Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 9 minor 1 cited by

ANT: Adaptive Neural Temporal-Aware Text-to-Motion Model

T0 review · 3 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A plug-and-play module that makes text conditioning time-aware—strong semantics early, fine details late—improves diffusion text-to-motion generation, achieving state-of-the-art R-Precision on StableMoFusion.

desk verdict Timestep-conditioned text embeddings are a worthwhile plug-in idea, but the headline comparison is confounded by an encoder mismatch and DCFG is a speed-only trick; worth a serious referee once baselines are fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02452 v2 pith:Q36AA4XZ submitted 2025-06-03 cs.CV

Wenshuo Chen , Kuimou Yu , Haozhe Jia , Kaishen Yuan , Zexu Huang , Bowen Tian , Songning Lai , Hongru Xiao
show 3 more authors
Erhang Zhang Lei Wang Yutao Yue
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-motiongenerationdiffusionmodelssemanticalignmentclassifier-freeguidancetemporal-awareconditioningspectralanalysisplug-and-playmodulehumanmotionsynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a major cause of text–motion misalignment in diffusion models is static conditioning: the same text embedding is injected at every denoising step even though early steps need coarse, structural semantics and late steps need fine, local details. ANT is a plug-and-play layer that makes text conditioning time-aware: a Semantic Temporally Adaptive (STA) module re-encodes the text per timestep, and a Dynamic Classifier-Free Guidance (DCFG) schedule weakens text guidance as denoising proceeds and eventually runs unconditional. Applied to MDM and StableMoFusion, ANT improves FID and R-Precision on HumanML3D and KIT-ML, reaches state-of-the-art R-Precision on StableMoFusion, and cuts sampling time by roughly a fifth. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's contribution to be a demonstration that temporal reweighting of semantics is a general, low-cost improvement for diffusion-based text-to-motion models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the STA module and the DCFG schedule. STA sits between the text encoder and the U-Net: learnable tokens $L$ are combined with the diffusion timestep feature $z_t$ by a residual connection, normalized by Adaptive Layer Normalization, and passed through cross-attention with the raw text features $c$, producing a time-modulated condition $c_t$. Its behavior is verified by two diagnostics: cross-attention variance collapses toward zero as sampling progresses, and the AdaLayerNorm scale and shift parameters $\alpha,\beta$ decrease systematically. DCFG uses the formula $\omega_t = \max\{\omega_{\min} + \tfrac12(1+\cos(\lambda \frac{T-t}{T}\pi))(\omega_{\max}-\omega_{\min}), 0\}$, and for $t>0.5T$ it skips the conditional branch entirely, updating with $\hat\epsilon_t = \hat\epsilon_{\text{uncond}}$. The spectral justification is the SNR inequality $\mathrm{SNR}(\omega_H)<\mathrm{SNR}(\omega_L)$ for $\omega_H>\omega_L$, meaning low frequencies stay usable longer and must anchor reconstruction of high frequencies.

What would settle it

Retrain StableMoFusion with the T5 text encoder using the paper's own training setup and evaluate with the same 10-step DPM-Solver inference; if its R-Precision Top-1 reaches or exceeds ANT's 0.565 or its FID drops below 0.099 on HumanML3D, the claimed semantic-alignment advantage collapses. A quicker negative signal already in the paper is that Table 2 shows STA lowers R-Precision with CLIP and LongCLIP, so the claim is encoder-dependent as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ANT's central claim is that diffusion text-to-motion models fail to align with text because they ignore the temporal-frequency structure of denoising: low-frequency motion components are recovered first and provide the structural foundation, while high-frequency details are recovered later and depend on that foundation. The STA module operationalizes this by producing a timestep-dependent text feature $c_t$ through learnable tokens modulated by an adaptive layer normalization and cross-attention, so the network attends strongly to key action words early (runs, skates, cartwheel) and lets that attention decay toward zero in later steps. This learned decay is the mechanism behind the two-stage behavior: semantic planning first, detail refinement second. DCFG then turns the observed decay into a practical sampling schedule with a cosine-decreasing guidance scale and a threshold after which only the unconditional branch is evaluated. The paper reports that this combination yields FID 0.099 versus 0.152 and R-Precision Top-1 0.565 versus 0.546 over StableMoFusion on HumanML3D, and similar gains on KIT-ML and the CMP combat dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline semantic-alignment claim assumes the ANT and StableMoFusion rows are compared under identical text-encoding conditions; ANT uses T5 while the baseline numbers match BERT, so a T5-upgraded baseline could shrink or erase the reported margin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The paper's Table 1 shows STA alone (without DCFG) improves FID from 0.152 to 0.071 on HumanML3D, indicating that temporal conditioning itself carries most of the reported gain.
  • With DCFG, sampling time per 32-batch drops from 0.949 s to 0.741 s, about 21.9 percent, with almost no accuracy loss, because late steps only evaluate the unconditional branch.
  • ANT on StableMoFusion surpasses the VAE-based models MMM and T2M-GPT on R-Precision in the paper's comparison, supporting the claim that diffusion models can close the semantic-alignment gap.
  • The same two-stage reweighting transfers from DDIM-based MDM to DPM-Solver-based StableMoFusion, suggesting the mechanism is tied to the diffusion denoising prior rather than to one sampler or architecture.
  • In the paper's human evaluation, ANT scored 83.2 percent semantic accuracy and an 81.3 percent pairwise preference over StableMoFusion, MoMask, and MMM.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not tested in the paper: retraining the StableMoFusion baseline with the same T5 encoder. Because Table 1's baseline numbers match Table 2's BERT row, a matched-encoder comparison would isolate whether STA's gain survives an upgraded baseline.
  • The same temporal reweighting should transfer to other conditional diffusion tasks with coarse-to-fine dynamics, such as text-to-video or speech-driven gesture generation; the paper's two-architecture plug-in result is suggestive but not evidence for those domains.
  • DCFG's hard threshold at $0.5T$ is a blunt instrument; a prompt-dependent threshold that keeps the conditional branch for prompts whose decisive attributes appear late (rare adverbs, fine-grained objects) might preserve fidelity while retaining most of the speedup.
  • Because STA degrades R-Precision with CLIP and LongCLIP encoders, the claim should be read as about encoders with sufficiently rich fine-grained representations (T5, BERT, MoCLIP), not about static conditioning in general.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 9 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ANT, a plug-and-play module for diffusion-based text-to-motion generation. ANT consists of a Semantic Temporal Awareness (STA) module, which modulates text embeddings conditioned on the diffusion timestep via learnable tokens, adaptive layer normalization, and cross-attention; and a Dynamic Classifier-Free Guidance (DCFG) schedule, which uses a cosine-decaying guidance scale and switches to unconditional generation in late denoising stages. Experiments on HumanML3D, KIT-ML, and CMP report improvements in FID and R-Precision over MDM and StableMoFusion baselines, along with a user study, ablations on text encoders, STA architectures, and hyperparameters. The paper claims state-of-the-art semantic alignment on StableMoFusion and seamless integration into diffusion-based models.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold under encoder-matched comparisons, the STA idea is a useful and interpretable contribution: temporally modulating text conditioning during denoising is intuitive, and the paper provides supporting analyses of cross-attention dynamics and AdaLN parameter evolution. The paper also ships code, ablations on CMP, a human study, and a hyperparameter grid. However, the central quantitative claim is currently compromised by a text-encoder mismatch between the headline comparison and the baseline, and by a DCFG ablation that shows measurable fidelity loss. The significance is therefore contingent on corrected, encoder-matched experiments that substantiate the claimed gains.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1 vs Table 2] The main comparison is not encoder-matched. The StableMoFusion baseline row in Table 1 (R-Precision Top-1/2/3 = 0.546/0.742/0.835) coincides with the BERT w/o STA row in Table 2 (0.547/0.742/0.835), while the ANT rows (0.560/0.751/0.841 and 0.565/0.756/0.843) match the T5 w/ STA row (0.565/0.756/0.843). Since Section 4.3 states that T5 is adopted, the reported gains over StableMoFusion in Table 1 conflate the BERT-to-T5 encoder change with the STA module. Using the same-encoder numbers in Table 2, STA on T5 improves Top-1 only from 0.549 to 0.565, a much smaller margin than 0.546 to 0.565/0.560. Moreover, the FID for a T5-based StableMoFusion baseline is not reported, so the claimed FID improvement from 0.152 to 0.071 cannot be attributed to STA. Please rerun the baseline with the T5 encoder and report encoder-matched numbers in Table 1, or explicitly reframe all claims as comparisons against a BERT-based baseline.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 1 DCFG ablation] The paper's fidelity claim for DCFG is contradicted by its own table. In Table 1, the row 'ANT (Ours, on StableMoFusion, w/o DCFG)' achieves better FID (0.071 vs 0.099) and better R-Precision (Top-1 0.565 vs 0.560) than the row 'ANT (Ours, on StableMoFusion)' that uses DCFG. Yet the abstract and Section 1 describe DCFG as 'improving efficiency while maintaining fidelity,' and Section 4.3 states there is 'almost no loss in accuracy.' The numbers show a measurable degradation, with FID worsening by about 39% and Top-1 dropping by 0.005. Please either soften the fidelity claim to an explicit efficiency-accuracy trade-off, or report significance/confidence intervals that support the 'almost no loss' statement.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table 2 and abstract] The 'seamlessly plugged into diffusion-based text-to-motion models' claim in the abstract and Figure 1 is not supported by Table 2. STA degrades R-Precision with CLIP (Top-1 0.538 to 0.523) and LongCLIP (0.528 to 0.513) encoders. Since many diffusion text-to-motion baselines, including MDM and MotionDiffuse as cited in the paper, rely on CLIP, the plug-and-play claim is overstated. Please restrict the claim to encoders that benefit (T5, BERT, MoCLIP) or provide an analysis and remedy for the CLIP/LongCLIP failure modes.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Section 3.1.3] The text refers to 'Theorem 3.1.3,' but there is no numbered theorem; Eq. (6) is an assumption-based heuristic inequality, not a proved theorem. Please renumber or clarify its status.
  2. [Appendix A, Theorem A.1] Eq. (17) and the claim in Eq. (20) that the accumulated noise PSD is frequency-independent, E[|ε̂_t(ω)|²] = ∫₀ᵗ g²(s) ds, is not correct for the Fourier transform of integrated Brownian motion, whose power spectral density over finite intervals scales as 1/ω². This should be corrected or explicitly labeled as a heuristic, since it does not affect the empirical results but currently misrepresents the spectral analysis.
  3. [Appendix A.2] After Eq. (22), there is a stray 'C.' before 'Assume the noise schedule is constant,' which appears to be a leftover list marker; please remove it.
  4. [Related Work] The subsection heading 'Senabtic embedding of Text-to-Motion' contains a typo; it should read 'Semantic embedding.'
  5. [Section 3.2.1, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The ⊕ symbol is used both for concatenation (L ⊕ z_t) and for a residual connection (L̂_t ⊕ CrossAttention(...)). Please use distinct notation, e.g., + or a separate symbol, to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Section 4.3] The statement 'applying DCFG directly to the baseline does not work' is made without any supporting experiment or table. Please provide the ablation or remove the claim.
  7. [Table 3] The table caption says 'use T5 text encoder,' but it is not stated whether the baseline method is the original StableMoFusion (with BERT) or a T5-upgraded baseline. Please make the encoder conditions explicit so the timing comparison is interpretable.
  8. [Table 2] The MoCLIP (w/o STA) and LongCLIP (w/o STA) rows report identical values (0.528/0.718/0.812). Since MoCLIP is described as fine-tuned on motion data and should differ from LongCLIP, please verify whether this is a typo.
  9. [Section 1] The introduction states that ANT 'surpasses representative VAE-based models (Figure 2), such as MMM and T2M-GPT, across all metrics.' In Table 1, the main ANT on StableMoFusion row has FID 0.099, which is worse than MMM's 0.089, so this claim is not supported for the primary configuration; only the w/o-DCFG row (FID 0.071) beats MMM on FID. Please qualify the statement.
Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on standard diffusion and attention machinery, plus several domain assumptions about the spectral properties of motion and conditional dependencies. The guidance hyperparameters are free parameters chosen by grid search. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • omega_max (maximum CFG scale) = 3.0
    Selected via grid search on validation set for best Top-1 (Appendix F).
  • omega_min (minimum CFG scale) = 1.5
    Selected via grid search on validation set for best Top-1 (Appendix F).
  • lambda (period coefficient in cosine schedule) = 1.5
    Set by hand in Section 4.1; controls decay of guidance strength.
  • unconditional generation start threshold = 0.5T
    Set by hand in Section 4.1; determines when the conditional branch is skipped.
  • learnable token count and latent dimensions in STA = not specified
    Architecture hyperparameter not reported; affects capacity of the module.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Natural motion signals have low-pass power spectral density |m0_hat(omega)|^2 = K|omega|^{-alpha} for some alpha > 0.
    Invoked in Appendix A.2 to derive that high frequencies lose SNR earlier, motivating the two-phase narrative.
  • domain assumption High- and low-frequency motion components are not conditionally independent given the noisy observation m_t.
    Used in Section 3.1.3, Eq. 6, to assert that low-frequency reconstruction reduces uncertainty in high-frequency details.
  • domain assumption The denoising network implicitly uses low-frequency structure to guide high-frequency reconstruction.
    Assumed in Section 3.1.3 to justify dropping conditional guidance in late denoising steps.
  • standard math Itô calculus properties of the simplified diffusion SDE (zero drift, additive noise)
    Used in Appendix A.1, Theorem A.1, to compute the power spectral density of the noisy signal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ANT: Adaptive Neural Temporal-Aware Text-to-Motion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q36AA4XZ

@misc{pith2026250602452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ANT: Adaptive Neural Temporal-Aware Text-to-Motion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q36AA4XZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02452}
}
read the original abstract

While diffusion models advance text-to-motion generation, their static semantic conditioning ignores temporal-frequency demands: early denoising requires structural semantics for motion foundations while later stages need localized details for text alignment. This mismatch mirrors biological morphogenesis where developmental phases demand distinct genetic programs. Inspired by epigenetic regulation governing morphological specialization, we propose **(ANT)**, an **A**daptive **N**eural **T**emporal-Aware architecture. ANT orchestrates semantic granularity through: **(i) Semantic Temporally Adaptive (STA) Module:** Automatically partitions denoising into low-frequency structural planning and high-frequency refinement via spectral analysis. **(ii) Dynamic Classifier-Free Guidance scheduling (DCFG):** Adaptively adjusts conditional to unconditional ratio enhancing efficiency while maintaining fidelity. Extensive experiments show that ANT can be applied to various baselines, significantly improving model performance, and achieving state-of-the-art semantic alignment on StableMoFusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02452 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our ANT can be seamlessly plugged into diffusion-based text-to-motion models to generate semantically rich, fine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison with SOTA models. The figure presents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overall Architecture of ANT. In part (a) Training, we introduce the Semantic Temporal Awareness (STA) module. STA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of attention weights in the UNet cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization Comparison. We compare the visual results of ANT with other three state-of-the-art methods. In both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparative performance of ANT (StableMoFusion) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Our ANT can be seamlessly plugged into diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of attention scores for a sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: illustrates the evolution of the mean 𝛼 and 𝛽 values across all denoising timesteps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CoEmoGen: Towards Semantically-Coherent and Scalable Emotional Image Content Generation

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    CoEmoGen generates emotionally faithful images from emotion categories using MLLM-crafted captions and a hierarchical LoRA module, validated on a new EmoArt dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katie Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, Roman Ring, Eliza Rutherford, Serkan Cabi, Tengda Han, Zhitao Gong, Sina Samangooei, Marianne Monteiro, Jacob Menick, Sebastian Borgeaud, Andrew Brock, Aida Nematzadeh, Sahand Sharifzadeh, Mikolaj Binkowski,...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    TEACH: Temporal Action Composition for 3D Humans

    Nikos Athanasiou, Mathis Petrovich, Michael J. Black, and Gül Varol. 2022. TEACH: Temporal Action Composition for 3D Humans. arXiv:2209.04066 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04066

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Wenshuo Chen, Haozhe Jia, Songning Lai, Keming Wu, Hongru Xiao, Lijie Hu, and Yutao Yue. 2025. Free-T2M: Frequency Enhanced Text-to-Motion Diffusion Model With Consistency Loss. arXiv:2501.18232 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2501.18232

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Wenshuo chen, Hongru Xiao, Erhang Zhang, Lijie Hu, Lei Wang, Mengyuan Liu, and Chen Chen. 2024. SATO: Stable Text-to-Motion Framework. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Melbourne VIC, Aus- tralia) (MM ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6989–6997. doi:10.1145/3664647.3681034

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Xin Chen, Biao Jiang, Wen Liu, Zilong Huang, Bin Fu, Tao Chen, Jingyi Yu, and Gang Yu. 2023. Executing your Commands via Motion Diffusion in Latent Space. arXiv:2212.04048 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04048

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Wenxun Dai, Ling-Hao Chen, Jingbo Wang, Jinpeng Liu, Bo Dai, and Yansong Tang. 2024. MotionLCM: Real-time Controllable Motion Generation via Latent Consistency Model. arXiv:2404.19759 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19759

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. arXiv:1810.04805 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Chuan Guo, Yuxuan Mu, Muhammad Gohar Javed, Sen Wang, and Li Cheng

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Chuan Guo, Shihao Zou, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, Wei Ji, Xingyu Li, and Li Cheng

  2. [10]

    Chuan Guo, Shihao Zou, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, Wei Ji, Xingyu Li, and Li Cheng. 2022. Generating Diverse and Natural 3D Human Motions From Text. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 5152–5161

    2022

  3. [11]

    Chuan Guo, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, and Li Cheng. 2022. TM2T: Stochastic and Tokenized Modeling for the Reciprocal Generation of 3D Human Motions and Texts. arXiv:2207.01696 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.01696

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chuan Guo, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, and Li Cheng. 2022. Tm2t: Stochastic and tokenized modeling for the reciprocal generation of 3d human motions and texts. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 580–597

    2022

  5. [13]

    Chuan Guo, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, Shihao Zou, Qingyao Sun, Annan Deng, Minglun Gong, and Li Cheng. 2020. Action2motion: Conditioned generation of 3d human motions. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 2021–2029

    2020

  6. [14]

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. 2017. GANs trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Lon...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network. arXiv:1503.02531 [stat.ML] https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance. arXiv:2207.12598 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.12598

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Seokhyeon Hong, Chaelin Kim, Serin Yoon, Junghyun Nam, Sihun Cha, and Junyong Noh. 2025. SALAD: Skeleton-aware Latent Diffusion for Text-driven Motion Generation and Editing. arXiv:2503.13836 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2503.13836

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Xiwei Hu, Rui Wang, Yixiao Fang, Bin Fu, Pei Cheng, and Gang Yu. 2024. ELLA: Equip Diffusion Models with LLM for Enhanced Semantic Alignment. arXiv:2403.05135 [cs.CV]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. 2017. Arbitrary Style Transfer in Real-time with Adaptive Instance Normalization. arXiv:1703.06868 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/ abs/1703.06868

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Yiheng Huang, Hui Yang, Chuanchen Luo, Yuxi Wang, Shibiao Xu, Zhaox- iang Zhang, Man Zhang, and Junran Peng. 2024. StableMoFusion: To- wards Robust and Efficient Diffusion-based Motion Generation Framework. arXiv:2405.05691 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05691

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zhihan Huang, Yuting Wei, and Yuxin Chen. 2024. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models are optimally adaptive to unknown low dimensionality. arXiv:2410.18784 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18784

    2024

  14. [22]

    Biao Jiang, Xin Chen, Wen Liu, Jingyi Yu, Gang Yu, and Tao Chen. 2023. Mo- tionGPT: Human Motion as a Foreign Language. arXiv:2306.14795 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.14795

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yihao Liao, Yiyu Fu, Ziming Cheng, and Jiangfeiyang Wang. 2024. Anima- tionGPT:An AIGC tool for generating game combat motion assets. https: //github.com/fyyakaxyy/AnimationGPT

    2024

  16. [24]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. arXiv:1711.05101 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. 2022. DPM-Solver: A Fast ODE Solver for Diffusion Probabilistic Model Sampling in Around 10 Steps. arXiv:2206.00927 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.00927

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu

  19. [27]

    Troje, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J

    Naureen Mahmood, Nima Ghorbani, Nikolaus F. Troje, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. 2019. AMASS: Archive of Motion Capture as Surface Shapes. In International Conference on Computer Vision. 5442–5451

    2019

  20. [28]

    Zichong Meng, Yiming Xie, Xiaogang Peng, Zeyu Han, and Huaizu Jiang

  21. [29]

    arXiv:2211.01095 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.01095

    DPM-Solver++: Fast Solver for Guided Sampling of Diffusion Probabilistic Models. arXiv:2211.01095 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.01095

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Black, and Gül Varol

    Mathis Petrovich, Michael J. Black, and Gül Varol. 2022. TEMOS: Generating diverse human motions from textual descriptions. arXiv:2204.14109 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.14109

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ekkasit Pinyoanuntapong, Muhammad Usama Saleem, Korrawe Karunratanakul, Pu Wang, Hongfei Xue, Chen Chen, Chuan Guo, Junli Cao, Jian Ren, and Sergey Tulyakov. 2024. ControlMM: Controllable Masked Motion Generation. arXiv:2410.10780 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10780

    2024

  24. [32]

    Ekkasit Pinyoanuntapong, Muhammad Usama Saleem, Pu Wang, Minwoo Lee, Srijan Das, and Chen Chen. 2024. BAMM: Bidirectional Autoregressive Motion Model. arXiv:2403.19435 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19435

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Black, and Gül Varol

    Mathis Petrovich, Michael J. Black, and Gül Varol. 2021. Action-Conditioned 3D Human Motion Synthesis with Transformer VAE. arXiv:2104.05670 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.05670

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Matthias Plappert, Christian Mandery, and Tamim Asfour. 2016. The KIT Motion- Language Dataset. Big Data 4, 4 (dec 2016), 236–252. doi:10.1089/big.2016.0028

    2016

  27. [35]

    Yurui Qian, Qi Cai, Yingwei Pan, Yehao Li, Ting Yao, Qibin Sun, and Tao Mei

  28. [36]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learni...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Ekkasit Pinyoanuntapong, Pu Wang, Minwoo Lee, and Chen Chen. 2024. MMM: Generative Masked Motion Model. arXiv:2312.03596 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2312.03596

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. 2022. Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models. arXiv:2010.02502 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02502

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bermano, and Daniel Cohen- Or

    Guy Tevet, Brian Gordon, Amir Hertz, Amit H. Bermano, and Daniel Cohen- Or. 2022. MotionCLIP: Exposing Human Motion Generation to CLIP Space. arXiv:2203.08063 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08063

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    arXiv:2403.17870 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17870

    Boosting Diffusion Models with Moving Average Sampling in Frequency Domain. arXiv:2403.17870 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17870

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Guy Tevet, Sigal Raab, Brian Gordon, Yonatan Shafir, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Amit H Bermano. 2022. Human motion diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14916 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2023. Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer. arXiv:1910.10683 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10683

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ye Yuan, Jiaming Song, Umar Iqbal, Arash Vahdat, and Jan Kautz. 2023. PhysDiff: Physics-Guided Human Motion Diffusion Model. arXiv:2212.02500 [cs.CV] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2212.02500

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ye Yuan, Jiaming Song, Umar Iqbal, Arash Vahdat, and Jan Kautz. 2023. Physdiff: Physics-guided human motion diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 16010–16021

    2023

  37. [46]

    Jianrong Zhang, Yangsong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Shaoli Huang, Yong Zhang, Hongwei Zhao, Hongtao Lu, and Xi Shen. 2023. T2M-GPT: Generating Human Motion from Textual Descriptions with Discrete Representations. arXiv:2301.06052 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06052 ANT: Adaptiv...

    2023 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Jun- yang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, Chenliang Li, Yuanhong Xu, Hehong Chen, Junfeng Tian, Qi Qian, Ji Zhang, Fei Huang, and Jingren Zhou

  39. [48]

    arXiv:2304.14178 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14178

    mPLUG-Owl: Modularization Empowers Large Language Models with Multimodality. arXiv:2304.14178 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14178

    arXiv

  40. [49]

    a person that turns around and runs and skates turns around and then does a cartwheel

    Mingyuan Zhang, Xinying Guo, Liang Pan, Zhongang Cai, Fangzhou Hong, Huirong Li, Lei Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2023. Remodiffuse: Retrieval-augmented mo- tion diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 364–373. MM ’25, October 27–31...

    2023

  41. [51]

    Beichen Zhang, Pan Zhang, Xiaoyi Dong, Yuhang Zang, and Jiaqi Wang. 2024. Long-CLIP: Unlocking the Long-Text Capability of CLIP. arXiv:2403.15378 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15378

    2024 arXiv

  42. [53]

    Mingyuan Zhang, Zhongang Cai, Liang Pan, Fangzhou Hong, Xinying Guo, Lei Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. MotionDiffuse: Text-Driven Human Motion Generation with Diffusion Model. arXiv:2208.15001 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2208.15001

    2022 arXiv

  43. [54]

    Mingyuan Zhang, Zhongang Cai, Liang Pan, Fangzhou Hong, Xinying Guo, Lei Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2024. Motiondiffuse: Text-driven human motion genera- tion with diffusion model. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 46, 6 (2024), 4115–4128

    2024

  44. [2022]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Generating diverse and natural 3d human motions from text. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 5152– 5161

  45. [2023]

    MoMask: Generative Masked Modeling of 3D Human Motions. (2023). arXiv:2312.00063 [cs.CV]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [2024]

    arXiv:2411.16575 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16575

    Rethinking Diffusion for Text-Driven Human Motion Generation. arXiv:2411.16575 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16575

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.