aiqbench analysis
This study rigorously evaluates generative AI's ability to transform oral history interviews into visual scenes without compromising narrative integrity or cultural context. By comparing multi-agent decomposition against single summarization pipelines across 82 diaspora interviews, the research identifies critical failure modes where scene planning conflicts with preserving testimony structure. The resulting framework offers a practical routing protocol for selecting appropriate AI systems based on the inherent strength of source narratives before visualization attempts begin.
What Gets Lost When Memory Becomes Media? Evaluating AI-Generated Oral History Visualization
arXiv:2607.24756v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: What gets lost when memory becomes media? Diaspora oral-history interviews require a double transformation; first-person recollection to third-person scene, present interview room to past time and place. When generative AI performs this transformation, no agreed criteria for success exist. We derive success conditions from oral-history theory, design 15 metrics around three failure modes, and compare a Multi-Agent Scene-decomposition pipeline (MAS) with a Single Summarization Pipeline (SSP) across 82 interviews from diaspora communities, spanning from oral interviews to 6-image sequences. Scene-planning and narrative preservation conflict in the majority of cases, and the narrative-structure strength of the source testimony is the primary predictor of this conflict. We propose a failure-mode-based evaluation framework, an empirical analysis of conflict conditions, and a routing protocol for system selection based on narrative-structure strength.
Title:What Gets Lost When Memory Becomes Media? Evaluating AI-Generated Oral History Visualization
Abstract:What gets lost when memory becomes media? Diaspora oral-history interviews require a double transformation; first-person recollection to third-person scene, present interview room to past time and place. When generative AI performs this transformation, no agreed criteria for success exist. We derive success conditions from oral-history theory, design 15 metrics around three failure modes, and compare a Multi-Agent Scene-decomposition pipeline (MAS) with a Single Summarization Pipeline (SSP) across 82 interviews from diaspora communities, spanning from oral interviews to 6-image sequences. Scene-planning and narrative preservation conflict in the majority of cases, and the narrative-structure strength of the source testimony is the primary predictor of this conflict. We propose a failure-mode-based evaluation framework, an empirical analysis of conflict conditions, and a routing protocol for system selection based on narrative-structure strength.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.24756 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2607.24756v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.24756 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 234 words
Related coverage

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · Jul 15, 2026

Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
CoreWeave’s next test: From GPU scarcity to a durable AI cloud
SiliconANGLE · Sep 26, 2026