跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1新增论文
+1其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-13 06:05 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-13 06:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-12 07:02 — 2026-11-13 07:02(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-13 06:05最近发现新增版本:2026-11-13 06:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

21,676 已收录论文18,324 AI 相关6,056 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-13 06:03(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.10592

MotionGraphicsBench: Evaluating Motion Graphics Generation with Programmatic Verification

Jiaju Ma, Ashvini Kumar Jindal, Chuhua Wang, Sumithra Bhakthavatsalam

原文摘要

Large language models can generate motion graphics from static images and natural language requests, but it remains difficult to evaluate how well models can follow requests that combine spatial, appearance, and temporal requirements. We introduce MotionGraphicsBench, an expert-curated benchmark of 100 instances for animating an input static SVG with a motion edit prompt. By supplying all required visual elements, our editing task reflects a designer-like workflow and isolates motion generation from graphic generation. Derived from real-world Lottie motion designs, our benchmark contains diverse combinations of spatio-temporal animation behaviors. Each benchmark instance pairs its model input with a deterministic, human-readable verification program that accepts different valid implementations and reports which prompt requirements pass or fail, rather than comparing against a reference animation or using a VLM judge. We construct these programs with a multi-agent pipeline using human-labeled animations and synthesized test cases. On a balanced test set of 180 animations, our programs achieve 93.3% raw agreement with human judgments, compared with 83.3% for a GPT-6 Astra VLM baseline, and outperform the baseline in both approval and rejection recall. Across 47 configurations from 32 LLMs and 12 providers, pass@1 ranges from 6.0% to 67.7%. Across 15 models evaluated at their highest available reasoning effort with 32 attempts per instance, additional attempts improve every model, but pass@32 still ranges from 38.0% to 95.0%. Our analysis of verification programs reveals that generated animations often fail to match reference poses, follow requested motion trajectories, or coordinate related events. We release our benchmark at https://huggingface.co/datasets/figma-ai/motion-graphics-bench.

cs.CV · cs.AI