Current millimeter-wave (mmWave) datasets for human pose estimation (HPE) are scarce and lack diversity in both point cloud (PC) attributes and human poses, hindering the generalization ability of their trained models. On the other hand, unlabeled mmWave HPE data and diverse LiDAR HPE datasets are readily available. We propose EMDUL, a novel approach to expand the volume and diversity of an existing mmWave dataset using unlabeled mmWave data and LiDAR datasets. EMDUL consists of two independent modules, namely a pseudo-label estimator to annotate unlabeled mmWave data, and a closed-form converter that translates an annotated LiDAR PC to its mmWave counterpart. Expanding the original dataset with both LiDAR-converted and pseudo-labeled mmWave PCs significantly boosts the performance and generalization ability of all the examined HPE models, reducing 15.1% and 18.9% error for in-domain and out-of-domain settings, respectively. Code is available at https://github.com/Shimmer93/EMDUL.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Examples illustrating the effect of dataset expansion. (a) Samples from an mmWave HPE training dataset. (b) Samples from a LiDAR dataset with richer pose diversity used for dataset expansion; (c) An mmWave PC from an unseen scenario. (d) The ground-truth skeleton. (e) The predicted skeleton of SOTA P4T [ 11 ] without expansion. (f) The predicted skeleton of P4T trained on EMDUL-expanded dataset. Joints are colored red for errors >10cm and green otherwise. EMDUL achieves stronger generalization ability than the baseline P4T.
Figure 2: The overview of EMDUL integrating both PC conversion and pseudo-labeling modules.
Figure 3: Illustration of the motion-detection mechanism in mmWave radar using an MM-Fi sample. Joints with high flow (yellow) lie close to detected points, while low-flow joints (dark blue) have no nearby points.
Figure 4: Step-by-step visualization of the point-cloud (PC) conversion pipeline Blue joints have lower flow magnitudes and yellow joints higher ones.
Figure 5: Sample point clouds from different mmWave and LiDAR HPE datasets and the standardized 15-keypoint skeleton structure used in this paper.
Method
Backbone
F → F
F → B
B → F
B → B
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
10% labeled mmWave only
PT [ 39 ]
PT
15.88
10.62
17.75
14.03
35.22
14.83
13.32
9.78
mmDiff [ 12 ]
mmDiff
15.10
10.73
44.00
21.76
28.12
20.15
14.98
10.69
P4T [ 11 ]
P4T
12.23
7.95
20.78
16.10
33.62
15.85
11.39
8.37
SPiKE [ 3 ]
SPiKE
11.85
7.92
18.70
14.40
37.09
16.30
10.70
7.86
Table 1: Comparison with state-of-the-art mmWave HPE methods. Each model is trained with only 10% labeled data from MM-Fi (F) or mmBody (B). Depending on the setting, methods may additionally use the remaining 90% unlabeled mmWave data and/or the LiDAR dataset HmPEAR. All results are reported in centimeters (cm), and lower is better.
Setting
F → F
F → B
Method
LiDAR Dataset
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
MT
H
10.37
6.80
16.97
12.12
EMDUL
H
10.06
7.01
14.89
11.11
MT
L
10.93
6.85
18.62
16.31
EMDUL
L
10.05
6.93
16.97
12.82
MT
H+L
10.60
6.84
17.04
13.53
Table 2: Comparison with Mean Teacher (MT) pseudo-labeling when expanding MM-Fi (F) with different LiDAR datasets. P4T [ 11 ] serves as the common HPE model.
Point feature
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
Doppler
25.15
16.25
Height
19.68
15.24
Table 3: Preliminary error comparison of different point features.
Components
F → B
Llab
Ldyn
Lsta
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
15.22
11.51
✓
15.12
11.44
✓
✓
15.35
11.73
✓
✓
15.53
11.80
✓
✓
✓
14.89
11.11
Table 4: Ablation study on pseudo-labeling of unlabeled data.
Components
F → B
NPA
FPF
RS
NI
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
15.85
12.23
✓
15.80
12.23
✓
15.63
11.80
✓
✓
15.49
11.74
✓
✓
✓
15.47
11.56
Table 5: Ablation study on PC conversion of a LiDAR dataset.
UTCL Hyperparameters
FPF Hyperparameters
μ
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
η
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
ρ
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
γ
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
δ
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
1
15.37
11.67
1
15.28
11.37
10
15.67
11.90
1
15.43
11.38
2
15.25
11.60
5
14.89
11.11
5
14.89
11.11
20
14.89
11.11
2
14.89
11.11
5
14.89
11.11
10
15.52
11.86
10
15.67
11.74
50
14.93
11.12
5
15.47
11.78
10
15.58
11.48
Table 6: Ablation study on hyperparameters in UTCL and FPF under F → B.
Figure 6: Comparison of pseudo-labels generated with and without UTCL. (a) Two consecutive ground-truth skeletons in Dunlab . (b) Pseudo-labels generated without using UTCL, (c) Pseudo-labels generated by EMDUL using UTCL.
Dataset
Dmm
Dlidar
Dconv w/o FPF
Dconv w/ FPF
Ratio (%)
99.61
2.66
43.06
60.46
Table 7: Ratio of PCs classified as mmWave in a binary classification task distinguishing between and mmWave and LiDAR data.
Setting
F → F
F → B
Method
Labeled Ratio
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
MT
1%
18.40
13.20
19.94
12.23
EMDUL
14.77
10.37
15.95
11.46
MT
10%
10.37
6.80
16.97
12.12
EMDUL
10.06
7.01
14.89
11.11
MT
50%
8.25
5.63
17.02
12.15
Table 8: Performance under different ratios of labeled mmWave data ( Dlab / MM-Fi).
Component
Parameters
Explanation
NPA
σ1=2cm , p=0.5 , n=32
n points sampled from N(C,σ12I) to a portion of p of the LiDAR PCs, where C is the center of the skeleton and I is a 3×3 identity matrix.
FPF
γ=2cm , δ=10cm
The flow threshold is sampled from U[γ,δ] .
RS
rmin=0.125rmax=1.0m=128
A fraction of r∈U[rmin,rmax] points are randomly sampled from the PC if it contains at least m points.
NI
σ2=5cm
A noise following N(O,σ22I) is injected to each point, where O is the origin and I is a 3×3 identity matrix.
Table 9: The entire PC conversion process in our EMDUL.
Setting
F → F
F → B
Method
Labeled Ratio
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
MPJPE
PA- MPJPE
MT
10%
11.84
8.13
16.29
12.14
EMDUL
10.59
7.56
15.64
12.07
MT
50%
10.65
7.40
16.26
12.05
EMDUL
10.27
7.19
16.25
12.55
MT
100%
10.37
6.80
16.97
12.12
Table 10: Ablation studies on the LiDAR data size, represented by the ratio of data used in HmPEAR.
Components
F → B
NPA
FPF
RS
NI
MPJPE
PA-MPJPE
15.85
12.23
✓
15.80
12.23
✓
15.63
11.80
✓
15.63
12.01
✓
15.84
12.22
Table 11: Ablation study on PC conversion of a LiDAR dataset.
Figure 7: More visualization results of point cloud conversion. Left: original LiDAR PCs. Right: converted mmWave PCs. Joints with high flow values are yellow, while those with low flow values are blue.
Figure 8: Visualization results on MM-Fi → mmBody (first row) and mmBody → MM-Fi (second and third rows). Joints with high error ( >10cm ) are colored red while others are colored green.
Millimetre-wave (mmWave) radar offers a more privacy-preserving alternative to RGB-based human pose estimation. However, existing methods typically rely on pre-extracted intermediate representations such as sparse point clouds or spectrogram images, where the rich spatiotemporal information naturally present in radar video streams is discarded for model learning, while such signal processing adds system complexity. In addition, existing solutions are mainly conducted in an end-to-end supervised manner without leveraging unlabelled raw video streams to learn generalized representations. In this study, we present MAEPose, a masked autoencoding-based human pose estimation approach that operates directly on mmWave spectrogram videos. MAEPose learns spatiotemporal motion-aware generalized representations from unlabelled radar video, and leverages its heatmap decoder for multi-frame pose estimation predictions. We evaluate it across three datasets based on leave-one-person-out cross-validation with rigorous statistical testing. MAEPose consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by up to 22.1% in MPJPE p<0.05, and maintains robust accuracy under zero-shot bystander interference with only a 6.5% error increase. Ablation studies confirm that both the pre-training and the heatmap decoder contribute substantially, while modality analysis indicates that leveraging Range-Doppler video as input achieves better pose estimation performance than Range-Azimuth or their fusion, with lower computational cost.
Millimeter-wave Human Pose Estimation (mmWave HPE) promises privacy but suffers from poor generalization under distribution shifts. We demonstrate that brute-force data scaling is ineffective for out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness; efficiency and coverage are the true bottlenecks. To address this, we introduce WiCompass, a coverage-aware data-collection framework. WiCompass leverages large-scale motion-capture corpora to build a universal pose space ``oracle'' that quantifies dataset redundancy and identifies underrepresented motions. Guided by this oracle, WiCompass employs a closed-loop policy to prioritize collecting informative missing samples. Experiments show that WiCompass consistently improves OOD accuracy at matched budgets and exhibits superior scaling behavior compared to conventional collection strategies. By shifting focus from brute-force scaling to coverage-aware data acquisition, this work offers a practical path toward robust mmWave sensing.
Bo Liang, Chen Gong, Haobo Wang +8
School of Computer Science, Peking University · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · University of Pittsburgh +2
Millimeter-wave (mmWave) radar enables privacy-friendly human sensing, but its sparse point clouds are physical measurements of view-dependent electromagnetic reflections and only indirectly characterize body articulation. Recovering a complete 3D pose from such partial, geometry-dependent observations is therefore under-constrained. Existing methods directly regress joint coordinates from paired radar-pose data, relying on the same limited paired supervision to learn radar perception, human-body structure, and their alignment. This coupling can encourage dataset-specific shortcuts under ambiguous radar observations. We propose Wave2Body, a radar-to-body token translation framework that decouples these learning targets using a self-supervised mmWave tokenizer, a pretrained compositional body tokenizer that defines the output space, and a lightweight translator between them. Experiments on M4Human and mmBody show that Wave2Body achieves stronger cross-domain generalization than previous methods while incurring much lower computational costs for training and inference. All the code and experiment results are publicly available at https://github.com/Galaxywalk/Wave2Body.
Bo Liang, Chen Gong, Wei Gao +1
School of Computer Science, Peking University · University of Pittsburgh · Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, Ministry of Education (PKU)