Retracted: T2VBench: Benchmarking Temporal Dynamics for Text-to-Video Generation
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While text-to-video (T2V) generative models produce exceptionally realistic videos, they lack a comprehensive evaluation across the temporal dimension, with a limited focus on basic dynamics including camera transitions, movement, and event sequences. In this work, we introduce T2VBench, a comprehensive T2V evaluation benchmark enriched with temporal dynamics lexicons derived from curated temporal words on Wikipedia. T2VBench is a hierarchical evaluation framework comprising over 1,600 temporally rich prompts and 5,000 generated videos with human ratings, spanning 16 critical temporal evaluation dimensions. We assess three leading text-to-video models, including ZeroScope and Pika, to gauge their proficiency in handling temporal dynamics. Our analysis highlights the strengths and limitations of these models across various temporal aspects. Furthermore, we provide insights into future directions for enhancing text-to-video evaluation metrics and offer a detailed analysis of these models’ performance across the temporal dimensions. Overall, T2VBench is the first-of-its-kind comprehensive benchmark fully focused on temporal dynamics for text-to-video evaluation. It aims to facilitate scientific benchmarking of both generative models and automated metrics on text-to-video generation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".