pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.18003 · v5 · pith:SUUZZ533new · submitted 2026-03-18 · 💻 cs.CV

Universal Skeleton Understanding via Differentiable Rendering and MLLMs

Ziyi Wang , Peiming Li , Xinshun Wang , Yang Tang , Kai-Kuang Ma , Mengyuan Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 11:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords skeleton understandingdifferentiable renderingmultimodal large language modelsaction recognitionmotion analysisDrActionopen-vocabulary recognition
0
0 comments X

The pith

SkeletonLLM translates arbitrary skeleton sequences into visual image sequences that MLLMs can process directly for action understanding.

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

The paper shows how to connect human skeleton data to multimodal large language models by converting motion sequences into compact image sequences. A differentiable renderer called DrAction performs the conversion in a format-agnostic way, so gradients from the language model can adjust the rendering to keep task-relevant details. Cooperative training then transfers step-by-step reasoning and sharpens distinctions between similar actions. If the approach holds, MLLMs become usable for structured motion data from many different capture systems without custom per-format engineering.

Core claim

SkeletonLLM achieves universal skeleton understanding by translating arbitrary skeleton sequences into the MLLM's native visual modality via the differentiable, format-agnostic renderer DrAction. Because the full pipeline is end-to-end differentiable, MLLM gradients directly guide rendering to produce task-informative visual tokens. Causal Reasoning Distillation and Discriminative Finetuning further improve structured reasoning, yielding strong open-vocabulary action recognition that extends naturally to motion captioning and question answering across heterogeneous skeleton formats.

What carries the argument

DrAction, a differentiable renderer that converts skeletal kinematics into compact image sequences while allowing MLLM gradients to optimize the output for downstream reasoning.

If this is right

  • Action recognition generalizes to unseen action categories and across skeleton formats without retraining the core model.
  • The same trained system supports motion captioning and question answering by leveraging the MLLM's native language capabilities.
  • End-to-end differentiability removes the need for separate skeleton encoders or quantization steps.
  • The method suggests a general route for feeding other non-visual structured sequences into MLLMs via visual rendering.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar differentiable rendering could let MLLMs handle other time-series data such as joint angles from robotics or sensor streams.
  • Efficiency gains would come from distilling the renderer into a faster non-differentiable version after training.
  • The cooperative training pattern might transfer to other domains where a strong teacher model supplies reasoning traces.

Load-bearing premise

Rendering skeleton kinematics as image sequences retains enough motion information for the MLLM to reason correctly without format-specific artifacts or loss of critical details.

What would settle it

On a new skeleton format with substantially different joint count or coordinate conventions, if SkeletonLLM accuracy falls below a direct feature-based baseline that never uses images, the universal-understanding claim would be refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.18003 by Kai-Kuang Ma, Mengyuan Liu, Peiming Li, Xinshun Wang, Yang Tang, Ziyi Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Breaking Format Silos and the Modality Gap. (Top) MLLMs possess strong reasoning capabilities but cannot natively process structured skeleton data. (Middle) Traditional alignment methods are tied to specific skeleton topologies, compressing mo￾tion into a single vector for matching against text embeddings, which creates representation bottlenecks and brittle semantics. (Bottom) Our SkeletonLLM uses DrActio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of SkeletonLLM. The pipeline follows a Render-Reason-Respond process for universal understanding. Given a skeleton sequence, DrAction lifts joint trajectories into deformable 3D Gaussian primitives and renders motion-aware images. Joint transforms are computed via Linear Blend Skinning, and kinematic cues (depth, velocity) are fused through a Neural Feature Modulator. All parameters are optimized … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cross-format rendering by DrAction. Top row: DrAc￾tion renders skeletons from four different formats into visually consistent image sequences. Bottom row: the underlying skeleton topologies vary significantly in joint count and connectivity—NW￾UCLA (Kinect v1, 20 joints), NTU (Kinect v2, 25 joints), NTU-2D (pose estimation, 17 joints), and HumanML3D (MoCap, 22 joints). Despite these differences, DrAction p… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of rendering methods. Fixed renderers (3D+Velocity, 2D, JTM (Wang et al., 2016b)) produce visualizations that are either generic, information-poor, or percep￾tually complex. DrAction learns an abstract representation. With the NFM, it dynamically highlights kinematically salient regions (e.g., the kicking leg), producing a more informative visual lan￾guage for the MLLM. A Video Galle… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our Progressive Training Pipeline. To address the joint optimization challenge, we progressively activate and fine-tune model components. The training curriculum begins with (a) warming up the renderer to generate intelligible visuals and concludes with (d) refining recognition, both utilizing a multiple-choice question & answer (MQA) task. In between, the strategy incorporates (b) learning discriminative … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of different rendering methods. Each column shows a representative action instance. From top to bottom, we compare three fixed renderers (3D+Velocity, 2D projection, and JTM (Wang et al., 2016b)) with our learnable DrAction variants (w/o NFM and full DrAction). Static methods often miss or clutter fine-grained motion cues. In contrast, DrAction, particularly when enhanced by the Neur… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of rendered frame count. Accuracy on NTU-60 increases sharply from 4 to 10 frames and saturates at 12 frames (59.02%). Increasing to 16 frames yields minimal gains (59.45%), making 12 frames the optimal trade-off. terization details, it incurs disproportionately higher mem￾ory and computational costs. We therefore standardize on 448×448 to achieve the best balance between accuracy and efficiency for… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Confusion matrix comparison on the NTU-60 (48/12 split). Left: InternVL3 baseline. Right: SkeletonLLM (Ours). Our method significantly reduces confusion between visually similar actions (highlighted in yellow) and improves accuracy on fine-grained classes (red boxes), demonstrating the effectiveness of Discriminative Finetuning. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of reasoning processes on the NTU-60 (48/12 split). We visualize the chain-of-thought generated by SkeletonLLM w/o Disc-FT & CR-Distill (top) and the full SkeletonLLM (bottom) for a “Put on shoe” sequence. While the ablated variant hallucinates a “Pick up” action based on a coarse bending posture, the full SkeletonLLM accurately identifies fine-grained hand-foot interactions (red text) and emplo… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: t-SNE visualization of feature representations on NTU-60 (48/12 split). The visualization is derived from the 48/12 open-vocabulary split (Xsub benchmark). Points in faded, lighter colors represent the 48 seen classes, while the darker, highlighted clusters correspond to the 12 unseen classes. Even though the unseen actions were never part of the training set, their samples spontaneously organize into com… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of reasoning processes. Given a “headache” sequence rendered by DrAction, we compare outputs from different models on a multiple-choice QA task. MotionGPT captures only coarse patterns and selects “neck pain.” InternVL3 (fixed render) and SkeletonLLM w/o CR-Distill both misinterpret the gesture as a “salute,” focusing on superficial posture cues (“upright and stable,” “hand at brow … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt templates for MQA, Disc-FT, and CR-Distill. (Top-left) Prompt template for the MQA task. (Bottom-left) Prompt template for Disc-FT. (Top-right) Teacher prompt for CR-Distill. (Bottom-right) Student prompt for CR-Distill. 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top-5 MLLM-mined semantically similar actions for each class on NTU-60, used as hard-negative candidates in Disc-FT. Actions sharing similar body-part involvement form natural clusters (e.g., “clapping,” “rub two hands,” “pray with hands together,” “high-five”); confusing pairs often differ only in subtle temporal or spatial cues (e.g., “put on shoe” vs. “take off shoe,” “sit down” vs. “stand up”). 30 [P… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top-5 MLLM-mined semantically similar actions for each class on NTU-120, used as hard-negative candidates in Disc-FT. 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Examples of teacher-generated causal reasoning chains used in CR-Distill. 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) exhibit strong visual-language reasoning, yet cannot process structured, non-visual data such as human skeletons. Existing methods either compress skeleton dynamics into lossy feature vectors for text alignment, or quantize motion into discrete tokens that generalize poorly across heterogeneous skeleton formats. We present SkeletonLLM, which achieves universal skeleton understanding by translating arbitrary skeleton sequences into the MLLM's native visual modality. At its core is DrAction, a differentiable, format-agnostic renderer that converts skeletal kinematics into compact image sequences. Because the pipeline is end-to-end differentiable, MLLM gradients can directly guide the rendering to produce task-informative visual tokens. To further enhance reasoning capabilities, we introduce a cooperative training strategy: Causal Reasoning Distillation transfers structured, step-by-step reasoning from a teacher model, while Discriminative Finetuning sharpens decision boundaries between confusable actions. SkeletonLLM demonstrates strong generalization \revise{in open-vocabulary action recognition, while its learned reasoning capabilities naturally extend to motion captioning and question answering across heterogeneous skeleton formats} -- suggesting a viable path for applying MLLMs to non-native modalities. Code: https://github.com/wangzy01/SkeletonLLM.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents SkeletonLLM, which uses a differentiable renderer DrAction to convert arbitrary human skeleton sequences into compact image sequences suitable for multimodal large language models (MLLMs). This enables universal skeleton understanding by leveraging MLLM's visual-language reasoning. The approach includes a cooperative training strategy involving Causal Reasoning Distillation and Discriminative Finetuning. The paper claims strong generalization in open-vocabulary action recognition and extensions to motion captioning and question answering across heterogeneous skeleton formats.

Significance. If the empirical results and the differentiability mechanism are substantiated, this could represent a significant step toward applying MLLMs to non-visual structured data modalities. The concept of using differentiable rendering to bridge skeleton kinematics to visual tokens for end-to-end training is innovative and could inspire similar approaches for other data types. The cooperative training adds a practical way to enhance reasoning capabilities.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'MLLM gradients can directly guide the rendering to produce task-informative visual tokens' requires clarification on the specific optimizable parameters within DrAction (such as projection matrices, joint radii, or camera parameters) that receive gradients from the MLLM. The current description does not specify the loss terms or how backpropagation through the renderer adapts the output for different skeleton formats, which is load-bearing for the 'universal' and 'differentiable guidance' aspects.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The revision note in the abstract regarding generalization claims could be integrated more smoothly into the main text for clarity.
  2. Consider adding more details on the datasets used and quantitative results with error bars in the full manuscript to support the generalization claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work's significance and for the constructive comment on the abstract. We address the point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity on the differentiability mechanism.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'MLLM gradients can directly guide the rendering to produce task-informative visual tokens' requires clarification on the specific optimizable parameters within DrAction (such as projection matrices, joint radii, or camera parameters) that receive gradients from the MLLM. The current description does not specify the loss terms or how backpropagation through the renderer adapts the output for different skeleton formats, which is load-bearing for the 'universal' and 'differentiable guidance' aspects.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is high-level and benefits from additional specificity on this core mechanism. In the revised version, we clarify that DrAction makes the following parameters differentiable and optimizable: camera projection matrices and extrinsic parameters (viewpoint and focal length), joint radii and bone thickness for rendering, and per-joint color/intensity values. Gradients from the MLLM (via the standard cross-entropy or language-modeling loss on the downstream task) flow directly through the soft rasterization in DrAction to update these parameters end-to-end. This adaptation produces task-informative visual tokens and handles heterogeneous skeleton formats by learning format-specific rendering adjustments (e.g., normalizing coordinate scales and optimizing thickness to compensate for varying joint densities). We have expanded the abstract with a concise sentence on these parameters and added a new paragraph plus gradient-flow diagram in Section 3.2 of the method. The full loss formulation and backpropagation details were already present in the supplementary material and will now be highlighted in the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper introduces SkeletonLLM via DrAction (a differentiable renderer) and cooperative training (Causal Reasoning Distillation plus Discriminative Finetuning) to translate skeleton sequences into visual tokens for MLLMs. The abstract and provided text present this as an architectural choice with end-to-end differentiability enabling gradient guidance, followed by empirical claims of generalization on open-vocabulary action recognition, captioning, and QA across formats. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown reducing the reported performance or 'universal' property to the inputs by construction. The method description stands independent of the evaluation results, consistent with a standard proposal paper whose central claims remain externally falsifiable on held-out benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The approach assumes standard differentiability of rendering operations and that MLLM visual encoders can process rendered skeleton images without domain-specific pretraining; no explicit free parameters or invented physical entities are stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Differentiable rendering operations can be integrated into the MLLM forward pass without numerical instability or loss of gradient signal.
    Invoked implicitly when stating that the pipeline is end-to-end differentiable and MLLM gradients can guide rendering.
invented entities (1)
  • DrAction renderer no independent evidence
    purpose: Format-agnostic conversion of skeletal kinematics into compact image sequences
    New component introduced to bridge skeleton data to visual modality; no independent evidence provided beyond the method description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5762 in / 1407 out tokens · 33833 ms · 2026-05-22T11:05:51.886690+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Lens Privacy Sealing: A New Benchmark and Method for Physical Privacy-Preserving Action Recognition

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Presents Lens Privacy Sealing as a pre-sensor hardware privacy method, introduces the P3AR dataset with privacy annotations, and proposes MSPNet with IFNS and CFSA modules that nearly double action recognition accurac...

  2. Lens Privacy Sealing: A New Benchmark and Method for Physical Privacy-Preserving Action Recognition

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Lens Privacy Sealing uses physical film to obscure lenses pre-sensor for privacy-preserving action recognition, supported by the new P³AR dataset and MSPNet model that improves accuracy on degraded videos.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

    URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:274130871. Duan, H., Wang, J., Chen, K., and Lin, D. Pyskl: Towards good practices for skeleton action recognition. InPro- ceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 7351–7354, 2022. Elman, J. L. Finding structure in time.Cognitive science, 14(2):179–211, 1990. Golub, G. H. and Van Lo...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    GPT-4o System Card

    URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:7200347. Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997. Hu, E. J., Shen, Y ., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y ., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W., et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022. Hubert Tsai, Y .-H., Huang, L.-K., ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    org/CorpusID:273662196

    URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:273662196. Jiang, B., Chen, X., Liu, W., Yu, J., Yu, G., and Chen, T. Motiongpt: Human motion as a foreign language. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 20067–20079, 2023. Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimkuehler, T., and Drettakis, G. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field ren- derin...

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    PKU-MMD: A Large Scale Benchmark for Continuous Multi-Modal Human Action Understanding

    URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:271270818. Liu, C., Hu, Y ., Li, Y ., Song, S., and Liu, J. Pku-mmd: A large scale benchmark for continuous multi-modal human action understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07475, 2017. Liu, J., Shahroudy, A., Perez, M., Wang, G., Duan, L.-Y ., and Kot, A. C. Ntu rgb+ d 120: A large-scale benchmark for 3d huma...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    org/CorpusID:231591445

    URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:231591445. Schonfeld, E., Ebrahimi, S., Sinha, S., Darrell, T., and Akata, Z. Generalized zero-shot learning via aligned variational autoencoders. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Work- shops, pp. 54–57, 2019. Shahroudy, A., Liu, J., Ng, T.-T., and Wang, G. ...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models

    ISBN 978-1-57735-800-8. Ye, Q., Zhou, Y ., He, L., Zhang, J., Guo, X., Zhang, J., Tan, M., Xie, W., Sun, Y ., Tan, T., Yuan, X., Khoriba, G., and Yu, Z. Sugar: Learning skeleton representation with visual-motion knowledge for action recognition.Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2026. Zhang, Z. Microsoft kinect sensor and its...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    The renderer first learns to produce coherent visuals be- fore receiving complex gradients from language genera- tion

    work page

  8. [8]

    Discriminative training precedes generative reasoning to establish robust feature boundaries

    work page

  9. [9]

    clapping

    The final stage consolidates all learned capabilities with- out disrupting the renderer’s learned representations. A.1.4. SUMMARY OFCOMPONENTCONTRIBUTIONS Table 9 summarizes the role of each component in address- ing the challenges of skeleton-MLLM integration. A.1.5. QUANTITATIVEABLATION ONPROGRESSIVE TRAINING We conduct a comprehensive ablation study to...

    work page arXiv 2044

  10. [10]

    put on shoe

    Providing the teacher model with the ground-truth label and distilling the full rationale including the label yields the best performance. Setup NTU-60 (%) NTU-120 (%) 55/5 48/12 110/10 96/24 w/o CR-Distill 85.27 63.37 74.68 64.97 w/o Cond. Label 86.67 64.58 75.53 66.59 w/o Final Label 85.47 63.77 75.58 65.78 Ours (Full) 87.37 64.72 76.05 67.20 B.1. Resul...

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Rendering all skeletons through the same differentiable rasterization pipeline with identical camera parameters

    work page

  12. [12]

    Using the Neural Feature Modulator (NFM) to pro- duce task-optimized appearances that emphasize motion- salient regions rather than skeleton-specific details

    work page

  13. [13]

    What is the first step of this action?

    Blending learned colors with depth-based visualization to maintain spatial coherence across formats. This creates avisual lingua francathat the MLLM can interpret uniformly, enabling seamless cross-format transfer: a model trained on Kinect skeletons (25 joints) can directly process MoCap data (22 joints) or 2D pose estimations (17 joints) without any arc...

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    YES” or “NO

    with a 0.03 warm-up ratio. The four training stages are trained for 1, 1, 1, and 3 epochs, respectively. For eval- uation, we conduct a single test run where the predicted label is compared against the ground-truth after standard text normalization (lowercasing and whitespace trimming). E.2. DrAction Implementation This section provides a detailed exposit...

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    clapping,

    with all other class names and ask it to rank which actions are most similar to y in terms of body parts involved and motion patterns. We then retain the top-5 most similar actions as candidate negatives for y. The mined neighbors for NTU-60 and NTU-120 are visualized in Figures 13 and 14. Several consistent patterns emerge: actions sharing similar body-p...

    work page 2024