Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Express4D: Expressive, Friendly, and Extensible 4D Facial Motion Generation Benchmark

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Express4D shows that phone-captured ARKit blendshape motion paired with LLM-written prompts can support meaningful text-to-facial-expression generation.

desk verdict A useful, extensible dataset for text-driven facial motion, with an evaluation section that overclaims many-to-many mapping; deserves peer review after tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12438 v1 pith:ASZ7DIAG submitted 2025-08-17 cs.GR cs.CV

Yaron Aloni , Rotem Shalev-Arkushin , Yonatan Shafir , Guy Tevet , Ohad Fried , Amit Haim Bermano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.CV
keywords facialmotiongenerationtext-to-expressionARKitblendshapesdatasetbenchmarkdiffusionmodelsVQ-VAELLM-generatedprompts3Danimation
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 fine-grained, free-text control of facial animation—smiling softly, rolling eyes, laughing—can be learned from a dataset that anyone could contribute to with a modern phone. To demonstrate this, the authors built Express4D: 1205 dynamic facial motion sequences performed by 18 people, each paired with a short natural-language instruction generated by an LLM and performed by the actor. The motion is recorded as ARKit blendshape coefficients using the phone's depth camera, avoiding multi-camera lab setups and keeping the data compatible with standard animation rigs. From this data, two text-to-motion models were trained—one diffusion-based, one VQ-based—and both produced plausible facial motions that align with the text, along with evaluation metrics adapted from human-motion generation. The paper's central contention is that this resource supports a benchmark for text-driven facial expression generation and captures the many-to-many relationship between language and expression.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the pair (free-text prompt, ARKit blendshape sequence). Each sequence is a 61-dimensional vector per frame at 60 Hz—52 facial-expression coefficients plus head and eye rotations—captured by a phone app that uses the depth camera. This representation is the named central object: ARKit blendshapes are a fixed, semantically named set of expression coefficients that animation rigs understand, so captured motion can be retargeted to different characters and inserted into animation pipelines. The second piece of machinery is the training and evaluation setup adapted from human-motion generation: a joint text-motion feature extractor that maps similar text and motion to nearby vectors, letting FID, R-precision, diversity, and multimodal distance quantify generation quality and text-motion alignment.

What would settle it

Show a random sample of the dataset's text-motion pairs to independent raters who know no collection details and ask each rater whether the motion matches the text; if a substantial fraction of pairs are judged mismatched, the semantic alignment the benchmark depends on is not established. Alternatively, compute text-to-motion retrieval accuracy on held-out pairs: if the correct text is identified from the generated motion no more often than chance (about 3 percent in a batch of 32), the learned alignment is not meaningful.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, Express4D is the first facial-motion dataset in which the expressions are described in free language and intentionally enacted to match those descriptions, rather than automatically captioned from video or limited to coarse emotion labels. The authors' core discovery is that a commodity depth camera and an LLM's prompt-writing are sufficient to produce a training resource from which text-to-expression models learn meaningful correspondences: the trained baselines generate realistic, prompt-aligned motion and preserve variation across performances, indicating that the same prompt can map to multiple valid motions (and multiple texts to similar motions). The paper supports this with adapted text-to-motion metrics—FID, R-precision, diversity, and multimodal distance—computed in a learned text-motion embedding space.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each recorded performance actually enacts its text prompt; the paper relies on the actor following the instruction and on manual inspection, without independent ratings, so systematic misunderstandings or simplified performances would silently misalign the text-motion pairs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Facial motion generation can be benchmarked on data collected with consumer phones, lowering the cost and complexity of building such datasets.
  • Because ARKit blendshapes are already used by animation tools, generated motion can be applied directly to virtual characters without format conversion.
  • Free-text prompts support nuanced and compound expressions—such as 'transitioning from sadness to laughter'—that categorical emotion labels cannot express.
  • The released interface lets the community grow the dataset, so coverage of identities, ages, and hard-to-perform expressions can improve over time.
  • A standard set of automatic metrics transfers from body-motion to facial-motion evaluation, giving future methods a common comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate next test the paper does not run is human evaluation: asking viewers whether each generated clip matches its prompt would test whether the automatic alignment metrics reflect perceived fidelity.
  • If the protocol scales as described, the same recipe—LLM-generated prompts plus phone-depth capture—could extend to other expressive modalities, such as hand gestures or sign-language non-manual markers; this is an extrapolation, not a paper claim.
  • The reported many-to-many mapping is inferred from aggregate metrics; a per-prompt diversity measurement, generating multiple motions for the same text, would make that claim directly testable.
  • The dataset's prompt distribution depends on the LLM's vocabulary and the iterative refinement choices; future versions could add a coverage audit against a broader lexicon of facial actions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Express4D introduces a new facial-motion dataset and benchmark: 1,205 ARKit blendshape sequences (61 coefficients per frame at 60 Hz) from 18 participants, each paired with an LLM-generated English text prompt, captured with an iPhone TrueDepth camera via the Live Link Face app. The paper describes the collection protocol (LLM prompt generation, self-recording, a crowd-sourcing web UI), a FACS-based distribution analysis, and two baseline text-to-facial-motion models (MDM and T2M-GPT adaptations), evaluated with HumanML3D-style metrics (FID, R-precision, diversity, multimodal distance). The central claim is that models trained on Express4D learn meaningful text-to-expression generation and capture the many-to-many mapping between text and facial motion.

Significance. Validated, Express4D would be a useful community resource: it addresses a real gap in free-text, non-speech facial motion data, uses a riggable industry-standard representation, requires only commodity hardware, and ships with dataset, code, checkpoints, and an extensible web UI. The FACS-based analysis and qualitative retargeting examples are valuable, and the paper is appropriately candid about some limitations (non-professional actors, missing hard expressions, generation failure cases). However, the central claim is currently supported mainly by qualitative examples and by metrics computed with a feature extractor trained on the same data. No human evaluation of prompt-motion alignment, no error bars or significance tests, and no external validation are reported. The significance is therefore conditional on additional evaluation evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.2–3.1.3, Abstract] The central claim that Express4D supports many-to-many text-to-motion mapping presupposes that each recorded motion is semantically aligned with its text prompt. The paper asserts this from the collection protocol (participants performed the prompt and sequences were manually inspected), but no independent verification is reported: no human raters, no inter-annotator agreement, no video-based re-verification, and no external cross-modal retrieval. The limitation paragraph in §4.3 concedes that non-professional actors may omit hard expressions, which makes this more than a purely formal concern. I request a concrete validation on a random subset (e.g., 100 pairs rated by at least two annotators for semantic match) or an equivalent external alignment test, with agreement reported; without it, the many-to-many claim is not established.
  2. [§4.1, Table 2] The quantitative evidence for text-motion alignment (R-precision, multimodal distance) and realism (FID) is computed with a feature extractor trained on the Express4D train split. Such an evaluator can learn dataset-specific shortcuts (e.g., prompt-template statistics, actor-specific blendshape offsets) and therefore does not by itself demonstrate that an external observer would judge generated motion as matching the prompt. In addition, Table 2 reports single point estimates without error bars or significance tests, so the claimed differences between MDM and T2M-GPT (e.g., FID 1.705 vs 1.897) may be within noise. I recommend reporting multi-seed means with confidence intervals, and at least one independent alignment check (human evaluation or a held-out/pre-trained evaluator) before asserting that the baselines capture the mapping.
  3. [§4.2, Table 2] The paper trains on 704 sequences out of 1,205 but does not specify the test-set size, the split criterion, or whether the split is by participant, by prompt, or by sequence. If the same participants or near-duplicate prompts appear in both training and test, FID and R-precision can reflect memorization rather than generalization, which is a load-bearing issue for a benchmark. Please report the exact split, the test sequence count, the participant-overlap policy, and per-participant or per-prompt variance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The sentence 'In thisis section, we start by describing ourthe evaluation metrics' contains typographical errors and should read 'In this section, we describe the evaluation metrics'.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains 'faciel expressions' and 'in compatible to'; these should be corrected to 'facial expressions' and 'compatible with'.
  3. [Table 1] The header symbols '✓–' are ambiguous; the table should explicitly define all symbols, and the column heading 'Expressionsemotion' appears to be a typo.
  4. [§3.2] The text says each frame is a 61-dimensional vector with 52 facial coefficients, 3 head rotations, and 6 eye rotations, but ARKit's standard output for eye information is not fully described; please clarify the exact composition of the 61 coefficients and the naming convention for the eye values.
  5. [Eq. (1)] The FID formula has typesetting problems in the trace term, making it difficult to verify that the standard Fréchet distance is intended; please fix the equation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the benchmark evaluation is in-distribution but not definitionally forced.

full rationale

This paper is a dataset and benchmark contribution; its derivation chain is empirical rather than analytic. The central claim—that models trained on Express4D learn text-to-expression mapping—is supported by held-out generation results (Table 2) and qualitative examples. The evaluation uses a feature extractor trained on Express4D (Sec. 4.1), following the standard HumanML3D protocol. This makes the metrics self-referential in the sense that the embedding space is learned from the same data distribution, but it does not make the evaluation equivalent to the training objective: the generated motions are new samples not used to fit the extractor, and R-precision/FID are computed on a test split. No parameter fitted to the data is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no equation reduces to its own input. The unverified text-motion alignment during collection (Sec. 3.1.2) is a data-quality limitation the authors partially acknowledge by suggesting future VLM-based validation (Sec. 6); it is an assumption about the data, not a circular derivation. Self-citations to MDM [36] are uses of the authors' own baseline model, which is normal and not load-bearing for the dataset claim. Overall, the paper's contributions stand on the collected data and standard benchmark practice rather than on a circular argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper makes no first-principles derivation. Its central claim rests on dataset collection assumptions: that ARKit tracking is accurate, that prompts are performed faithfully, and that inherited text-to-motion metrics transfer to faces. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ARKit/TrueDepth blendshape estimates accurately capture the actor's facial motion.
    The paper uses iPhone Live Link Face as ground truth without independent validation or error analysis (Section 3.1.2).
  • domain assumption LLM-generated prompts are diverse, performable, and cover the space of facial expressions.
    In-context learning prompts to ChatGPT-4o are used to generate instructions, with manual inspection only (Section 3.1.1).
  • domain assumption Participants' performances faithfully match the text prompts.
    No automated or manual verification of semantic alignment is described; this is the weakest assumption (Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3).
  • domain assumption HumanML3D metrics (FID, R-precision, diversity, MModDist) are valid for facial motion evaluation.
    The metrics are inherited from human motion, but facial motion may have different perceptual axes (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Express4D: Expressive, Friendly, and Extensible 4D Facial Motion Generation Benchmark." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASZ7DIAG

@misc{pith2026250812438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Express4D: Expressive, Friendly, and Extensible 4D Facial Motion Generation Benchmark},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASZ7DIAG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12438}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic facial expression generation from natural language is a crucial task in Computer Graphics, with applications in Animation, Virtual Avatars, and Human-Computer Interaction. However, current generative models suffer from datasets that are either speech-driven or limited to coarse emotion labels, lacking the nuanced, expressive descriptions needed for fine-grained control, and were captured using elaborate and expensive equipment. We hence present a new dataset of facial motion sequences featuring nuanced performances and semantic annotation. The data is easily collected using commodity equipment and LLM-generated natural language instructions, in the popular ARKit blendshape format. This provides riggable motion, rich with expressive performances and labels. We accordingly train two baseline models, and evaluate their performance for future benchmarking. Using our Express4D dataset, the trained models can learn meaningful text-to-expression motion generation and capture the many-to-many mapping of the two modalities. The dataset, code, and video examples are available on our webpage: https://jaron1990.github.io/Express4D/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Right) We construct our dataset, Express4D, by prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our dataset contains diverse facial motions. Some mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The blendshapes representation of our data enables easy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data collection overview. We start by querying GPT to output text prompts of faciel expressions. Then, a person captures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dataset analysis: (a) t-SNE projection of the texts in our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We provide a WebUI for crowd-sourced data collection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Generation results of MDM and T2M-GPT trained over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Generation limitations. Models struggle to generate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://www.metahuman.com/ en-US?lang=en-US

    MetaHuman — High-Fidelity Digital Humans Made Easy — metahuman.com. https://www.metahuman.com/ en-US?lang=en-US. [Accessed 30-06-2025]. 1, 3

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ah- mad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 ,

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Detecting deep-fake videos from phoneme- viseme mismatches

    Shruti Agarwal, Hany Farid, Ohad Fried, and Maneesh Agrawala. Detecting deep-fake videos from phoneme- viseme mismatches. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition work- shops, pages 660–661, 2020. 8

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Claude 3

    Anthropic. Claude 3. https://www.anthropic. com/index/claude-3 , 2024. Accessed: 2025-08-04. 6

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    ARKit — apple developer documen- tation

    Apple Inc. ARKit — apple developer documen- tation. https : / / developer . apple . com / documentation/arkit, 2025. Accessed: 2025-06-10. 2, 4

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Live link face

    Apple Inc. Live link face. https://apps.apple.com/ us/app/live- link- face/id1495370834 , 2025. Accessed: 2025-06-10. 2, 4

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    A morphable model for the synthesis of 3d faces

    V Blanz and T Vetter. A morphable model for the synthesis of 3d faces. In 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graph- ics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH 1999) , pages 187–194. ACM Press, 1999. 2

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dock- horn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 1

    2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Timo Bolkart, Tianye Li, and Michael J. Black. Instant multi-view head capture through learnable registration. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 768–779, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2023

  2. [10]

    Lan- guage models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Sub- biah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakan- tan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Lan- guage models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020. 3

    1901

  3. [11]

    4dfab: A large scale 4d database for facial ex- pression analysis and biometric applications

    Shiyang Cheng, Irene Kotsia, Maja Pantic, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. 4dfab: A large scale 4d database for facial ex- pression analysis and biometric applications. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018. 1, 2, 4

    2018

  4. [12]

    A facs valid 3d dynamic action unit database with applications to 3d dynamic morphable facial modeling

    Darren Cosker, Eva Krumhuber, and Adrian Hilton. A facs valid 3d dynamic action unit database with applications to 3d dynamic morphable facial modeling. In 2011 international conference on computer vision , pages 2296–2303. IEEE,

    2011

  5. [13]

    Capture, learning, and synthesis of 3D speaking styles

    Daniel Cudeiro, Timo Bolkart, Cassidy Laidlaw, Anurag Ranjan, and Michael Black. Capture, learning, and synthesis of 3D speaking styles. In Proceedings IEEE Conf. on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10101– 10111, 2019. 1, 2, 4

    2019

  6. [14]

    3d morphable face models—past, present, and future

    Bernhard Egger, William AP Smith, Ayush Tewari, Stefanie Wuhrer, Michael Zollhoefer, Thabo Beeler, Florian Bernard, Timo Bolkart, Adam Kortylewski, Sami Romdhani, et al. 3d morphable face models—past, present, and future. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 39(5):1–38, 2020. 2

    2020

  7. [15]

    Facial action coding system

    Paul Ekman and Wallace V Friesen. Facial action coding system. Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior,

  8. [16]

    Faceformer: Speech-driven 3d facial anima- tion with transformers

    Yingruo Fan, Zhaojiang Lin, Jun Saito, Wenping Wang, and Taku Komura. Faceformer: Speech-driven 3d facial anima- tion with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 18770–18780, 2022. 2

    2022

  9. [17]

    Text-based editing of talking-head video

    Ohad Fried, Ayush Tewari, Michael Zollh¨ofer, Adam Finkel- stein, Eli Shechtman, Dan B Goldman, Kyle Genova, Zeyu Jin, Christian Theobalt, and Maneesh Agrawala. Text-based editing of talking-head video. ACM Transactions on Graph- ics (TOG), 38(4):1–14, 2019. 2

    2019

  10. [18]

    Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H. Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image gen- eration using textual inversion, 2022. 1

    2022

  11. [19]

    Gemini 2.5 technical overview

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 2.5 technical overview. https: //deepmind.google/models/gemini/ , 2025. Ac- cessed: August 2025. 6

    2025

  12. [20]

    Generating diverse and natural 3d human motions from text

    Chuan Guo, Shihao Zou, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, Wei Ji, Xingyu Li, and Li Cheng. Generating diverse and natural 3d human motions from text. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 5152–5161, 2022. 2, 6, 7

    2022

  13. [21]

    Momask: Generative masked model- ing of 3d human motions

    Chuan Guo, Yuxuan Mu, Muhammad Gohar Javed, Sen Wang, and Li Cheng. Momask: Generative masked model- ing of 3d human motions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1900–1910, 2024. 2

    1900

  14. [22]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arxiv:2006.11239,

    2006 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Let’s face it: Influence of facial expressions on social presence in collaborative virtual real- ity

    Simon Kimmel, Frederike Jung, Andrii Matviienko, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. Let’s face it: Influence of facial expressions on social presence in collaborative virtual real- ity. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–16, 2023. 1

    2023

  16. [24]

    Fakeout: Leveraging out-of-domain self- supervision for multi-modal video deepfake detection

    Gil Knafo. Fakeout: Leveraging out-of-domain self- supervision for multi-modal video deepfake detection. Mas- ter’s thesis, Reichman University (Israel), 2022. 8

    2022

  17. [25]

    Tianye Li, Timo Bolkart, Michael. J. Black, Hao Li, and Javier Romero. Learning a model of facial shape and ex- pression from 4D scans. ACM Transactions on Graphics, (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 36(6):194:1–194:17, 2017. 2

    2017

  18. [26]

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Ger- ard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. SMPL: A skinned multi-person linear model. ACM Trans. Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia), 34(6):248:1–248:16, 2015. 2

    2015

  19. [27]

    Latte: La- tent diffusion transformer for video generation.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025

    Xin Ma, Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Gengyun Jia, Ziwei Liu, Yuan-Fang Li, Cunjian Chen, and Yu Qiao. Latte: La- tent diffusion transformer for video generation.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025. 1

    2025

  20. [28]

    The uncanny valley

    Masahiro Mori et al. The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4):33– 35, 1970. 1

    1970

  21. [29]

    Emotalk: Speech-driven emotional disentanglement for 3d face anima- tion

    Ziqiao Peng, Haoyu Wu, Zhenbo Song, Hao Xu, Xiangyu Zhu, Jun He, Hongyan Liu, and Zhaoxin Fan. Emotalk: Speech-driven emotional disentanglement for 3d face anima- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international confer- ence on computer vision, pages 20687–20697, 2023. 2

    2023

  22. [30]

    Principi, S

    F. Principi, S. Berretti, C. Ferrari, N. Otberdout, M. Daoudi, and A. Del Bimbo. The florence 4d facial expression dataset,

  23. [31]

    Monkey see, monkey do: Harnessing self- attention in motion diffusion for zero-shot motion transfer

    Sigal Raab, Inbar Gat, Nathan Sala, Guy Tevet, Rotem Shalev-Arkushin, Ohad Fried, Amit H Bermano, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Monkey see, monkey do: Harnessing self- attention in motion diffusion for zero-shot motion transfer. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers , pages 1–13,

    2024

  24. [32]

    Anurag Ranjan, Timo Bolkart, Soubhik Sanyal, and Michael J. Black. Generating 3D faces using convolutional mesh autoencoders. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 725–741, 2018. 1, 2, 4

    2018

  25. [33]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2021

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2021. 1

    2021

  26. [34]

    Deep image fingerprint: To- wards low budget synthetic image detection and model lin- eage analysis

    Sergey Sinitsa and Ohad Fried. Deep image fingerprint: To- wards low budget synthetic image detection and model lin- eage analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Con- ference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 4067– 4076, 2024. 8

    2024

  27. [35]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01469, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Human motion diffu- sion model

    Guy Tevet, Sigal Raab, Brian Gordon, Yoni Shafir, Daniel Cohen-or, and Amit Haim Bermano. Human motion diffu- sion model. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 1, 2, 6, 7

    2023

  29. [37]

    Imitator: Personalized speech-driven 3d facial animation

    Balamurugan Thambiraja, Ikhsanul Habibie, Sadegh Aliak- barian, Darren Cosker, Christian Theobalt, and Justus Thies. Imitator: Personalized speech-driven 3d facial animation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 20621–20631, 2023. 1

    2023

  30. [38]

    Audio2head: Audio-driven one-shot talking-head generation with natural head motion

    Suzhen Wang, Lincheng Li, Yu Ding, Changjie Fan, and Xin Yu. Audio2head: Audio-driven one-shot talking-head generation with natural head motion. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelli- gence, Ijcai 2021, pages 1098–1105. Internatio...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Mmface4d: A large-scale multi- modal 4d face dataset for audio-driven 3d face animation

    Haozhe Wu, Jia Jia, Junliang Xing, Hongwei Xu, Xiangyuan Wang, and Jelo Wang. Mmface4d: A large-scale multi- modal 4d face dataset for audio-driven 3d face animation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09797, 2023. 1, 2, 4

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mmhead: Towards fine-grained multi- modal 3d facial animation

    Sijing Wu, Yunhao Li, Yichao Yan, Huiyu Duan, Ziwei Liu, and Guangtao Zhai. Mmhead: Towards fine-grained multi- modal 3d facial animation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 7966–7975,

  33. [41]

    Codetalker: Speech-driven 3d facial animation with discrete motion prior

    Jinbo Xing, Menghan Xia, Yuechen Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Jue Wang, and Tien-Tsin Wong. Codetalker: Speech-driven 3d facial animation with discrete motion prior. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12780–12790, 2023. 2

    2023

  34. [42]

    Iterative text-based editing of talking-heads using neural retargeting

    Xinwei Yao, Ohad Fried, Kayvon Fatahalian, and Maneesh Agrawala. Iterative text-based editing of talking-heads using neural retargeting. ACM Trans. Graph., 40(3), 2021. 2

    2021

  35. [43]

    Generating holistic 3d human motion from speech

    Hongwei Yi, Hualin Liang, Yifei Liu, Qiong Cao, Yandong Wen, Timo Bolkart, Dacheng Tao, and Michael J Black. Generating holistic 3d human motion from speech. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 469–480, 2023. 2

    2023

  36. [44]

    Dream-talk: Diffusion-based realistic emotional audio-driven method for single image talking face generation

    Chenxu Zhang, Chao Wang, Jianfeng Zhang, Hongyi Xu, Guoxian Song, You Xie, Linjie Luo, Yapeng Tian, Xiaohu Guo, and Jiashi Feng. Dream-talk: Diffusion-based realistic emotional audio-driven method for single image talking face generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13578, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Towards ai-driven sign language generation with non- manual markers

    Han Zhang, Rotem Shalev-Arkushin, Vasileios Baltatzis, Connor Gillis, Gierad Laput, Raja Kushalnagar, Lorna C Quandt, Leah Findlater, Abdelkareem Bedri, and Colin Lea. Towards ai-driven sign language generation with non- manual markers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conferenc...

    2025

  38. [46]

    T2m-gpt: Generating human motion from textual de- scriptions with discrete representations

    Jianrong Zhang, Yangsong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Shaoli Huang, Yong Zhang, Hongwei Zhao, Hongtao Lu, and Xi Shen. T2m-gpt: Generating human motion from textual de- scriptions with discrete representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern R...

    2023

  39. [47]

    Cohn, Shaun Cana- van, Michael Reale, Andy Horowitz, and Peng Liu

    Xing Zhang, Lijun Yin, Jeffrey F. Cohn, Shaun Cana- van, Michael Reale, Andy Horowitz, and Peng Liu. A high-resolution spontaneous 3d dynamic facial expression database. In 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), pa...

    2013

  40. [48]

    Multimodal spontaneous emotion corpus for human behavior analysis

    Zheng Zhang, Jeff M Girard, Yue Wu, Xing Zhang, Peng Liu, Umur Ciftci, Shaun Canavan, Michael Reale, Andy Horowitz, Huiyuan Yang, et al. Multimodal spontaneous emotion corpus for human behavior analysis. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern re...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.