This preprint presents the results of the fourth GENEA Challenge, a large-scale human evaluation of five speech-driven gesture-generation systems trained by participating teams on the Seamless Interaction dataset of dyadic conversations. As in the 2023 GENEA Challenge, we used a disentangled evaluation methodology to assess motion quality and speech alignment without confounding between the two, and performed a dyadic mismatching study to isolate the effect of listening and reacting to the interlocutor. We additionally introduce a new semantic gesture-generation task and a text-mismatching evaluation methodology using the Grounded Gestures subset of the data. In total, we ran four large-scale user studies, collecting over 23,000 votes from 869 test-takers. In the motion-realism study, the dataset's filtered segments had substantially higher motion quality than all challenge submissions (68-95% pairwise winrate). In the speech-alignment study, the motion-capture segments provided a conceptual ceiling at 62% alignment score, with the top submission significantly behind at 32% and the rest only slightly above the 0% expected of an input-independent system. In the dyadic study, motion capture again set the ceiling at 65% appropriateness score, but no submission scored substantially above chance, indicating that the systems could not yet respond to the interlocutor. Finally, the semantic mismatching evaluation found highly expressive gestures in the dataset (test-takers identified the matching transcript 79% of the time), yet almost all submissions failed to generate semantically expressive motion, with the best achieving only an 8% appropriateness score. The collected votes and outputs will be made publicly available at https://genea-workshop.github.io/2026/challenge/ to facilitate reproducibility and further research.
Emotional image editing requires more than applying affective filters or modifying predefined visual factors: an effective edit must identify what a particular image can afford for a target emotion. Existing affective image manipulation methods, including recent agentic variants, largely operate within bounded strategy spaces based on predefined factor taxonomies, knowledge libraries, or conventional editing templates, and therefore often miss image-specific, context-grounded strategies. We introduce EmoScope, a multi-agent framework that reframes the task from "how should I edit?" to "what can I edit?" EmoScope first discovers an image-specific editable space through emotion-conditioned affordance reasoning, then uses a semantic hierarchy of anchors, variables, and context to balance content consistency and emotional expressiveness before executing and verifying the edit. Because its plans are expressed as image-specific affordances rather than retrieved templates, EmoScope also exposes the editing strategy as an interactive surface for user refinement at the plan level. In a large-scale human evaluation covering all eight Mikels emotion categories, with 4,693 valid responses across 1,824 pairwise questions, participants preferred EmoScope over two competitive baselines by 88.1% on average. Attribution analysis further shows that EmoScope selects target-emotion-adaptive strategies rather than applying a uniform template. The same affordance-level plan also supports lightweight user refinement in an interactive pilot. Finally, we show that classifier-based metrics exhibit emotion-conditional blind spots toward non-stereotypical, context-grounded edits, and present a relative content-emotion preference-affinity landscape showing that EmoScope's advantage varies systematically across image-emotion combinations.
Ümit Mert Çağlar, Alptekin Temizeleess.IV cs.AI cs.CV cs.LG
Volume and quality of datasets are crucial for deep learning model training, yet they are often constrained by availability and data acquisition costs. Synthetic data augmentation can extend existing datasets with realistic images, and the quality of these images is generally assessed through fidelity metrics such as FID, KID, IS, LPIPS and SSIM that measure structural or distributional similarity. However, such metrics, including the widely used FID, focus on visual fidelity without reflecting downstream utility, and can diverge from human perception under perturbations that are imperceptible to human observers. In this work, we systematically evaluate Earth observation datasets alongside synthetic counterparts generated by deep generative models, comparing automatic metrics against human perception and downstream tasks. Our results reveal a stark misalignment: semantics-preserving perturbations such as rotation drastically alter metric scores while leaving human recognition unaffected, and synthetic samples that score poorly on automatic metrics achieve comparable or higher perceived realism, and can improve downstream performance when combined with real data. By benchmarking semantic segmentation models trained on mixed real-synthetic datasets, we demonstrate that quality metrics rooted in ImageNet-pretrained feature spaces are unreliable indicators for geospatial data. Our findings underscore that automatic quality evaluation of synthetic datasets should be grounded in downstream task performance and human evaluation.