Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

FineMoLA: Towards Fine-Grained Motion-Language Alignment from Clip-Level Supervision

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FineMoLA learns frame–phrase alignment from clip-level captions using an entropic optimal transport objective, beating stepwise-uniform and VLM baselines on SnapMoGen.

desk verdict Plausible combination of existing ideas, but the evaluation metric normalizes away the temporal extent information the paper claims to recover. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01392 v1 pith:MSBKTCEY submitted 2026-08-02 cs.CV

Tongyan Wang , Zhengyuan Li , Muhan Lin , Shengyang Luo , Yifan Shen , Aniket Bera , Baijian Yang , Yingjie Victor Chen This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords motion-languagealignmentoptimaltransportweaklysupervisedlearningSinkhorntext-to-motionframe-levelgroundingcontrastiveSnapMoGen
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 dense frame-to-phrase correspondence for human motion can be learned from clip-level captions alone, without any manual frame labels. The method, FineMoLA, segments long descriptions into action-bearing phrases, then treats motion–text alignment as an entropic optimal transport problem in which a transport plan distributes motion frames across text units under global marginal constraints. An [UNK]-style global feature absorbs frames that no phrase describes. Trained with a CLIP-style symmetric contrastive loss, the resulting alignments beat a stepwise uniform temporal division and a GPT-5.2 vision-language baseline on SnapMoGen (normalized L1 0.225 vs 0.347 and 0.296). If right, this gives temporally grounded supervision for dense motion captioning and temporally structured generation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the entropy-regularized optimal transport plan $P$ between $T_m$ motion frames and $T_t$ text units (action units plus a global [UNK] feature). The cost is $C_{uv} = 1 - \cos(z^m_u, z^t_v)$; Sinkhorn iterations solve for $P$; and the estimated transport cost $J_{\mathrm{EOT}}$ serves as the pairwise logit in a CLIP-style contrastive loss. The [UNK] global feature prevents forcing unpaired frames onto real actions.

What would settle it

Run FineMoLA on a dataset with frame-level action labels (e.g., BABEL) and compute whether its transport plan assigns frames to correct action labels with lower error than the stepwise-uniform baseline; if the advantage disappears, the reported gain does not generalize beyond the 30 hand-picked SnapMoGen pairs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FineMoLA establishes that fine-grained frame–phrase correspondence can be recovered purely from clip-level motion–language supervision by casting alignment as an entropic optimal transport problem. The transport plan between motion frames and LLM-segmented action phrases is optimized under marginal constraints, and a global [UNK] feature absorbs frames not described by any phrase. The resulting OT cost serves as the pairwise logit in a CLIP-style symmetric contrastive objective. On SnapMoGen, the learned transport matrices attain a normalized L1 distance of 0.225 to manually labeled ground truth, compared with 0.347 for stepwise uniform allocation and 0.296 for a GPT-5.2 vision-language base

Load-bearing premise

The 30 manually labeled SnapMoGen test pairs are representative of the dataset and are labeled accurately enough to serve as ground truth; the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement, so noisy or unrepresentative labels would undercut the reported L1 comparisons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dense pseudo-alignments become available for any clip-level motion–text dataset, enabling training for temporal localization and dense motion captioning.
  • The same OT contrastive objective can be plugged into text-to-motion generation models to condition generation on phrase-level timing.
  • The [UNK] token mechanism offers a general way to handle unmatched elements in weakly supervised alignment.
  • The improvement over both heuristic division and zero-shot VLM segmentation suggests that a learned, data-driven alignment is worth the added complexity.
  • The method adds a principled, differentiable alignment objective to CLIP-style multimodal pretraining, so it extends to other modalities where token-level labels are absent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method could transfer to video–text grounding, where frame-label scarcity is even more severe; only the motion encoder would need to be swapped for a video encoder.
  • The results suggest that with a good pretrained feature space, the OT objective mostly has to learn how to assign frames to phrases rather than what the phrases mean; ablating the frozen T5 encoder would reveal how much of the gain comes from the pretrained text features.
  • The quantitative claim rests on 30 manually labeled pairs; an independent re-annotation or a larger labeled set would show whether the margin persists beyond those pairs.
  • A natural next experiment is to use the learned pseudo-alignments as supervision for a temporally structured text-to-motion generator and measure whether it produces actions at the right times.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. FineMoLA proposes a weakly supervised framework for learning fine-grained frame–phrase alignment between human motion and long-form text from clip-level supervision. The method segments captions into action-bearing phrases with an LLM, encodes motion and text with a VQ-VAE-based encoder and a frozen T5 encoder, pools phrase tokens into action-unit features plus a global '[UNK]' feature, and computes a soft alignment via entropic optimal transport with Sinkhorn iterations. The transport cost is used as a pairwise logit in a CLIP-style batch contrastive loss. Experiments on SnapMoGen use 30 manually labeled test pairs to compare FineMoLA against a stepwise uniform baseline and a GPT-based VLM baseline, reporting normalized L1 distances, with the best FineMoLA variant achieving 0.225 versus 0.347 and 0.296 for the baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claims were solid, FineMoLA would be a useful contribution to weakly supervised motion–language grounding: the combination of LLM-based phrase decomposition, entropic OT for many-to-many alignment, and CLIP-style contrastive training is a sensible pipeline, and the problem of learning dense alignment without frame labels is relevant to motion generation and understanding. The paper does not ship code or a reproducible evaluation protocol beyond the described prompts and settings, and the theoretical result (Theorem 1) is purely definitional. The main value lies in the empirical proposal, but the evaluation as currently designed is unable to support the fine-grained grounding claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 / Eq. (2) and Sec. 5.3] The claimed '[UNK]' mechanism cannot absorb a variable amount of transitional frames. Eq. (2) fixes uniform marginals a=1/Tm and b=1/Tt, so the global '[UNK]' column receives exactly 1/Tt of the total motion mass in every plan. The Sec. 5.3 statement that the global feature 'acts as an [UNK] token to absorb transitional or semantically ambiguous frames' is therefore not implementable as stated: the amount of absorbed mass is constant, not data-dependent. The ablation improvement may come from the extra text feature providing a generic sink, but it does not demonstrate variable-duration absorption.
  2. [Sec. 5.1 / Eq. (19) and Sec. 9] The evaluation metric normalizes away exactly the variable-duration information that fine-grained alignment should capture. Both the predicted P and the binary ground-truth P_gt are Sinkhorn-Knopp normalized to the same doubly stochastic marginals. With Tt≈5, every action unit is forced to receive total mass 1/Tt in the ground-truth normalized target, regardless of the true duration of the action interval. Thus Table 1 measures how well a method places equal-mass blocks, not whether it recovers real temporal extents. Since FineMoLA is trained under the same uniform marginals, it is structurally aligned with this normalized metric. The additional evaluation-time reassignment of '[UNK]' mass to the preceding action token (Sec. 5.3) is applied to FineMoLA but not to the baselines, further biasing the comparison. The central claim of fine-grained grounding is not supported by this metric.
  3. [Sec. 5.1 / Table 1] The quantitative evaluation rests on 30 manually selected test pairs with no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no inter-annotator agreement. The paper does not specify the selection procedure, and the labels are a single annotator's intervals. Differences of 0.225 vs. 0.296 could easily be within annotation noise or sample variability. A more rigorous evaluation with a larger or randomized test set, multiple annotators, and per-pair or bootstrap confidence intervals is needed before the reported improvement can be considered reliable.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 / Theorem 1 and supplementary proof] Theorem 1 is a definitional tautology. Under Assumption 1, which assumes a perfect bijection with similarity 1 and equal lengths, the permutation matrix is by construction feasible and achieves zero cost. This does not provide any insight into why the training objective should induce meaningful alignments under the actual many-to-many, variable-duration setting. The theorem is not load-bearing for the empirical claim, but presenting it as a theoretical justification is misleading.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplementary Sec. 7] The supplementary restates Theorem 1 from the main text as 'Theorem 2', creating a numbering conflict. Renumber consistently.
  2. [Eq. (9)] The notation JEOT is used before P' is formally defined. Specify that P' is the Sinkhorn approximation from Eq. (4).
  3. [Fig. 4] The convergence analysis uses a randomly initialized cost matrix. Its relevance to the trained model's alignment behavior is unclear; state whether this is an analysis of the Sinkhorn solver alone or of the full system.
  4. [Table 1] No error bars or significance tests are reported for any of the L1 values. This is a presentation issue that compounds the small test set.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The sentence 'we do not force every motion frame to align with an action-unit representation alone' is technically true only if the [UNK] token is counted as an action-unit representation; the uniform-marginal constraint still forces all frames to be allocated. Clarify.
  6. [References] Reference formatting is inconsistent (e.g., 'PmLR' for PMLR, incomplete author lists for some entries).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core learning and evaluation are externally grounded; one theoretical 'proof' is a definitional tautology.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.2 (Assumption 1 / Theorem 1), proof in Sec. 7 (supplementary)]
    "Assumption 1 (Perfect Frame–Token Correspondence). Assume that the motion and text sequences have equal lengths, i.e., T_m = T_t. Further assume that there exist encoder parameters θ_m and θ_t such that ... there exists a bijection π ... satisfying s(z^m_u, z^t_{π(u)}) = 1 ... Theorem 1 (Zero OT Cost under Perfect Alignment). Under Assumption 1, the OT objective J_OT(m, t) admits a feasible transport plan with zero cost."

    The 'perfect alignment' assumption is defined as the existence of a bijection with cosine similarity 1. With the cost C_uv = 1 − s(z^m_u, z^t_v) from Eq. (7), this assumption makes the matched entries of C zero by definition. Theorem 1 then constructs P_uv = (1/T_m) 1{v=π(u)} and observes that <P,C> = 0. The theorem is therefore a direct restatement of the definitions of the cost and of 'perfect correspondence'; it does not independently establish that minimizing J_OT yields meaningful temporal alignment. It is presented as an idealized illustration rather than as a load-bearing empirical derivation.

full rationale

The central claim does not reduce to its inputs. FineMoLA's transport plan is learned from clip-level paired data through a CLIP-style contrastive objective, and the reported comparison is against 30 manually labeled test pairs that are never used in training. No load-bearing argument depends on a self-citation chain or an imported uniqueness theorem. The skeptic's concern about uniform marginals is a real validity limitation: Eq. (2) fixes each text column (including [UNK]) to total mass 1/T_t, and Sec. 5.1 normalizes the ground-truth binary interval matrix into the same U(a,b) via Sinkhorn-Knopp, so the metric cannot measure variable-duration coverage; the Sec. 5.3 [UNK]-reassignment rule is also applied only to the model. However, these are evaluation-validity issues, not derivation-level circularity: the compared matrices are not definitionally equal to the labels, and baselines are assessed on the same normalized target. The single genuinely circular item is Theorem 1, which is a tautology used only for intuition. Score 2 reflects one minor, non-load-bearing circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The empirical claim depends on the reliability of a 30-pair manual test set, on LLM phrase segmentation preserving temporal order, on frozen feature encoders being semantically meaningful for cosine cost, and on a post-hoc [UNK] reassignment rule. Several method-specific hyperparameters are hand-chosen or selected on the test set.

free parameters (4)
  • entropy regularization epsilon = 0.1
    Chosen for Sinkhorn stability; sensitivity analysis in Fig. 4, not tuned to alignment accuracy.
  • contrastive temperature tau = 0.07
    Varies in ablation (0.01, 0.03, 0.07) and the best value on the test set is reported.
  • Sinkhorn iterations = 50
    Set for convergence; not cross-validated on a held-out set.
  • [UNK] reassignment rule = preceding valid action token
    Manual post-hoc rule applied during evaluation only; likely boosts the reported metric.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Sinkhorn iterations converge to the entropic OT solution for the chosen epsilon and 50 iterations
    Relies on Cuturi's entropic OT theory; no convergence certificate for the specific feature distributions.
  • domain assumption Frozen T5-base and pre-trained VQ-VAE motion features are semantically aligned enough that cosine cost is meaningful
    No analysis of feature quality; the method fails if the encoders do not capture action semantics.
  • domain assumption LLM phrase segmentation preserves temporal order and action boundaries
    Caption segmentation is done by GPT-4o-mini; errors propagate to alignment and evaluation.
  • domain assumption Manual 30-pair ground truth is reliable and representative
    No inter-annotator agreement or sampling protocol; the evaluation hinges on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Reassigning [UNK] mass to the preceding action token is a valid post-processing step
    Introduced only to map the model output to the GT matrix format; no justification from data.
invented entities (1)
  • Global feature / [UNK] token
    purpose: Absorbs motion frames not described by any phrase to avoid spurious alignments; reassigned during evaluation.
    It is a latent pooling artifact introduced by the paper; its benefit is shown only in the paper's own ablation on the same 30 test pairs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FineMoLA: Towards Fine-Grained Motion-Language Alignment from Clip-Level Supervision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSBKTCEY

@misc{pith2026260801392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FineMoLA: Towards Fine-Grained Motion-Language Alignment from Clip-Level Supervision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSBKTCEY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01392}
}
read the original abstract

Text-conditioned human motion generation has made rapid progress with the emergence of large-scale motion--language datasets. However, even datasets with rich long-form descriptions typically provide supervision only at the clip level, without explicit temporal correspondence between motion frames and language. This limits fine-grained motion--text grounding and temporally precise generation. We propose FineMoLA, a weakly supervised framework that learns fine-grained frame--phrase correspondence directly from clip-level annotations. Our method first segments long-form descriptions into action-bearing phrases, and then formulates motion--language alignment as an optimal transport problem, which naturally models many-to-many relations between motion frames and text under global constraints. With entropic regularization and Sinkhorn iterations, FineMoLA efficiently infers pseudo frame-level alignments without human labeling. Experiments on SnapMoGen demonstrate that the learned alignments outperform baselines in motion--text grounding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. While the SnapMoGen dataset provides human motions with long-form text annotations, FineMoLA finds the fine-grained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of FineMoLA. The text stream first encodes the action-bearing phrases with a frozen T5 backbone. Then the action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison with baselines. We plot the ground truth transport plan and those produced by different methods. Our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sinkhorn Convergence Analysis. The plot illustrates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the action unit aggregator. A long-form motion caption is first segmented into multiple action-bearing phrases using an LLM. The concatenated phrase sequence is tokenized and encoded by a frozen T5 backbone to obtain token-level embeddings. The action unit …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The complete system prompt and contextual few-shot examples provided to the LLM for atomic action units segmentation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vivit: A video vision transformer

    Anurag Arnab, Mostafa Dehghani, Georg Heigold, Chen Sun, Mario Lu ˇci´c, and Cordelia Schmid. Vivit: A video vision transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision, pages 6836–6846,

  2. [2]

    Seamless human motion composition with blended posi- tional encodings

    German Barquero, Sergio Escalera, and Cristina Palmero. Seamless human motion composition with blended posi- tional encodings. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    A cross- dataset study for text-based 3d human motion retrieval

    L ´eore Bensabath, Mathis Petrovich, and Gul Varol. A cross- dataset study for text-based 3d human motion retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 1932–1940, 2024. 2, 3

    work page 1932

  4. [4]

    Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? InIcml, page 4, 2021

    Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? InIcml, page 4, 2021. 3

    2021

  5. [5]

    Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport.Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 26, 2013

    Marco Cuturi. Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport.Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 26, 2013. 1, 2, 3

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Segmo: Segment-aligned text to 3d human motion generation

    Bowen Dang, Lin Wu, Xiaohang Yang, Zheng Yuan, and Zhixiang Chen. Segmo: Segment-aligned text to 3d human motion generation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 6946–6955, 2026. 3

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:35946–35958,

    Christoph Feichtenhofer, Yanghao Li, Kaiming He, et al. Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:35946–35958,

  8. [8]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5152–5161, 2022. 1, 2

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1900–1910, 2024. 1, 3

    1900

  2. [10]

    Snapmogen: Human motion generation from expressive texts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09122, 2025

    Chuan Guo, Inwoo Hwang, Jian Wang, and Bing Zhou. Snapmogen: Human motion generation from expressive texts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09122, 2025. 1, 2, 5, 6

    2025

  3. [11]

    Amd: Autoregressive motion diffusion

    Bo Han, Hao Peng, Minjing Dong, Yi Ren, Yixuan Shen, and Chang Xu. Amd: Autoregressive motion diffusion. InPro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2022–2030, 2024. 1

    2022

  4. [12]

    Como: Controllable motion generation through language guided pose code edit- ing

    Yiming Huang, Weilin Wan, Yue Yang, Chris Callison- Burch, Mark Yatskar, and Lingjie Liu. Como: Controllable motion generation through language guided pose code edit- ing. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 180–196. Springer, 2024. 3

    2024

  5. [13]

    Motiongpt: Human motion as a foreign lan- guage.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:20067–20079, 2023

    Biao Jiang, Xin Chen, Wen Liu, Jingyi Yu, Gang Yu, and Tao Chen. Motiongpt: Human motion as a foreign lan- guage.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:20067–20079, 2023. 3

    2023

  6. [14]

    Unimotion: Unifying 3d human motion synthesis and understanding

    Chuqiao Li, Julian Chibane, Yannan He, Naama Pearl, An- dreas Geiger, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Unimotion: Unifying 3d human motion synthesis and understanding. In2025 In- ternational Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 240–249. IEEE, 2025. 3

    2025

  7. [15]

    Frankenmotion: Part-level hu- man motion generation and composition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10909, 2026

    Chuqiao Li, Xianghui Xie, Yong Cao, Andreas Geiger, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Frankenmotion: Part-level hu- man motion generation and composition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10909, 2026. 1, 3

    2026

  8. [16]

    Motion-x: A large-scale 3d expressive whole-body human motion dataset

    Jing Lin, Ailing Zeng, Shunlin Lu, Yuanhao Cai, Ruimao Zhang, Haoqian Wang, and Lei Zhang. Motion-x: A large-scale 3d expressive whole-body human motion dataset. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 25268–25280, 2023. 2

    2023

  9. [17]

    Multi-granularity correspondence learning from long-term noisy videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16702,

    Yijie Lin, Jie Zhang, Zhenyu Huang, Jia Liu, Zujie Wen, and Xi Peng. Multi-granularity correspondence learning from long-term noisy videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16702,

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Rethinking diffusion for text-driven human motion generation: Redundant representations, evaluation, and masked autoregression

    Zichong Meng, Yiming Xie, Xiaogang Peng, Zeyu Han, and Huaizu Jiang. Rethinking diffusion for text-driven human motion generation: Redundant representations, evaluation, and masked autoregression. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 2...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Proposal-free temporal action detection via global segmen- tation mask learning

    Sauradip Nag, Xiatian Zhu, Yi-Zhe Song, and Tao Xiang. Proposal-free temporal action detection via global segmen- tation mask learning. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 645–662. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  12. [20]

    Tmr: Text-to-motion retrieval using contrastive 3d human motion synthesis

    Mathis Petrovich, Michael J Black, and G ¨ul Varol. Tmr: Text-to-motion retrieval using contrastive 3d human motion synthesis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9488–9497, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  13. [21]

    Now Foun- dations and Trends, 2019

    Gabriel Peyr ´e and Marco Cuturi.Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science. Now Foun- dations and Trends, 2019. 1, 3

    2019

  14. [22]

    Mmm: Generative masked motion model

    Ekkasit Pinyoanuntapong, Pu Wang, Minwoo Lee, and Chen Chen. Mmm: Generative masked motion model. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1546–1555, 2024. 3

    2024

  15. [23]

    The kit motion-language dataset.Big data, 4(4):236–252,

    Matthias Plappert, Christian Mandery, and Tamim Asfour. The kit motion-language dataset.Big data, 4(4):236–252,

  16. [24]

    Babel: Bodies, action and behavior with english la- bels

    Abhinanda R Punnakkal, Arjun Chandrasekaran, Nikos Athanasiou, Alejandra Quiros-Ramirez, and Michael J Black. Babel: Bodies, action and behavior with english la- bels. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition, pages 722–731, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  17. [25]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. InInternational conference on machine learning, p...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research, 21(140):1–67, 2020. 4

    2020

  19. [27]

    Ot-clip: Un- derstanding and generalizing clip via optimal transport

    Liangliang Shi, Jack Fan, and Junchi Yan. Ot-clip: Un- derstanding and generalizing clip via optimal transport. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning,

  20. [28]

    Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Aaditya Singh, Adam Fry, Adam Perelman, Adam Tart, Adi Ganesh, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aidan McLaughlin, Aiden Low, AJ Ostrow, Akhila Ananthram, et al. Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025. 7

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Optimal transport on discrete domains

    Justin Solomon. Optimal transport on discrete domains. AMS Short Course on Discrete Differential Geometry, 3,

  22. [30]

    Coma: Compositional human motion generation with multi-modal agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07320, 2024

    Shanlin Sun, Gabriel De Araujo, Jiaqi Xu, Shenghan Zhou, Hanwen Zhang, Ziheng Huang, Chenyu You, and Xiaohui Xie. Coma: Compositional human motion generation with multi-modal agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07320, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Motionclip: Exposing human motion generation to clip space

    Guy Tevet, Brian Gordon, Amir Hertz, Amit H Bermano, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Motionclip: Exposing human motion generation to clip space. InEuropean Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 358–374. Springer, 2022. 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    Human motion dif- fusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14916, 2022

    Guy Tevet, Sigal Raab, Brian Gordon, Yonatan Shafir, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Amit H Bermano. Human motion dif- fusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14916, 2022. 1, 3

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Scaling large motion models with million-level human motions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03311, 2024

    Ye Wang, Sipeng Zheng, Bin Cao, Qianshan Wei, Weishuai Zeng, Qin Jin, and Zongqing Lu. Scaling large motion models with million-level human motions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03311, 2024. 1, 2

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Mg-motionllm: A unified framework for motion comprehension and gener- ation across multiple granularities

    Bizhu Wu, Jinheng Xie, Keming Shen, Zhe Kong, Jianfeng Ren, Ruibin Bai, Rong Qu, and Linlin Shen. Mg-motionllm: A unified framework for motion comprehension and gener- ation across multiple granularities. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference,...

    2025

  27. [35]

    Dense motion captioning

    Shiyao Xu, Benedetta Liberatori, G ¨ul Varol, and Paolo Rota. Dense motion captioning. InThirteenth International Con- ference on 3D Vision, 2025. 1, 2, 3

    2025

  28. [36]

    Filip: Fine-grained interactive language-image pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07783, 2021

    Lewei Yao, Runhui Huang, Lu Hou, Guansong Lu, Minzhe Niu, Hang Xu, Xiaodan Liang, Zhenguo Li, Xin Jiang, and Chunjing Xu. Filip: Fine-grained interactive language-image pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07783, 2021. 2, 3

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Generating human motion from textual descrip- tions with discrete representations

    Jianrong Zhang, Yangsong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Yong Zhang, Hongwei Zhao, Hongtao Lu, Xi Shen, and Ying Shan. Generating human motion from textual descrip- tions with discrete representations. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, p...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Re- modiffuse: Retrieval-augmented motion diffusion model

    Mingyuan Zhang, Xinying Guo, Liang Pan, Zhongang Cai, Fangzhou Hong, Huirong Li, Lei Yang, and Ziwei Liu. Re- modiffuse: Retrieval-augmented motion diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 364–373, 2023. 3

    2023

  31. [39]

    Finemogen: Fine-grained spatio- temporal motion generation and editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:13981–13992, 2023

    Mingyuan Zhang, Huirong Li, Zhongang Cai, Jiawei Ren, Lei Yang, and Ziwei Liu. Finemogen: Fine-grained spatio- temporal motion generation and editing.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:13981–13992, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  32. [40]

    Pre- training clip against data poisoning with optimal transport- based matching and alignment

    Tong Zhang, Kuofeng Gao, Jiawang Bai, Leo Yu Zhang, Xin Yin, Zonghui Wang, Shouling Ji, and Wenzhi Chen. Pre- training clip against data poisoning with optimal transport- based matching and alignment. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Languag...

    2025

  33. [41]

    DartControl: A diffusion-based autoregressive motion model for real-time text-driven motion control

    Kaifeng Zhao, Gen Li, and Siyu Tang. DartControl: A diffusion-based autoregressive motion model for real-time text-driven motion control. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025. 3 FineMoLA: Towards Fine-Grained Motion-Language Alignm...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Proof of Theorem 1 Theorem 2(Zero OT Cost under Perfect Alignment).Un- der Assumption 1, the OT objectiveJOT (m, t)admits a fea- sible transport plan with zero cost. Specifically, the trans- port plan defined by Puv = 1 Tm 1{v=π(u)}(22) is feasible and achieves JOT (m, t) = 0....

  35. [43]

    Caption Segmentation To bridge the gap between long-form narrative descriptions and local temporal motion segments, we first decompose each caption into multipleaction-bearing phrasesusing an LLM-based caption segmentation pipeline, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Specifically, GPT-...

  36. [44]

    The annotation process involves man- ual segment-level boundary identification: for each action segmentj, human annotators specify the temporal interval [tstart, tend]in seconds

    Ground Truth Annotation To quantitatively evaluate the temporal alignment perfor- mance, we manually label the ground truth alignment ma- trixP gt ∈R Tm×Tt. The annotation process involves man- ual segment-level boundary identification: for each action segmentj, human annotato...

  37. [45]

    specialized human motion analyst

    VLM Baseline For the VLM baseline, motion videos are first downsam- pled to a fixed temporal resolution of 2.0 FPS. For motion sequences spanning 30 to 40 seconds, this sampling strat- egy yields approximately 60 to 80 frames, which provides sufficient visual density to captur...

Pith tools

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