PoseLLM: Enhancing Language-Guided Human Pose Estimation with MLP Alignment

Dewen Zhang; Hayaru Shouno; Tahir Hussain; Wangpeng An

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

PoseLLM: Enhancing Language-Guided Human Pose Estimation with MLP Alignment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing a linear projector with a two-layer MLP raises language-guided pose estimation from 77.4 to 77.8 AP on COCO while keeping zero-shot transfer.

desk verdict A clean, honest incremental paper: the MLP connector swap is real and reproducible-ish, but the +0.4 AP claim is not yet causally established because the baseline is a published number, not a matched retrain. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09139 v1 pith:Z2KZ3NSH submitted 2025-07-12 cs.CV

Dewen Zhang , Tahir Hussain , Wangpeng An , Hayaru Shouno This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords humanposeestimationkeypointlocalizationvision-languagemodelsMLPconnectorGELUactivationzero-shotgeneralizationLLM-based

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

PoseLLM claims that a nonlinear vision-language connector is enough to make an LLM-based pose estimator more precise. The paper replaces LocLLM's single linear projection between the vision encoder and Vicuna-7B with a lightweight two-layer MLP with GELU activation. Trained only on COCO keypoint data, it reports 77.8 AP on the COCO validation set, 0.4 AP above LocLLM, while retaining comparable zero-shot results on Human-Art and MPII. If correct, the result points to the connector rather than model scale as the bottleneck in language-guided keypoint localization.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the nonlinear vision-language connector, a two-layer MLP with GELU nonlinearity: $Z = \mathrm{GELU}(I W_1 + b_1)$, $V = Z W_2 + b_2$, where $I$ is the sequence of 1024-dimensional patch features from DINOv2 and $V$ is the 4096-dimensional token sequence fed to the LLM. It replaces LocLLM's single linear projector and is the only architectural change evaluated. The MLP is fully trained while the vision encoder and LLM are adapted with LoRA, so the experiment isolates the effect of connector nonlinearity.

What would settle it

Train the exact PoseLLM setup (12 epochs, batch size 32, learning rate 5e-4, LoRA on DINOv2 and Vicuna, 224x224 input) with the connector replaced by a single linear layer and run several seeds; if the linear version matches or exceeds 77.8 AP, the MLP is not the causal factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the connector between the visual encoder and the language model is a bottleneck for LLM-based keypoint localization, and that a nonlinear connector removes that bottleneck. Concretely, PoseLLM replaces LocLLM's single linear projection with a two-layer MLP using GELU activation, mapping DINOv2 patch features into Vicuna-7B's input space. On the COCO validation set, the paper reports 77.8 AP versus LocLLM's 77.4 AP, with similar or slightly better cross-dataset numbers on Human-Art and MPII under zero-shot evaluation. The authors present this as establishing a stronger baseline for language-guided pose estimation and as evidence that lightweight nonlinear alignment helps fine-grained spatial tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on comparing PoseLLM's 77.8 AP with LocLLM's published 77.4 AP, assuming both used the same training schedule, resolution, LoRA setup, and evaluation protocol, because the paper does not retrain the linear-projection baseline under its own configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

PoseLLM becomes the new numerical baseline for LLM-based pose estimation on COCO, ahead of the language-based methods in Table 2.
The parity of cross-dataset scores on Human-Art and MPII indicates that the added nonlinearity does not come at the cost of zero-shot flexibility.
The improvement is achieved without scaling the LLM or the training data, pointing to connector design as a low-cost axis for spatial accuracy.
Because the connector adds only a few parameters, the same replacement can be applied to other LocLLM-style models to test whether the gain transfers.

Reading between the lines

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

An immediate test is per-keypoint AP: if nonlinearity matters, the gain should concentrate on joints with strong spatial-textual ambiguity such as elbow, wrist, and ankle rather than nose and eyes, and the paper does not report that breakdown.
The same MLP connector could be dropped into other VLM spatial tasks such as object keypoint detection or dense correspondence, where the linear-projector bottleneck is likely similar; the paper does not test these tasks.
Under the assumption that the +0.4 AP is causal, wider or deeper connectors might buy further precision, but saturation is plausible because the MLP is trained from scratch while the backbones are LoRA-constrained.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: this is a modest but legitimate incremental paper. The novel bit is narrow—replacing LocLLM's linear projector with a two-layer MLP+GELU for LLM-based keypoint localization—and it is honestly positioned as such. The paper clearly cites LLaVA-1.5 and EarthDial as the source of the MLP-connector idea, and it correctly notes that those works target semantic reasoning, not coordinate regression. The writing is clean, the architecture description is precise, and the authors state their training recipe (12 epochs, batch 32, lr 5e-4, LoRA on both encoder and LLM) and provide code. That is real evidence and deserves credit.

Where it goes soft is exactly where the reader's stress-test lands: the central claim—that the MLP causes the +0.4 AP gain—is not actually tested. Table 2 compares PoseLLM against LocLLM's published checkpoint, not against a linear projector retrained under PoseLLM's own recipe. The gap is 0.4 AP on COCO val, and the cross-dataset differences in Table 3 are at most 0.1 AP. With a single run and no seed variance, that gap is within the noise floor for COCO val. The paper would be much stronger with a matched ablation: same data, same LoRA config, same schedule, only the projector changed, plus error bars over at least three seeds. As written, the causal attribution to nonlinearity is plausible but not established.

Other concerns are minor. The "first LLM-based pose estimation framework with MLP connector" novelty claim is accurate within the cited literature, though it is a small delta. The self-citations (refs 25, 26) are related prior work and not load-bearing. No circularity issues—this is an empirical comparison, not a fitted derivation. The qualitative figure is fine but adds little.

Who is this for? Practitioners working on language-guided pose estimation or VLM spatial reasoning tasks. They will find a clean baseline and a clear recipe. A serious referee should see this because the core idea is testable and the paper is honest—it just needs the matched ablation and variance reporting to back its headline claim. I'd accept it for peer review with a request for that experiment.

Recommendation: send it out, but push for the controlled linear-vs-MLP ablation before acceptance.

Best, [You]

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PoseLLM, a language-guided human pose estimation model that replaces LocLLM's linear vision-language projector with a two-layer MLP with GELU activation. The model is trained on COCO only and reports 77.8 AP on the COCO validation set, out-performing LocLLM by 0.4 AP, while claiming comparable zero-shot generalization on Human-Art and MPII. The method section describes the architecture (DINOv2 ViT-L/14 encoder, Vicuna-7B LLM, LoRA fine-tuning, two-layer MLP connector), and the experiments compare against heatmap-based, regression-based, and language-based baselines on COCO, Human-Art, and MPII. The central claim is that the nonlinear connector improves localization accuracy without sacrificing cross-dataset generalization.

Significance. If the claimed causal effect were established, the paper would provide a simple, reproducible architectural change—replacing a linear projector with a two-layer MLP—that improves an existing LLM-based keypoint localization baseline. The idea is plausible and consistent with practices in general vision-language models such as LLaVA-1.5. A strength is that the code is promised to be released, which would facilitate verification. However, the empirical evidence as presented is insufficient to support the central attribution: the LocLLM comparison is not a controlled ablation, no variance is reported, and the reported gains (0.4 AP on COCO, at most 0.2 on cross-dataset metrics) are small relative to typical run-to-run and protocol variation. The paper's contribution would be more convincing if the authors retrained a linear-projector baseline under their exact training recipe and reported multiple seeds.

major comments (3)

[§4.2, Table 2] The +0.4 AP improvement over LocLLM is not a controlled comparison. Table 2's caption states that all results were obtained using official model weights, so the LocLLM row comes from a model trained with a different pipeline, not under PoseLLM's training configuration (12 epochs, batch size 32, learning rate 5e-4, LoRA on DINOv2 and Vicuna-7B, 224×224 inputs). Any of these differences—LoRA rank and alpha, learning schedule, resolution, or evaluation details—could account for the gap. To support the claim that the nonlinear connector causes the improvement, the authors must retrain a linear-projector baseline under the identical PoseLLM recipe and compare it against the MLP connector under identical conditions.
[§4.2, Tables 2 and 3] Only a single run is reported, with no error bars or seed-to-seed variance. The COCO improvement is 0.4 AP and the cross-dataset differences in Table 3 are at most about 0.1–0.2, which is within plausible variation for a single training run on COCO val. Please report results across at least three seeds (mean and standard deviation) and state whether the differences are statistically distinguishable. Without this, the central causal claim is not yet established.
[§4.2, Table 3] The text states that PoseLLM shows 'slight improvements' on Human-Art and MPII, but several columns in Table 3 show decreases: Human-Art AP50 drops from 88.6 to 87.7, and MPII Elbow drops from 98.2 to 98.1. Given the absence of variance estimates, the data support only parity with LocLLM on cross-dataset generalization, not improvement. Please adjust the wording to match the numbers and provide matched comparisons before claiming that generalization is 'maintained' or 'slightly improved.'

minor comments (4)

[§2.1] The symbol for V* appears as 'V ∗ [20]' with a formatting artifact; it should be rendered as 'V*' consistently.
[§3.2] The section heading contains a typo: 'T ext Encoding' should be 'Text Encoding'.
[Figure 1] The figure text contains 'Vison-Language Connector' twice; this should be 'Vision-Language Connector'.
[Table 3] The MPII column labeled 'Mean0.1' should be labeled 'PCKh@0.1' for clarity and consistency with the evaluation metrics described in Section 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the MLP-alignment claim is an empirical comparison, not a fit-derived prediction; the only self-citations are non-load-bearing context.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain in which a predicted quantity is identical to an input by construction. Its central claim is an empirical comparison: replacing LocLLM's linear projector with the two-layer MLP of Eqs. (3)-(4) and training on COCO yields 77.8 AP versus 77.4 AP for LocLLM (Table 2). The LocLLM row is obtained from official model weights, so the comparison is not a matched ablation under PoseLLM's exact training recipe; that is a potential threat to causal attribution, but it is an experimental-design concern, not a case where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or where the outcome is entailed by definition. The paper does not fit anything to the COCO validation metric and then report that same fitted quantity as a prediction. The only self-citations (refs. 25 and 26) appear in the related-work discussion of keypoint-integrated instruction data and are not load-bearing evidence for PoseLLM's reported results. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or external result is imported from the authors' own prior papers to force the MLP choice. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation-to-equation reduction or a fitted-input-called-prediction mechanism, and an honest non-finding is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The claim is empirical and rests on assumptions about feature informativeness, prompt identity, and training comparability. The free parameters are training hyperparameters chosen by hand; they are documented here because they affect the central comparison.

free parameters (3)

Training epochs = 12
Chosen by hand; no justification is given and it may differ from LocLLM's schedule, which affects the comparability of the reported improvement.
Learning rate = 5e-4
Chosen by hand; the paper does not report a search or compare with LocLLM's learning rate, leaving a possible confound.
LoRA rank and alpha = not reported
The paper states LoRA is used on both the vision encoder and the LLM but does not give rank or alpha; these choices affect the result and are unavailable for replication.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption DINOv2 patch features contain sufficient spatial detail for keypoint localization through a two-layer MLP.
Section 3.3 relies on this to justify the connector; no analysis of feature information content is provided.
domain assumption The keypoint descriptions and prompt format used here are identical to LocLLM's.
Section 3.2 asserts this without supplying the prompt file or a diff; the fairness of the comparison depends on it.
domain assumption Cross-entropy training on coordinate tokens with teacher forcing is a valid supervisory signal for pose regression.
Section 3.4 adopts this from LocLLM without independent validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PoseLLM: Enhancing Language-Guided Human Pose Estimation with MLP Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2KZ3NSH

@misc{pith2026250709139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PoseLLM: Enhancing Language-Guided Human Pose Estimation with MLP Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2KZ3NSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09139}
}

read the original abstract

Human pose estimation traditionally relies on architectures that encode keypoint priors, limiting their generalization to novel poses or unseen keypoints. Recent language-guided approaches like LocLLM reformulate keypoint localization as a vision-language task, enabling zero-shot generalization through textual descriptions. However, LocLLM's linear projector fails to capture complex spatial-textual interactions critical for high-precision localization. To address this, we propose PoseLLM, the first Large Language Model (LLM)-based pose estimation framework that replaces the linear projector with a nonlinear MLP vision-language connector. This lightweight two-layer MLP with GELU activation enables hierarchical cross-modal feature transformation, enhancing the fusion of visual patches and textual keypoint descriptions. Trained exclusively on COCO data, PoseLLM achieves 77.8 AP on the COCO validation set, outperforming LocLLM by +0.4 AP, while maintaining strong zero-shot generalization on Human-Art and MPII. Our work demonstrates that a simple yet powerful nonlinear connector significantly boosts localization accuracy without sacrificing generalization, advancing the state-of-the-art in language-guided pose estimation. Code is available at https://github.com/Ody-trek/PoseLLM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09139 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Architecture of PoseLLM. 3.1 Vision Encoder We use the DINOv2 ViT-L/14 [15] as the image encoder. Given an input image, the encoder outputs a sequence of patch-level image features: I ∈ R B×N×1024 , (1) where B is the batch size, N is the number of visual tokens, and 1024 is the feature dimension of each token. 3.2 Text Encoding The textual instruction provided to the model consists of two parts: a keypoint descript… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Qualitative results of PoseLLM. Each example displays the input image with the predicted key [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23716–23736 (2022)

Alayrac, J.B., Donahue, J., Luc, P., Miech, A., Barr, I., Hasson, Y., Lenc, K., Mensch, A., Millican, K., Reynolds, M., et al.: Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23716–23736 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Andriluka, M., Pishchulin, L., Gehler, P., Schiele, B.: 2d human pose estimation: New benchmark and state of the art analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3686–3693 (2014)

work page 2014
[3]

Frontiers in Computer Science5, 1153160 (2023)

Avogaro, A., Cunico, F., Rosenhahn, B., Setti, F.: Markerless human pose estimation for biomedical appli- cations: a survey. Frontiers in Computer Science5, 1153160 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Chen, J., Hu, J., Wang, G., Jiang, Z., Zhou, T., Chen, Z., Lv, C.: Taoavatar: Real-time lifelike full-body talking avatars for augmented reality via 3d gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 10723–10734 (2025)

work page 2025
[5]

Chiang, W.L., Li, Z., Lin, Z., Sheng, Y., Wu, Z., Zhang, H., Zheng, L., Zhuang, S., Zhuang, Y., Gonzalez, J.E., Stoica, I., Xing, E.P.: Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality (March 2023), https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/

work page 2023
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016)

Hendrycks, D., Gimpel, K.: Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016)

arXiv 2016
[7]

ICLR1(2), 3 (2022)

Hu, E.J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W.: Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR1(2), 3 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Ju, X., Zeng, A., Wang, J., Xu, Q., Zhang, L.: Human-art: A versatile human-centric dataset bridging natural and artificial scenes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 618–629 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 27 references

[9]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

Li, J., Bian, S., Zeng, A., Wang, C., Pang, B., Liu, W., Lu, C.: Human pose regression with residual log- likelihood estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 11025–11034 (2021)

2021
[10]

In: International conference on machine learning

Li, J., Li, D., Savarese, S., Hoi, S.: Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 19730–19742. PMLR (2023) 7

2023
[11]

In: European conference on computer vision

Li, Y., Yang, S., Liu, P., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Yang, W., Xia, S.T.: Simcc: A simple coordinate classification perspective for human pose estimation. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 89–106. Springer (2022)

2022
[12]

In: Computer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 13

Lin, T.Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: Computer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 13. pp. 740–755....

2014
[13]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y., Lee, Y.J.: Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 26296–26306 (2024)

2024
[14]

Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 34892–34916 (2023)

Liu, H., Li, C., Wu, Q., Lee, Y.J.: Visual instruction tuning. Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 34892–34916 (2023)

2023
[15]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 (2023)

Oquab, M., Darcet, T., Moutakanni, T., Vo, H., Szafraniec, M., Khalidov, V., Fernandez, P., Haziza, D., Massa, F., El-Nouby, A., et al.: Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[16]

In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Soni, S., Dudhane, A., Debary, H., Fiaz, M., Munir, M.A., Danish, M.S., Fraccaro, P., Watson, C.D., Klein, L.J., Khan, F.S., et al.: Earthdial: Turning multi-sensory earth observations to interactive dialogues. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Con...

2025
[17]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Sun, K., Xiao, B., Liu, D., Wang, J.: Deep high-resolution representation learning for human pose estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 5693–5703 (2019)

2019
[18]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Toshev, A., Szegedy, C.: Deeppose: Human pose estimation via deep neural networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1653–1660 (2014)

2014
[19]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2024)

Wang, D., Xuan, S., Zhang, S.: Locllm: Exploiting generalizable human keypoint localization via large lan- guage model. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2024)

2024
[20]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Wu, P., Xie, S.: V?: Guided visual search as a core mechanism in multimodal llms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 13084–13094 (2024)

2024
[21]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10302 (2024)

Wu, Z., Chen, X., Pan, Z., Liu, X., Liu, W., Dai, D., Gao, H., Ma, Y., Wu, C., Wang, B., et al.: Deepseek- vl2: Mixture-of-experts vision-language models for advanced multimodal understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10302 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[22]

Alexandria Engineering Journal 109, 144–156 (2024)

Xi, X., Zhang, C., Jia, W., Jiang, R.: Enhancing human pose estimation in sports training: Integrating spa- tiotemporal transformer for improved accuracy and real-time performance. Alexandria Engineering Journal 109, 144–156 (2024)

2024
[23]

In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

Xiao, B., Wu, H., Wei, Y.: Simple baselines for human pose estimation and tracking. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 466–481 (2018)

2018
[24]

Advances in neural information processing systems35, 38571–38584 (2022)

Xu,Y.,Zhang,J.,Zhang,Q.,Tao,D.:Vitpose:Simplevisiontransformerbaselinesforhumanposeestimation. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 38571–38584 (2022)

2022
[25]

Zhang, D., An, W., Shouno, H.: Keypoint-integrated instruction-following data generation for enhanced human pose and action understanding in multimodal models (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09306

2025 arXiv
[26]

Zhang, D., Hussain, T., An, W., Shouno, H.: Llava-pose: Enhancing human pose and action understanding via keypoint-integrated instruction tuning (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21317

2025 arXiv
[27]

ACM Computing Surveys56(1), 1–37 (2023) 8

Zheng, C., Wu, W., Chen, C., Yang, T., Zhu, S., Shen, J., Kehtarnavaz, N., Shah, M.: Deep learning-based human pose estimation: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys56(1), 1–37 (2023) 8

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23716–23736 (2022)

Alayrac, J.B., Donahue, J., Luc, P., Miech, A., Barr, I., Hasson, Y., Lenc, K., Mensch, A., Millican, K., Reynolds, M., et al.: Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 35, 23716–23736 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Andriluka, M., Pishchulin, L., Gehler, P., Schiele, B.: 2d human pose estimation: New benchmark and state of the art analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3686–3693 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Frontiers in Computer Science5, 1153160 (2023)

Avogaro, A., Cunico, F., Rosenhahn, B., Setti, F.: Markerless human pose estimation for biomedical appli- cations: a survey. Frontiers in Computer Science5, 1153160 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Chen, J., Hu, J., Wang, G., Jiang, Z., Zhou, T., Chen, Z., Lv, C.: Taoavatar: Real-time lifelike full-body talking avatars for augmented reality via 3d gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 10723–10734 (2025)

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Chiang, W.L., Li, Z., Lin, Z., Sheng, Y., Wu, Z., Zhang, H., Zheng, L., Zhuang, S., Zhuang, Y., Gonzalez, J.E., Stoica, I., Xing, E.P.: Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90%* chatgpt quality (March 2023), https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/

work page 2023

[6] [6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016)

Hendrycks, D., Gimpel, K.: Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016)

arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

ICLR1(2), 3 (2022)

Hu, E.J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W.: Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR1(2), 3 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Ju, X., Zeng, A., Wang, J., Xu, Q., Zhang, L.: Human-art: A versatile human-centric dataset bridging natural and artificial scenes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 618–629 (2023)

work page 2023