CoMPAS3D: A Dataset and Benchmark for Interactive Motion
Organizations: School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
Abstract
Socially interactive humanoids aim to interact with humans through their bodies, adapting in real time to a partner's movement, intent, and abilities. This requires models that understand both how bodies move and what their movements mean. Yet, existing evaluation frameworks for interactive motion generation do not assess whether generated reactive motions are valid or appropriate within a shared movement vocabulary. Existing frameworks rely on kinematic metrics such as FID and beat alignment that cannot capture this semantic property, while improvised interaction datasets lack fine-grained move annotations. Inspired by computational evaluations of games such as Go and Chess, we propose Salsa as an embodied interaction evaluation domain. Salsa is interactive, dyadic, and governed by a move vocabulary and community-validated judging criteria covering timing, musicality, technique, difficulty, partnering, and originality. We present CoMPAS3D, a motion capture dataset of improvised partner salsa dance and an evaluation framework covering kinematic quality, two objective metrics (move legibility and proficiency appropriateness), and six competition-based subjective dimensions. The dataset comprises 3 hours of improvisation by 18 dancers spanning beginner, intermediate, and professional skill levels, with over 2,800 expert-annotated segments covering move types, execution errors, and stylistic elements. We define three benchmark tasks: move classification, proficiency estimation, and follower generation. Fine-tuned vision-language models perform well on ground-truth sequences and correlate with subjective expert judgments, suggesting their promise as measurement tools. Applied to Duolando and InterGen, our objective metrics reveal a large gap between ground-truth and generated dances, corroborated by expert human evaluations across six judging dimensions.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | # Participants | # Genres | Pairs/Genre | Audio | Experience | /s | # Frames | Improvised | Mocap | Annotated | Representation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ReMoCap | 9 | n/a | n/a | ✗ | Pro | Varies | 2.04h | 275.7K | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 3D Skeletons |
| ExPI | 4 | 1 | 2 | ✗ | Pro | 10.4 | 0.33h | 30K | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | 3D Meshes |
| InterHuman | 30 | n/a | n/a | ✗ | Pro | 10 | 6.56h | 1.7M | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | SMPL |
| InterDance | Unknown | 15 | Unknown | ✓ | Pro | 142.7 | 3.93h | 1.7M | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | SMPL-X |
| DD100 | 10 | 10 | 0.5 | ✓ | Pro | 70.2 | 1.95h | 210K | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | SMPL-X |
| CoMPAS3D | 18 | 1 | 9 | ✓ | Beg, Int., Pro | 150 | 3.0h | 1.3M | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | SMPL-X |
| Solo Metrics | Interactive Metrics | Rhythmic | ||||||
| Method | FID k ( ) | FID g ( ) | Div k ( ) | Div g ( ) | FID cd ( ) | Div cd ( ) | BED( ) | BAS( ) |
| Groundtruth | ||||||||
| InterGen | ||||||||
| Duolando | ||||||||
| Legibility | Appropriateness | ||||
| Method | Move Acc. | Move F1 | Profic. Acc. | Profic. F1 | |
| Groundtruth | 69.88 | 53.55 | 51.51 | 51.64 | |
| FT | InterGen | 18.86 | 7.69 | 49.77 | 46.55 |
| Duolando | 14.47 | 6.70 | 45.47 | 39.30 | |
| 0-shot | InterGen | 14.47 | 4.09 | 32.22 | 18.00 |
| Duolando | 25.00 | 4.86 | 33.57 | 19.80 | |
| Dimension | ICC(C,k) | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | 0.48 ∗ | [0.10, 0.72] |
| Musicality | 0.60 ∗∗ | [0.30, 0.78] |
| Technique | 0.47 ∗ | [0.08, 0.71] |
| Difficulty | 0.56 ∗∗ | [0.23, 0.76] |
| Partner Coord. | 0.76 ∗∗ | [0.58, 0.87] |
| Originality | 0.55 ∗∗ | [0.22, 0.76] |
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Pair | Proficiency | Annotations | Test Set |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pair 1 | Beginner | 100% | Song1_Take1 |
| Pair 2 | Intermediate | 100% | Song1_Take2 |
| Pair 3 | Beginner | 100% | Song2_Take1 |
| Pair 4 | Intermediate | 100% | Song2_Take2 |
| Pair 5 | Professional | 50% | Song3_Take1 |
| Pair 6 | Intermediate | n/a | Song3_Take2 |
| Name | Category | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Arm lock | Move | A locking arm movement often used to create tension or highlight transitions. |
| Basic step | Move | Fundamental salsa step with variations including side, cross-back, and back basic steps. |
| Body shake | Move | A rapid shaking movement emphasizing torso dynamics. |
| Body roll | Move | A fluid, wave-like motion passing through the body. |
| Change of Directions | Move | Transition step involving directional changes, including position swaps. |
| Check | Move | A checking step used to halt or redirect movement. |
| Song | Artist | Title | Tempo (BPM) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Song 1 | Tito Rojas | Lo que te queda | 90 |
| Song 2 | Louie Ramirez, Ray de La Paz | Lluvia | 105 |
| Song 3 | Leoni Torres | Idilio | 95 |
| Song 4 | Johnny Ventura | Dilema | 93 |
| Dimension | Definition shown to participants |
|---|---|
| Timing | The majority of the routine should show recognizable timing in the dance genre (i.e. Salsa: 1-2-3, 5-6-7). |
| Partner Coordination | Reflected in the lead/follow aspect. Are partners truly connected, or merely executing choreography while holding hands? Synchronicity during side-by-sides and shines also counts. |
| Musicality | The couple’s ability to creatively work with the timing of the music, including through patterns, footwork, hits, tricks, etc. |
| Technique | Reflected through balance, placement and line; sometimes called latin motion or sabor. Movement should be grounded, with clarity of weight changes, and appear both clear and effortless. |
| Difficulty | Reflected by difficulty of patterns, turns, shines, and level of tricks, dips, drops and flares. Movement must be successfully executed to receive credit. |
| Originality | The couple’s interpretation of the music. Includes clever turn patterns, shines, musical choreography, and good use of space. |
Human Motion Generation
Human motion generation creates articulated movement from language, audio, video, spatial constraints, or interaction goals.
See all 301 papers