MotionFlux: Efficient Text-Guided Motion Generation through Rectified Flow Matching and Preference Alignment

An-An Liu; Chao Xue; Dan Song; Diqiong Jiang; Zhiting Gao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 references

MotionFlux: Efficient Text-Guided Motion Generation through Rectified Flow Matching and Preference Alignment

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 MotionFlux claims real-time text-to-motion with state-of-the-art semantic alignment: 5 ms inference, FID 0.078, and R-Precision Top-1 0.536 on HumanML3D.

desk verdict Rectified flow plus retrieval-reward alignment for text-to-motion is a timely, promising combination, but the DPO loss as written is wrong and the numbers need cleaning. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19527 v1 pith:XIDD5BIQ submitted 2025-08-27 cs.CV

Zhiting Gao , Dan Song , Diqiong Jiang , Chao Xue , An-An Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords text-to-motiongenerationrectifiedflowmatchingpreferenceoptimizationdirectHumanML3Ddiffusiontransformerssemanticalignmentreal-timemotionsynthesis

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 aims to establish that text-driven human motion generation need not choose between speed and fidelity. It proposes MotionFlux, a rectified-flow-matching model that turns noise into motion along a straight-line path in one or very few steps, and TAPO, an online preference-optimization loop that uses a contrastive text-motion retrieval model, TMR++, as a proxy reward to construct winning and losing motion pairs without human annotation. On HumanML3D, the final MotionFlux-ultra model is reported to outperform all compared state-of-the-art methods on semantic alignment (R-Precision Top-1 0.536) and motion quality (FID 0.078) while running at 5 ms per sentence. The significance is that the same system delivers real-time inference and fine-grained obedience to textual modifiers such as direction and gaze.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rectified-flow transport path in a latent motion space: with motion latent $x_1$ and noise $x_0$, the path is $x_t=(1-t)x_1+t x_0$ with constant velocity $v_t=x_0-x_1$, and the model regresses $v(x,t;c;\theta)$ against $v_t$, making inference a single Euler step. The alignment machinery is TAPO, which uses TMR++, a contrastive text-motion retrieval model, to score generated motions by cosine similarity, selects the best and worst of $N$ candidates per prompt, and optimizes $L_{\mathrm{TAPO}}=L_{\mathrm{DPO-FM}}+\alpha L_{\mathrm{FM}}$, where the DPO term widens the preference margin and the anchor term keeps the winning motion's flow-matching loss small. This combination carries the paper's claim that semantic alignment can be improved automatically and iteratively without reward over-optimization.

What would settle it

Evaluate MotionFlux-ultra on a held-out set of prompts with an independent retrieval model that was not used for training and have human raters judge winner-versus-loser pairs; if R-Precision gains disappear under the new retriever or human raters do not prefer the TAPO-aligned motions, the semantic-alignment claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a 43M-parameter transformer with a hybrid MMDiT/DiT backbone, trained by rectified flow matching and then aligned by TAPO, surpasses all prior text-to-motion methods on HumanML3D. The two reported advances are coupled: rectified flow replaces hundreds of denoising iterations with a single Euler step over a learned velocity field, while TAPO iteratively generates batches of candidate motions, ranks them by TMR++ cosine similarity, and fine-tunes the policy with a DPO loss adapted to flow matching. To prevent the preference loss from merely widening the gap between chosen and rejected motions, TAPO adds an anchor flow-matching loss on the winning motion, which the paper argues preserves the high-quality characteristics of winners. The result is a system that is reported to be 3x faster than MotionLCM, about 4800x faster than MDM, and better or comparable on all headline quality metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that TMR++'s cosine similarity reliably measures whether a motion truly matches the text, so that optimizing it improves real semantic alignment; if that score can be inflated without genuine understanding, the reported alignment gains do not establish what they claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Text-to-motion can run in real time, at 0.005 s per sentence versus 24.74 s for MDM and 0.030 s for MotionLCM, opening interactive character animation and embodied-agent applications.
A single deterministic flow step can match or beat iterative diffusion sampling on HumanML3D, suggesting rectified flow is a viable backbone for motion generation.
Preference pairs for motion can be constructed automatically from a contrastive retriever, removing the human-annotation bottleneck that has limited preference alignment in this domain.
Online regeneration of preference data at each iteration avoids the degradation the paper observes when training repeatedly on a fixed offline set.
FLUX-style transformer blocks transfer from image generation to motion, yielding state-of-the-art results with a compact 43M-parameter model.

Reading between the lines

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

The alignment claim would be stronger if confirmed against an independent judge: a human perceptual study on held-out prompts with fine-grained modifiers would show whether the R-Precision gains reflect genuine semantic understanding or optimization toward the TMR++ surrogate.
A direct test of surrogate dependence is to retrain TAPO with a different text-motion retrieval model or an ensemble; stable gains would indicate general grounding, while collapse would indicate reward hacking.
The same online preference recipe could transfer to other generative tasks without natural rewards, such as text-to-gesture for avatars or object motion, whenever a contrastive cross-modal retriever exists.
The reported 5 ms latency is the generation time per sentence, so end-to-end deployment latency will also include text encoding and motion decoding, making the real-time claim strongest under the paper's benchmark conditions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about arXiv:2508.19527. The system it describes—rectified flow matching plus an online preference loop using TMR++ as a surrogate reward—is genuinely new for text-to-motion, and the headline numbers are strong: 0.005 s inference, FID 0.078, Top-1 R-Precision 0.536 on HumanML3D. But the paper as written has load-bearing cracks in the loss derivation and reporting, so I would treat the SOTA claims as credible but unverified.

What is new: the TAPO loop is a sensible answer to the missing reward-model problem in text-to-motion. Generating candidates from the current policy, ranking them with a contrastive retrieval model, and running DPO-style optimization online is a reasonable design, and the best-of-N experiment (Table 2) supports that TMR++ ranking correlates with lower FID. The hybrid MMDiT/DiT architecture is a pragmatic efficiency choice. The paper also honestly reports that offline versions saturate and degrade.

Where it gets soft. First, Eq. 5 is not the Diffusion-DPO loss with epsilon swapped for velocity, despite the text’s claim. In Eq. 4 the beta factor multiplies the whole bracket including reference terms; in Eq. 5 the reference terms sit outside beta and with the opposite sign. So L_DPO-FM is not algebraically equivalent to the stated objective, and no likelihood-based argument is given for why velocity matching can stand in for noise prediction in the DPO derivation. That is the core methodological gap. Second, the numbers disagree: Table 1 reports MotionFlux-V1 FID 0.086, Table 2 N=1 reports 0.102 for the same model; the text says 3x faster than MotionLCM, but the table shows 6x. And the definition of Eq. 6 is self-referential (LFM “as given in Eq. 6”). These are fixable but erode trust. Third, the evaluation is too close to the reward: TAPO ranks with TMR++, and the headline metrics (R-Precision, MM Dist) are text-motion retrieval metrics. They use the T2M feature extractor for evaluation, not TMR++, so it is not strictly circular, but optimizing a retrieval-style reward can inflate retrieval-style metrics without improving human-perceived alignment. A small human study or a qualitative ablation would have helped. No code or models are released, so I could not verify the actual training loss.

Who it is for: anyone working on fast text-to-motion or on reward-based alignment for non-LLM generative models. The paper deserves a serious referee: the idea is timely, the results are potentially important, and the flaws are addressable with corrected derivations, cleaned numbers, and released code. I would send it to review, expecting major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MotionFlux, a text-to-motion generation model based on rectified flow matching in a latent space, together with TAPO (TMR++ Aligned Preference Optimization), an iterative preference-optimization procedure that uses the TMR++ retrieval model as a proxy reward to construct preference pairs online. The authors report state-of-the-art results on HumanML3D: the best model (MotionFlux-ultra) achieves the lowest AITS (0.005s), the highest R-Precision (Top-1 0.536), the lowest FID (0.078) among compared methods, and low MM Dist. The paper also provides a Best-of-N analysis to validate TMR++ as a reward model, and an online-versus-offline preference-data comparison. The central claims are that rectified flow matching enables real-time inference with high motion quality, and that TAPO improves semantic alignment beyond standard flow-matching training.

Significance. If the claims are correct, MotionFlux would be a notable advance: a 43M-parameter transformer that generates motions from text in 5ms while surpassing prior diffusion- and consistency-based methods on both quality and alignment metrics. The use of TMR++ as an automatic preference-labeling mechanism is a practical contribution to a field that lacks reliable reward models for text-to-motion alignment. The paper also ships a clear experimental design, including confidence intervals, an online-data ablation, and a Best-of-N study. However, the significance is substantially tempered by (i) an internally inconsistent empirical record, (ii) a loss derivation (Eq. 5) that does not match the cited Diffusion-DPO form, and (iii) an evaluation that uses the same retrieval-model family as the preference signal, leaving the reported semantic-alignment gains open to reward-overoptimization concerns.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.2, Table 1 and Table 2] The empirical results are internally inconsistent. Table 1 reports MotionFlux-V1 FID = 0.086 ± 0.003, while Table 2, which describes the same pre-TAPO model at N=1, reports FID = 0.102. These values differ by more than five times the stated confidence interval, so they cannot both describe the same checkpoint under the same evaluation protocol. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the paper's headline claim is that MotionFlux-V1 already outperforms all prior methods on FID; the Table 2 number would still be competitive but changes the margin and the reliability of the comparison.
[Section 3.6, Eq. (5) and Eq. (6)] Eq. (5) is not the rectified-flow analogue of Eq. (4) as claimed. In Eq. (4) the factor -β multiplies the entire bracket (current_w - ref_w) - (current_l - ref_l), whereas in Eq. (5) -β multiplies only (current_w - current_l) and the reference terms appear outside the β-scaled bracket with opposite signs. Setting β=1, Eq. (5) yields -current_w + current_l - ref_w + ref_l, while Eq. (4) yields -current_w + ref_w + current_l - ref_l; the reference-model signs differ. The paper also does not justify replacing the diffusion denoising terms with velocity-matching terms: the Diffusion-DPO derivation relies on a likelihood/ELBO relation, and no such relation is established for linear rectified flows. As written, LDPO-FM is not the stated preference objective, so the Table 1 gains cannot be attributed to the described TAPO procedure. The self-referential definition of LFM in Eq. (6) ('as given in Eq. 6') must also be corrected, and the behavior of the learnable α should be reported.
[Section 3.4-3.5 and Section 4.1] There is a circularity risk in the evaluation protocol. TAPO constructs preferences using TMR++ cosine similarity (Sec. 3.5), and the headline semantic-alignment metrics in Table 1 (R-Precision and MM Dist) are computed with the same family of contrastive text-motion retrieval embeddings. The chosen winning samples are by construction those that TMR++ ranks highest, so improvements in these metrics may partly reflect reward hacking rather than genuine semantic understanding. This is not by itself disqualifying, but the paper should provide a concrete independent check, for example retrieval metrics computed with a different text-motion encoder (e.g., T2M's feature extractor or MotionBERT) or a human-evaluation study on the qualitative examples, to show that the alignment gains transfer outside the TMR++ embedding space.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.2] The text states MotionFlux is '3 times faster than MotionLCM', but the AITS values in Table 1 (0.030 for MotionLCM vs 0.005 for MotionFlux) imply a 6x speedup. Please reconcile the narrative with the table.
[Section 3.6, Eq. (6)] The definition of LFM as 'the flow matching loss computed exclusively on the winning motion, as given in Eq. 6' is circular; it should reference Eq. (2) restricted to the winning sample.
[Section 4.3, Table 2] The Best-of-N FID values are not strictly monotonic: FID at N=15 (0.087) is slightly worse than at N=10 (0.086). The claim that increasing N 'consistently improves' FID should be softened or the confidence intervals reported.
[Section 2, Related Work] The citation for MotionDiffuse in the related-work paragraph appears as '(Yan et al. 2018)', which is inconsistent with the reference list entry for Zhang et al. 2024. Please correct.
[General] There are minor grammatical issues, e.g., 'We proposes a novel self-supervised paradigm' in the contributions list; the paper would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: TAPO's own alignment evidence partly measures the same reward signal used to construct its preference pairs; the flow-matching and quality claims remain independently supported.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5 (preference construction) and Section 4.3, Table 2 / Figure 5]
"the current policy πk generates N candidate motion samples, which are then ranked according to semantic similarity using the TMR++ ... the sample with the highest score is designated as the superior sample xw i and the one with the lowest score as the inferior sample xl i. ... The results in Table 2 show that increasing N in the Best-of-N strategy consistently improves both the TMR++ score and FID, while diversity remains stable. This indicates that TMR++ reliably ranks motion sequences aligned with textual descriptions."

The TAPO training loop defines winning and losing motions by TMR++ cosine similarity, so the policy is explicitly optimized to increase the TMR++ score. Reporting the resulting improvement in the TMR++ score as evidence that TMR++ 'reliably ranks' aligned motions is circular: the chosen winners are by construction the samples TMR++ ranks highest, and the DPO and anchor losses train the model to imitate those self-selected winners. The FID and diversity columns provide independent evidence and partially reduce the concern, but the semantic-alignment validation in Table 2 and Figure 5 is not independent of the training reward.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4-3.6 (TAPO objective) versus Section 4.1 (evaluation metrics)]
"In TAPO, the reward score is computed as the cosine similarity between the textual embedding and the generated motion embedding ... the sample with the highest score is designated as the superior sample xw i ... Condition matching is gauged by calculating the motion-retrieval precision (R-Precision) for text-motion Top-1/2/3 matching accuracy and the Multimodal Distance (MM Dist)."

The headline evidence for improved semantic alignment is R-Precision and MM Dist, which are text-motion retrieval metrics from the same contrastive-embedding family as the TMR++ reward used to construct every preference pair. Optimizing a model to imitate TMR++-selected winners therefore transfers the training reward to a closely related retrieval metric rather than independently demonstrating semantic understanding. This is not a formal identity, since the HumanML3D evaluation uses a different feature extractor than TMR++, so the circularity is partial, but the claimed semantic-alignment superiority is partly a consequence of the reward choice.

full rationale

The core generative derivation is not circular: MotionFlux trains a rectified-flow velocity field with the flow-matching loss of Eq. 2, and the AITS and FID improvements are evaluated against external baselines using standard HumanML3D metrics. TMR++ is an external model, not a self-citation, so there is no load-bearing self-citation chain. The main circularity is in the alignment loop: TAPO constructs preference pairs using TMR++ cosine similarity, and part of the paper's own validation (Table 2, Figure 5, and to a lesser degree the R-Precision and MM Dist headline metrics) measures the same or closely related retrieval signal used as the training reward. The FID, diversity, and speed results are independent and keep the overall finding from being fully circular. The algebraic concerns about Eq. 5 raised in the skeptical pass are correctness and derivation issues rather than circularity issues. Overall score 4 reflects partial circularity in the semantic-alignment validation, not in the rectified-flow-matching machinery itself.

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

The central pipeline depends on the pretrained VAE preserving motion detail, on TMR++ being a valid semantic reward, and on standard flow matching and DPO equivalence assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

alpha (TAPO anchor weight) = not reported
In Eq.6, alpha balances L_DPO-FM and L_FM; it is described as learnable, but the paper never reports its value, update rule, or final magnitude, so its effect on results is unspecified.
beta (DPO temperature) = not reported
Appears in Eq.5 as the scaling factor for the preference margin; no value or sensitivity analysis is given anywhere in the paper.
Logit-normal timestep sampling (mean 0, variance 1) = mean 0, std 1
Chosen following Esser et al. for training; this hand-picked sampling distribution affects the velocity field fit and could influence final quality.
Number of TAPO iterations = 3
Stopped because performance plateaued (Section 4.1); this is a model selection choice that determines the final reported model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The pretrained VAE (frozen) preserves enough motion information for high-quality generation.
MotionFlux relies on a VAE latent space; if the VAE loses fine-grained pose details, flow matching cannot recover them. This is assumed throughout Section 3.1.
ad hoc to paper TMR++ cosine similarity is a valid and non-saturable reward for semantic alignment.
TAPO's preference pairs are defined entirely by TMR++ scores (Section 3.4); the entire alignment claim depends on this proxy being trustworthy at the margin between generated samples.
standard math Diffusion DPO transfer to flow matching: noise prediction terms in DPO-Diffusion can be replaced by velocity prediction terms.
Invoked when deriving Eq.5 from Eq.4, citing equivalence from Lipman et al. and Esser et al.; no formal proof is included.
standard math Rectified flow straight paths are a valid optimal transport between noise and motion latents.
Standard result of Liu et al.; used as the basis for training with Eq.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MotionFlux: Efficient Text-Guided Motion Generation through Rectified Flow Matching and Preference Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XIDD5BIQ

@misc{pith2026250819527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MotionFlux: Efficient Text-Guided Motion Generation through Rectified Flow Matching and Preference Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XIDD5BIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19527}
}

read the original abstract

Motion generation is essential for animating virtual characters and embodied agents. While recent text-driven methods have made significant strides, they often struggle with achieving precise alignment between linguistic descriptions and motion semantics, as well as with the inefficiencies of slow, multi-step inference. To address these issues, we introduce TMR++ Aligned Preference Optimization (TAPO), an innovative framework that aligns subtle motion variations with textual modifiers and incorporates iterative adjustments to reinforce semantic grounding. To further enable real-time synthesis, we propose MotionFLUX, a high-speed generation framework based on deterministic rectified flow matching. Unlike traditional diffusion models, which require hundreds of denoising steps, MotionFLUX constructs optimal transport paths between noise distributions and motion spaces, facilitating real-time synthesis. The linearized probability paths reduce the need for multi-step sampling typical of sequential methods, significantly accelerating inference time without sacrificing motion quality. Experimental results demonstrate that, together, TAPO and MotionFLUX form a unified system that outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in both semantic consistency and motion quality, while also accelerating generation speed. The code and pretrained models will be released.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19527 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of MotionFlux. In the first stage, we begin by utilizing a pre-trained VAE (with frozen parameters) to compress the raw motion sequence X1:Nframe into the latent space. The compressed representation, along with the text embedding and timestep, is then fed into the vector estimator to obtain the vector field prediction v. In the second stage, we freeze the model parameters trained in the first stage and use … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of the sampling pipeline employed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Trajectory of FID and TMR++ scores over train [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[3]

In European Conference on Computer Vision, 390–408

Motionlcm: Real-time controllable motion generation via latent consistency model. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 390–408. Springer. Duan, Y .; Shi, T.; Zou, Z.; Lin, Y .; Qian, Z.; Zhang, B.; and Yuan, Y . 2021. Single-shot motion completion with trans- former. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00776. Esser, P.; Kulal, S.; Blattmann, A.; Entezari, R.;...

arXiv 2021
[4]

In Forty-first international conference on machine learning

Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first international conference on machine learning. Ghosh, A.; Cheema, N.; Oguz, C.; Theobalt, C.; and Slusallek, P. 2021. Synthesis of compositional animations from textual descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 1396–1406. ...

arXiv 2018
[497]

Plappert, M.; Mandery, C.; and Asfour, T

Springer. Plappert, M.; Mandery, C.; and Asfour, T. 2016. The kit motion-language dataset. Big data, 4(4): 236–252. Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from nat- ural language supervision. In International conference on mach...

arXiv 2016
[2017]

In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 6158– 6166

Deep representation learning for human motion pre- diction and classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 6158– 6166. Chen, X.; Jiang, B.; Liu, W.; Huang, Z.; Fu, B.; Chen, T.; and Yu, G. 2023. Executing your commands via motion dif- fusion in latent space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- feren...

work page 2023
[2024]

Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research, 25(70): 1–53

Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research, 25(70): 1–53. Dai, W.; Chen, L.-H.; Wang, J.; Liu, J.; Dai, B.; and Tang, Y

work page

Pith tools

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

[1] [3]

In European Conference on Computer Vision, 390–408

Motionlcm: Real-time controllable motion generation via latent consistency model. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 390–408. Springer. Duan, Y .; Shi, T.; Zou, Z.; Lin, Y .; Qian, Z.; Zhang, B.; and Yuan, Y . 2021. Single-shot motion completion with trans- former. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00776. Esser, P.; Kulal, S.; Blattmann, A.; Entezari, R.;...

arXiv 2021

[2] [4]

In Forty-first international conference on machine learning

Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first international conference on machine learning. Ghosh, A.; Cheema, N.; Oguz, C.; Theobalt, C.; and Slusallek, P. 2021. Synthesis of compositional animations from textual descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 1396–1406. ...

arXiv 2018

[3] [497]

Plappert, M.; Mandery, C.; and Asfour, T

Springer. Plappert, M.; Mandery, C.; and Asfour, T. 2016. The kit motion-language dataset. Big data, 4(4): 236–252. Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from nat- ural language supervision. In International conference on mach...

arXiv 2016

[4] [2017]

In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 6158– 6166

Deep representation learning for human motion pre- diction and classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 6158– 6166. Chen, X.; Jiang, B.; Liu, W.; Huang, Z.; Fu, B.; Chen, T.; and Yu, G. 2023. Executing your commands via motion dif- fusion in latent space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- feren...

work page 2023

[5] [2024]

Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research, 25(70): 1–53

Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research, 25(70): 1–53. Dai, W.; Chen, L.-H.; Wang, J.; Liu, J.; Dai, B.; and Tang, Y

work page