Human-Centric Intelligence in the Era of Foundation Models: A Survey
Authors: Yang Chen, Tianqi Wang, Xiaorui Jiang, Yilei Man, Yihua Shao, Mengyuan Liu, Zhi Chen, Xiaofeng Cao, Qibin Zhao, Chi Harold Liu, Albert Y. Zomaya, Nicu Sebe, Jingren Zhou, Dacheng Tao, Song Guo, Jingcai Guo
Organizations: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Peking University · University of Southern Queensland · Tongji University · RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project · Beijing Institute of Technology · The University of Sydney · University of Trento · Alibaba Group · Nanyang Technological University · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Human-centric intelligence is evolving in the foundation-model era, with growing emphasis on scale, transferability, and general-purpose modeling. Yet it has not fully integrated with foundation models to achieve the comparable progress seen in them. More importantly, recent advances across this broad landscape remain fragmented across tasks, modalities, and research communities, leaving their intrinsic conceptual and methodological connections unclear. To bridge these divides and rethink human-centric intelligence in the foundation-model era, we introduce a full-spectrum human context taxonomy that integrates six interconnected levels by viewing humans as observable subjects through visual appearance and spatial geometry, as dynamic actors through kinematic dynamics and interaction modeling, and as situated agents through world simulation and embodied agency. We next present the methodological foundations of the field, covering human-centric data families, computational architecture paradigms, and representative training and inference optimization strategies. We then systematically review representative methods across these levels and organize the associated datasets, benchmarks, and evaluation metrics. We further discuss open challenges and promising research directions toward human-centric intelligence that is scalable, trustworthy, physically grounded, and deployable, aiming to provide a coherent framework and practical reference for advancing the field. Finally, we provide a systematically organized and continuously updated collection of human-centric AI literature and resources on our project page.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Outline of the survey. This work focuses on Human-Centric Intelligence in the foundation-model era by characterizing humans as observable subjects , dynamic actors , and situated agents across six human context levels (Sec. 2 ). Built on this taxonomy, we summarize data modalities, computational architectures, and training/inference optimization strategies (Sec. 3 ). We then review main methodologies across six levels (Sec. 4 – 6 ). Finally, we summarize datasets, benchmarks, and metrics (Sec. 7 ), followed by open challenges and future directions (Sec. 8 ).
Figure 2: Full-spectrum human context taxonomy for human-centric intelligence. We organize human-centric intelligence along a progressive expansion of representational scope: from modeling humans as visually observable subjects, to recovering their spatial body structure, capturing their motion over time, reasoning about their interactions with surrounding entities, predicting human-centered world dynamics, and finally transferring human experience into physical execution and agentic intelligence. The images are originally shown in [ 385 , 179 , 86 , 24 , 195 , 221 , 11 , 153 , 325 , 361 , 315 , 60 , 275 , 89 ] .
Figure 3: Representative task families and selected works across the six human context levels. For the complete list of related methods, kindly refer to Sec. 4 , Sec. 5 , and Sec. 6 .
Figure 4: Human-Centric Data and Signal Families. The images are originally shown in [ 225 , 1 , 2 , 284 , 143 , 161 , 13 , 150 , 19 , 41 , 242 , 57 , 20 ] .
Figure 5: Computational architecture paradigms. These paradigms are shared across human contexts and provide the architectural basis for scaling and integrating human-centric capabilities in the foundation-model era.
Figure 6: Overview of visual appearance in human-centric intelligence. We organize it into generalist human perception, discriminative identity understanding, and controllable human generation. The illustrations are adapted from [ 152 , 256 ] .
Method
Venue
Modality
Data Scale
Model Size
Train.
Inf.
Arc.
Context
Function
Paper
Web
Sec. 4.1.1 : Generalist Human Perception
Sapiens2 [ 152 ]
ICLR’26
1B Images \lx@sectionsign
0.4B-5B
S D T
–
SMA
Dense Perception
Sapiens [ 150 ]
ECCV’24
300M Images \lx@sectionsign
0.3B-2B
S T
–
SMA
Dense Perception
THFM [ 324 ]
arXiv’26
20K Videos \lx@paragraphsign
1.3B-14B †
F
–
IGA
Dense Perception
–
Hulk [ 333 ]
TPAMI’25
30M Samples \lx@sectionsign\lx@paragraphsign
113.7M-336.0M †
F
–
SMA
Unified Perception
L-Man [ 453 ]
AAAI’25
2.5M Samples \lx@sectionsign\lx@paragraphsign
7B
S I
–
SFA
Unified Perception
–
Table 1: Representative methods for visual appearance and spatial geometry in human-centric intelligence. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Image, Exocentric Video, Infrared & Thermal Image, Depth Map, Normal Map, Pose & Skeleton, Mesh & Parametric Body Model, 3D Gaussian Splatting, Text and Audio. ∙ Training: S Scratch-based Training, F Full-Parameter Fine-tuning, P Parameter-Efficient Tuning, I Instruction Tuning, R Reward-based Tuning, D Knowledge Distillation, and T Task-Head Tuning. ∙ Inference: S Semantic Augmentation, G Guided Sampling, and I Iterative Refinement. ∙ Architectures: SMA Single-Step Mapping, SFA Sequential Factorization, IGA Iterative Generative, and HA Hybrid. ∙ Context: Visual Appearance, and Spatial Geometry. ∙ Markers: \lx@sectionsign Real-World, \lx@paragraphsign Synthesized, † Estimated, and – Not Mentioned.
Figure 7: Overview of spatial geometry in human-centric intelligence. We organize spatial geometry into structured geometry modeling and renderable avatar modeling. The images are originally shown in [ 79 , 385 , 397 , 145 , 179 ] .
Method
Venue
Modality
Data Scale
Model Size
Pre.
Inf.
Arc.
Context
Function
Paper
Web
Sec. 5.1.1 : Scalable Motion Modeling
Kimodo [ 283 ]
arXiv’26
700 Hours \lx@sectionsign
56M-282M
S F
G I
IGA
Scalable Motion Generation
ARDY [ 431 ]
TOG’26
700 Hours \lx@sectionsign
156M
S
G I
IGA
Scalable Motion Generation
HY-Motion 1.0 [ 346 ]
arXiv’25
3K Hours \lx@sectionsign\lx@paragraphsign
0.05B-1B
S F R
S
IGA
Scalable Motion Generation
MotionBricks [ 327 ]
TOG’26
700 Hours \lx@sectionsign
–
S
I
SFA
Scalable Motion Generation
MonoFrill [ 32 ]
CVPR’26
2.8K Hours \lx@sectionsign\lx@paragraphsign
8B
S F I
–
SFA
Scalable Motion Generation
Table 2: Representative methods for kinematic dynamics in human-centric intelligence. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Image, Exocentric Video, Egocentric Video, Pose & Skeleton, Mesh & Parametric Body Model, Inertial Measurement Signal, Action Trajectory, Text and Audio. ∙ Training: S Scratch-based Training, F Full-Parameter Fine-tuning, P Parameter-Efficient Tuning, I Instruction Tuning, R Reward-based Tuning, D Knowledge Distillation, and T Task-Head Tuning. ∙ Inference: S Semantic Augmentation, G Guided Sampling, I Iterative Refinement, P Preference-based Selection, and R Retrieval Augmentation. ∙ Architectures: SMA Single-Step Mapping, SFA Sequential Factorization, IGA Iterative Generative, and HA Hybrid. ∙ Context: Kinematic Dynamics. ∙ Markers: \lx@sectionsign Real-World, \lx@paragraphsign Synthesized, † Estimated, and – Not Mentioned.
Figure 8: Overview of kinematic dynamics in human-centric intelligence. We organize kinematic dynamics into scalable motion modeling and human video animation. The images are originally shown in [ 283 , 346 ] .
Method
Venue
Modality
Data Scale
Model Size
Pre.
Inf.
Arc.
Context
Function
Paper
Web
Sec. 5.2.1 : Human-Object Interaction
ViHOI [ 24 ]
CVPR’26
10 Hours \lx@sectionsign
3B
P
G
IGA
HOI Motion Generation
Uni-HOI [ 416 ]
arXiv’26
10.4K Samples \lx@sectionsign
8B
P I
–
SFA
HOI Motion Generation
–
CoInteract [ 238 ]
arXiv’26
12K Clips \lx@sectionsign\lx@paragraphsign
14B †
F
G
IGA
HOI Video Generation
ByteLOOM [ 215 ]
arXiv’25
7.8M Samples \lx@sectionsign†
1.3B-14B †
F
–
IGA
HOI Video Generation
HOI-PAGE [ 183 ]
ICML’26
–
–
–
S G I
IGA
Scalable 4D HOI Generation
Table 3: Representative methods for interaction modeling in human-centric intelligence. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Image, Exocentric Video, Pose & Skeleton, Mesh & Parametric Body Model, Gaze Signal, Inertial Measurement Signal, Action Trajectory, Text and Audio. ∙ Training: S Scratch-based Training, F Full-Parameter Fine-tuning, P Parameter-Efficient Tuning, I Instruction Tuning, R Reward-based Tuning, D Knowledge Distillation, and T Task-Head Tuning. ∙ Inference: S Semantic Augmentation, G Guided Sampling, I Iterative Refinement, P Preference-based Selection, and R Retrieval Augmentation. ∙ Architectures: SMA Single-Step Mapping, SFA Sequential Factorization, IGA Iterative Generative, and HA Hybrid. ∙ Context: Interaction Modeling. ∙ Markers: \lx@sectionsign Real-World, \lx@paragraphsign Synthesized, † Estimated, and – Not Mentioned.
Figure 9: Overview of interaction modeling in human-centric intelligence. We organize interaction modeling into human-object, human-scene, and social interaction. The images are originally shown in [ 238 , 24 , 221 , 335 , 337 , 7 , 250 , 343 ] .
Method
Venue
Modality
Data Scale
Model Size
Train.
Inf.
Arc.
Context
Function
Paper
Web
Sec. 6.1.1 : Human-Centered World Generation
Generated Reality [ 361 ]
CVPRF’26
5.8K Samples \lx@sectionsign
5B-14B
P D T
G
IGA
Hand-Guided Interactive Generation
Hand2World [ 339 ]
arXiv’26
–
1.3B
P D
R
IGA
Hand-Guided Interactive Generation
PlayerOne [ 316 ]
NeurIPS’25
5M Samples \lx@sectionsign
1.3B
P D
–
IGA
Hand-Guided Interactive Generation
AnchorWorld [ 199 ]
arXiv’26
301K Videos \lx@sectionsign\lx@paragraphsign
5B
F T
–
IGA
View-Guided Interactive Generation
Sec. 6.1.2 : Actionable World Planning
Table 4: Representative methods for world simulation and embodied agency in human-centric intelligence. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Video, Egocentric Image, Egocentric Video, Pose & Skeleton, Mesh & Parametric Body Model, Action Trajectory, Control Signal, Text and Audio. ∙ Training: S Scratch-based Training, F Full-Parameter Fine-tuning, P Parameter-Efficient Tuning, I Instruction Tuning, R Reward-based Tuning, D Knowledge Distillation, and T Task-Head Tuning. ∙ Inference: S Semantic Augmentation, G Guided Sampling, I Iterative Refinement, P Preference-based Selection, and R Retrieval Augmentation. ∙ Architectures: SMA Single-Step Mapping, SFA Sequential Factorization, IGA Iterative Generative, and HA Hybrid. ∙ Context: World Simulation, and Embodied Agency. ∙ Markers: \lx@sectionsign Real-World, \lx@paragraphsign Synthesized, † Estimated, and – Not Mentioned.
Figure 10: Overview of world simulation in human-centric intelligence. We organize world simulation into human-centered world generation and actionable world planning. The images are originally shown in [ 361 , 364 ] .
Figure 11: Overview of embodied agency in human-centric intelligence. We organize embodied agency into generalist humanoid control and human-to-agent skill transfer. The images are originally shown in [ 192 , 275 , 89 ] .
Figure 12: Representative human subject resources in human-centric intelligence. From left to right, the columns show StyleGAN-Human [ 83 ] , M4Human [ 69 ] , LLCM [ 425 ] , and MVHumanNet++ [ 174 ] .
Table 5: Representative datasets and benchmarks for renderable human geometry in human-centric intelligence. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Image, Exocentric Video, Egocentric Image, Egocentric Video, Depth Map, Normal Map, Pose & Skeleton, Point Cloud, Mesh & Parametric Body Model, and Text. ∙ Markers: C Self-Captured, P Public-Curated, W Web-Collected, and S Synthesized.
Figure 13: Representative human dynamics resources in human-centric intelligence. From left to right, the top row shows OpenHumanVid [ 177 ] , VideoNet [ 377 ] , and Motion-X++ [ 424 ] , while the bottom row shows BarbieGait [ 23 ] , M3GYM [ 371 ] , and TripVVT [ 289 ] .
Table 6: Representative datasets and benchmarks for human kinematic motion modeling in human-centric intelligence. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Video, Depth Map, Pose & Skeleton, Mesh & Parametric Body Model, Control Signal, Text, and Audio. ∙ Markers: C Self-Captured, P Public-Curated, W Web-Collected, and S Synthesized.
Figure 14: Representative human interaction resources in human-centric intelligence. From left to right, the examples show Nymeria [ 242 ] , ParaHome [ 154 ] , TRUMANS [ 138 ] , and Embody 3D [ 245 ] .
Table 7: Representative datasets and benchmarks for egocentric procedural activity modeling in human-centric intelligence. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Image, Exocentric Video, Egocentric Video, Depth Map, Pose & Skeleton, Gaze Signal, Inertial Measurement Signal, Control Signal, Text, and Audio. ∙ Markers: C Self-Captured, P Public-Curated, W Web-Collected, and S Synthesized.
Figure 15: Representative human embodiment resources in human-centric intelligence. From left to right, the examples show EgoVerse [ 273 ] and PHUMA [ 168 ] .
Table 8: Representative datasets and benchmarks for transferring human experience to embodied agents. ∙ Modalities: Exocentric Video, Egocentric Video, Depth Map, Pose & Skeleton, Control Signal, Tactile Signal, Text, and Audio. ∙ Markers: C Self-Captured, P Public-Curated, W Web-Collected, and S Synthesized.
Symbol
Meaning
⋅^
Model prediction; the corresponding unhatted variable denotes the reference.
N,T,J,V
Numbers of evaluation units, frames, joints, and vertices.
C
Number of classes or conditioning groups, depending on the metric.
Kr,Kn,Kc
Retrieval cutoff, maximum n-gram order, and samples per condition.
Li,L
Numbers of reference captions for sample i and mel-cepstral coefficients.
Ri,Ri
Relevant-item set for query i and its cardinality.
Table 9: Unified notation for the evaluation metrics summarized in Table 10 .
Metric
Better
Formula
Description
Articulated Human State
MPJPE
↓
J1∑j=1J∥p^j−pj∥2
Mean 3D joint-position error.
PA-MPJPE
↓
minA∈Sim(3)J1∑j=1J∥Ap^j−pj∥2
Joint error after similarity alignment.
MPVPE
↓
V1∑i=1V∥v^i−vi∥2
Mean dense vertex-position error.
PCK
↑
J1∑j=1J1[∥p^j−pj∥2<τ]
Fraction of keypoints within threshold τ .
AUC-PCK
↑
τmax−τmin1∫τminτmaxPCK(τ)dτ
Area under the PCK-threshold curve.
Table 10: Summary of representative evaluation metrics for human-centric intelligence.
Hand-object interaction (HOI) modeling remains challenging because it requires joint reasoning about hand articulation, object geometry, contact, semantics, and dynamics under severe visual uncertainty. Foundation models introduce transferable prior knowledge learned from large-scale cross-domain data, offering new ways to address these challenges beyond task-specific data and models. However, the rapidly growing literature remains fragmented, and existing studies typically describe these methods simply as ``using large models'' without systematically characterizing what knowledge is introduced, where it enters the HOI pipeline, or which HOI uncertainty it helps reduce. This survey presents the first systematic review of foundation-model priors for HOI. We organize the literature into six HOI tasks spanning reconstruction and generation. More importantly, we establish a taxonomy of eight foundation-model sub-priors grouped into geometric, semantic, and visual families. Geometric priors encompass shape retrieval, shape reconstruction, and spatial reconstruction; semantic priors include semantic grounding and language reasoning; and visual priors cover visual representation, image generation, and video generation. Based on this taxonomy, we systematically analyze how different priors are represented, injected, and adapted across HOI pipelines and tasks. Beyond how foundation models empower HOI, we further examine how HOI-derived knowledge is used in robot learning, including human-data pretraining, human-to-robot skill transfer, and HOI-to-robot data generation. Finally, we summarize datasets and evaluation protocols, and discuss limitations and future directions toward more generalizable HOI systems. To support long-term progress, we curate a live repository that continuously aggregates emerging methods and benchmarks.
Weiquan Lin, Yu Deng, Shiyang Liu +6
1Xidian University · 2Zhongguancun Academy · 3Microsoft Research Asia +2
Although recent large multimodal models (LMMs) show impressive progress on vision language tasks, their alignment with human centered (HC) principles such as fairness, ethics, inclusivity, empathy, and robustness is often overlooked. Existing LMM benchmarks are largely accuracy-agnostic. We present HumaniBench, a unified framework for characterizing HC alignment across realistic, socially grounded visual contexts. It contains 32,000 expert-verified image-question pairs from real-world news imagery, each mapped to one or more HC principles through explicit metrics. Comparing 15 state of the art LMMs reveals consistent trade -offs: proprietary systems lead on ethics, reasoning, and empathy, while open-source models show superior visual grounding and resilience. All models show persistent gaps in fairness and multilingual inclusivity. Chain-of-thought prompting and test-time scaling yield 8to 12 % gains on several HC dimensions. HumaniBench enables fine-grained analysis of alignment trade-offs not captured by conventional multimodal benchmarks. https://vectorinstitute.github.io/humanibench/
Shaina Raza, Aravind Narayanan, Vahid Reza Khazaie +6
Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, Canada · University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA
Emergent intelligence have played a major role in the modern AI development. While existing studies primarily rely on empirical observations to characterize this phenomenon, a rigorous theoretical framework remains underexplored. This study attempts to develop a mathematical approach to formalize emergent intelligence from the perspective of limit theory. Specifically, we introduce a performance function E(N, P, K), dependent on data size N, model size P and training steps K, to quantify intelligence behavior. We posit that intelligence emerges as a transition from finite to effectively infinite knowledge, and thus recast emergent intelligence as existence of the limit limN,P,K→∞E(N,P,K), with emergent abilities corresponding to the limiting behavior. This limit theory helps reveal that emergent intelligence originates from the existence of a parameter-limit architecture (referred to as the limit architecture), and that emergent intelligence rationally corresponds to the learning behavior of this limit system. By introducing tools from nonlinear Lipschitz operator theory, we prove that the necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of the limit architecture. Furthermore, we derive the scaling law of foundation models by leveraging tools of Lipschitz operator and covering number. Theoretical results show that: 1) emergent intelligence is governed by three key factors-training steps, data size and the model architecture, where the properties of basic blocks play a crucial role in constructing foundation models; 2) the critical condition Lip(T)=1 for emergent intelligence provides theoretical support for existing findings. 3) emergent intelligence is determined by an infinite-dimensional system, yet can be effectively realized in practice through a finite-dimensional architecture. Our empirical results corroborate these theoretical findings.
Jun Shu, Junxiong Jia, Deyu Meng +1
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xi’an Jiaotong University.