCD, a new method for audio-driven group dance generation that effectively controls the consistency and diversity of generated choreographies. By using contrastive diffusion along with the guidance technique, our approach enables the generation of a flexible number of dancers and long-term group dances without compromising fidelity. Through our experiments, we have demonstrated the capability of GCD to produce visually appealing and synchronized group dance motions. The results of our evaluation, including comparisons with existing methods, highlight the superior performance of our method across various metrics including realism and synchronization. By enabling control over the desired levels of consistency and diversity while preserving fidelity, our work has the potential for applications in entertainment, virtual performances, and artistic expression, advancing the effectiveness of deep learning in generative choreography.

Like What You See?