Towards Motion Turing Test: Evaluating Human-Likeness in Humanoid Robots
Authors: Mingzhe Li, Mengyin Liu, Zekai Wu, Xincheng Lin, Junsheng Zhang, Ming Yan, Zengye Xie, Changwang Zhang, Chenglu Wen, Lan Xu, Siqi Shen, Cheng Wang
Organizations: Fujian Key Laboratory of Urban Intelligent Sensing and Computing, Xiamen University · Key Laboratory of Multimedia Trusted Perception and Efficient Computing, Ministry of Education of China, School of Informatics, Xiamen University · National Institute for Data Science in Health and Medicine, Xiamen University · OPPO Research Institute · ShanghaiTech University
Humanoid robots have achieved significant progress in motion generation and control, exhibiting movements that appear increasingly natural and human-like. Inspired by the Turing Test, we propose the Motion Turing Test, a framework that evaluates whether human observers can discriminate between humanoid robot and human poses using only kinematic information. To facilitate this evaluation, we present the Human-Humanoid Motion (HHMotion) dataset, which consists of 1,000 motion sequences spanning 15 action categories, performed by 11 humanoid models and 10 human subjects. All motion sequences are converted into SMPL-X representations to eliminate the influence of visual appearance. We recruited 30 annotators to rate the human-likeness of each pose on a 0-5 scale, resulting in over 500 hours of annotation. Analysis of the collected data reveals that humanoid motions still exhibit noticeable deviations from human movements, particularly in dynamic actions such as jumping, boxing, and running. Building on HHMotion, we formulate a human-likeness evaluation task that aims to automatically predict human-likeness scores from motion data. Despite recent progress in multimodal large language models, we find that they remain inadequate for assessing motion human-likeness. To address this, we propose a simple baseline model and demonstrate that it outperforms several contemporary LLM-based methods. The dataset, code, and benchmark will be publicly released to support future research in the community.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motion Turing Test : Evaluators judge whether the pose sequence resembles human motion, focusing solely on motion without appearance cues.
Dataset
Human
Humanoid
#Humanoid Models
Human&Humanoid
Human-likeness score
Duration
Motion
#Category
#Clips
MoCap
Video
Simulation
Real
AMASS [ 48 ]
✔*
-
-
-
-
-
-
40+h
General
-
26.3k
Human3.6M [ 29 ]
✔
✔
-
-
-
-
-
-
Daily
15
-
LAFAN1 [ 23 ]
✔
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.6h
Sports
-
-
Motion-X [ 44 ]
✔
✔
-
-
-
-
-
144.2h
General
-
81,084
IDEA400 (Motion-X) [ 44 ]
✔
✔
-
-
-
-
-
-
General
400
13k
Table 1: Comparisons with related datasets. The “-” symbol indicates that it is not included in the dataset. The “*” symbol denotes that this specific data type in the dataset is a combination of prior datasets and does not incorporate newly acquired data.
Figure 2: Action sources, types, and category distribution in the HHMotion dataset, illustrating the diverse actions of both humans and humanoid robots.
Figure 3: Overview of the human scoring pipeline , where all the humanoid robot and human motions are converted into SMPL-X poses and evaluated by human annotators. The resulting 0–5 scores quantitatively assess the human-likeness of each motion.
Figure 4: Human-likeness scoring rules used in evaluating motion clips on a 0–5 Likert scale, focusing solely on motion quality.
Figure 5: Overall distribution of motion human-likeness scores for human and humanoid motions ( left ) and human-likeness scores for humanoid in simulation and real scenarios ( right ).
Action Category
Human
Humanoid
Score Difference
Smallest Differences
stand
3.80
1.97
1.83
sit
4.18
2.63
1.55
ski
3.13
1.76
1.37
walk
3.92
2.61
1.31
dance
3.47
2.26
1.21
Table 2: Top 5 and bottom 5 action categories ranked by score difference between human and real humanoid motions. The scores here are calculated based on the average score of the last 25 annotators after the IAC check.
Figure 6: Representative SMPL-X sequences illustrate where humanoid robots perform poorly (upper part) and well (lower part).
Figure 7: Our proposed PTR-Net baseline consists of a temporal encoder, spatial-temporal graph convolution, and attention pooling, then uses a score regressor to predict the human-likeness score.
Model
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Spearman’s ρ↑
Gemini 2.5 Pro (DE)*
1.3105
1.5873
0.1609
Gemini 2.5 Pro (CGE)*
1.3314
1.5986
0.1658
Gemini 2.5 Pro (PDE)*
1.2616
1.5397
0.2188
Gemini 2.5 Pro (DE-CoT)*
1.6040
1.9146
0.1353
Gemini 2.5 Pro (PA-CoT)*
1.2682
1.5214
0.2303
Qwen3-VL-Plus (shot)*
1.7714
2.1018
–
Table 3: Quantitative results for different models on the Motion Turing Test benchmark. “” indicates VLM-based evaluation without task-specific training. Qwen3-VL-Plus (shot) denotes that its results remain identical in DE/CGE/PED/DE-CoT/PA-CoT settings. “–” indicates invalid ρ due to constant outputs.
Figure 8: Four representative motion examples with PTR-Net predictions compared to human-annotated scores.
Model Variant
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Spearman’s ρ↑
w/o Temporal Encoder
0.7631
0.9691
0.3610
w/o Attention Pooling
0.6185
0.8203
0.6255
w/o Lreg
0.5983
0.7958
0.6215
PTR-Net(Full Model)
0.5813
0.7926
0.6841
Table 4: Ablation study of PTR-Net components on the Motion Turing Test benchmark.
Figure 9: (a–b) Score distributions of human annotators and PTR-Net predictions for both human (imitating humanoid) and humanoid motions . (Bottom) Representative dance imitation pairs illustrating near-indistinguishable motion patterns.
Figure 10: Out-of-distribution evaluation on the XPeng IRON [ 59 ] humanoid robot.
Humanoid motion tracking is central to teleoperation and whole-body imitation, yet evaluation often disagrees with what people perceive in videos. Kinematic errors average per-frame pose differences but miss the physical artifacts that matter most, particularly unstable support and incorrect contacts such as foot skating and mistimed touch-downs. Meanwhile, widely used test suites are small and lack the diversity needed to stress contact-rich, long-horizon behaviors. We introduce HumanTracker to make humanoid tracking evaluation both perceptually aligned and scalable. The HumanTracker benchmark contains approximately 153 hours of optical motion trajectories from multiple professional performers, organized into four motion families with text labels for fine-grained diagnosis. We further propose HumanScore, a preference-aligned metric trained on 12K motion pairs containing 24K motions. Across representative state-of-the-art trackers, HumanScore better predicts human preferences and reveals contact and stability failures that kinematic metrics often miss.
Dairu Liu, Zekun Qi, Jiayu Zeng +11
1Nankai University · 3Galbot · 2Tsinghua University +3
The world knowledge and reasoning capabilities of text-based large language models (LLMs) are advancing rapidly, yet current approaches to human motion understanding, including motion question answering and captioning, have not fully exploited these capabilities. Existing LLM-based methods typically learn motion-language alignment through dedicated encoders that project motion features into the LLM's embedding space, remaining constrained by cross-modal representation and alignment. Inspired by biomechanical analysis, where joint angles and body-part kinematics have long served as a precise descriptive language for human movement, we propose Structured Motion Description (SMD), a rule-based, deterministic approach that converts joint position sequences into structured natural language descriptions of joint angles, body part movements, and global trajectory. By representing motion as text, SMD enables LLMs to apply their pretrained knowledge of body parts, spatial directions, and movement semantics directly to motion reasoning, without requiring learned encoders or alignment modules. We show that this approach goes beyond state-of-the-art results on both motion question answering (66.7% on BABEL-QA, 90.1% on HuMMan-QA) and motion captioning (R@1 of 0.584, CIDEr of 53.16 on HumanML3D), surpassing all prior methods. SMD additionally offers practical benefits: the same text input works across different LLMs with only lightweight LoRA adaptation (validated on 8 LLMs from 6 model families), and its human-readable representation enables interpretable attention analysis over motion descriptions. Code, data, and pretrained LoRA adapters are available at https://yaozhang182.github.io/motion-smd/.
Yao Zhang, Zhuchenyang Liu, Thomas Ploetz +1
Aalto University, Espoo, Finland · Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Reliable evaluation of human motion understanding is fundamental to advancing embodied AI, robotics, and animation. However, existing benchmarks suffer from coarse semantic granularity, undifferentiated difficulty, limited annotation quality, and pervasive answer ambiguity, leaving them unable to diagnose where current models fail. To bridge this gap, we introduce NextMotionQA, a comprehensive benchmark that leverages vision-language models (VLMs) for semi-automated, expert-verified dataset. NextMotionQA features three complementary tasks: multiple-choice question answering, video captioning, and fine-grained error correction. Each task is systematically structured across three core semantic axes and stratified into three task complexity levels. Our extensive evaluation of twelve representative VLMs uncovers critical capability gaps and weakness that remain invisible under conventional, single-task evaluations. In a complementary direction, recent work has begun using VLMs as judges for text-to-motion evaluation; we ask whether they show the same degradation under harder tasks. We find that VLMs align strongly with expert ratings on coarse criteria (Cohen's κ=0.70) but break down on fine-grained, part-level judgment (κ=0.10), validating the paradigm in its strong regime while clarifying its limits.
Yong Cao, Chuqiao Li, Xianghui Xie +2
University of Tübingen, Tübingen AI Center, Germany · Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarland Informatics Campus, Germany