Stochastic human motion prediction aims to forecast future motion distributions. Although recent studies have achieved strong performance in terms of accuracy and diversity, they often overlook plausibility (e.g., resulting in physically unrealistic predictions) and uncertainty quantification, both of which are essential for real-world applications and downstream tasks. To address these issues, we propose a latent flow-based model equipped with a data-driven Gaussian mixture prior that more effectively disentangles diverse human behaviors than conventional single-modal priors. This prior is derived from patterns in the training data without requiring additional annotations. Furthermore, the fully invertible nature of our model enables natural uncertainty quantification through tractable likelihood computation. Experiments on the Human3.6M and AMASS datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both accuracy and plausibility.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Unlike prior approaches, our method (1) introduces a mixed Gaussian prior to effectively disentangle diverse human motion patterns, improving plausibility by reducing semantic entanglement, and (2) incorporates a fully invertible architecture that supports exact likelihood computation, thereby providing a principled means of uncertainty estimation.
Figure 2: Overview of the framework. We predict future motion within a latent space constructed by a flow model. Owing to the invertibility of normalizing flows, a single model can function as both an encoder and a decoder through its forward and inverse processes, respectively. During latent forecasting, we first pad the observed sequence to the full length using the final observed frame and transform it into the latent space to obtain the starting point Z0 . In training, the model learns the velocity field that maps pZ0=N(Z0,I) to Z1 , corresponding to the ground-truth future. In inference, we employ an ODE solver to evolve the latent state over time, and the resulting latent codes are decoded to generate the final motion predictions.
Human3.6M [ 32 ]
AMASS [ 51 ]
Multi Modal
UA
Method
Diversity
Accuracy
Multi-modal Accuracy
Plausibility
Diversity
Accuracy
Multi-modal Accuracy
Plausibility
APD ↑
ADE ↓
FDE ↓
MMADE ↓
MMFDE ↓
CMD ↓
FID ↓
APD ↑
ADE ↓
FDE ↓
MMADE ↓
MMFDE ↓
CMD ↓
✗
✗
TPK [ 68 ]
6.723
0.461
0.560
0.522
0.569
6.326
0.538
9.283
0.656
0.675
0.658
0.674
17.127
✗
✗
DLow [ 77 ]
11.741
0.425
0.518
0.495
0.531
4.927
1.255
13.170
0.590
0.612
0.618
0.617
15.185
✗
✗
GSPS [ 53 ]
14.757
0.389
0.496
0.476
0.525
10.758
2.103
12.465
0.563
0.613
0.609
0.633
18.404
✗
✓
Motron [ 61 ]
7.168
0.375
0.488
0.509
0.539
40.796
13.743
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table 1: Quantitative results compared to stochastic baselines adopting Best-of-50 metrics on the Human3.6M and AMASS datasets. As AMASS does not include action labels, FID is not used for evaluation. The best results are highlighted in bold , second best are underlined .
Figure 3: Qualitative results. We present qualitative comparison results with SkeletonDiff [ 15 ] , CoMusion [ 63 ] , TransFusion [ 66 ] , and BeLFusion [ 3 ] on the AMASS dataset. For each method, we visualize the final frame of 10 randomly sampled predictions.
Human3.6M [ 32 ]
AMASS [ 51 ]
APD ↑
ADE ↓
FDE ↓
MMADE ↓
MMFDE ↓
CMD ↓
FID ↓
APD ↑
ADE ↓
FDE ↓
MMADE ↓
MMFDE ↓
CMD ↓
Ours
4.804
0.333
0.399
0.471
0.464
3.015
0.088
7.144
0.461
0.474
0.540
0.509
8.579
w/ Fixed Gaussian
4.676
0.336
0.407
0.478
0.475
2.767
0.133
7.311
0.463
0.474
0.541
0.509
9.583
w/ Standard Normal
5.056
0.356
0.421
0.483
0.479
5.854
0.143
7.339
0.465
0.477
0.545
0.511
10.706
w/ FM Only
4.553
0.341
0.408
0.480
0.475
4.895
0.156
7.521
0.469
0.475
0.546
0.509
12.563
w/o Past
5.008
0.346
0.419
0.478
0.478
2.917
0.223
7.531
0.479
0.486
0.557
0.513
8.849
Table 2: The results of ablation studies on the Human3.6M and AMASS datasets. Since AMASS does not include action labels, FID is not used for evaluation. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Table 3: The results of log-likelihood ↑ on the Human3.6M and AMASS datasets.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Visualization of the multi-modal latent space. We present a 2D t-SNE projection of the latent encodings for all Human3.6M test sequences: (a) colored by their nearest sub-distribution, and (b) colored by the action label of each sequence.
Figure 5: Visualization of the single-modal latent space. We present a 2D t-SNE projection of the latent encodings for all Human3.6M test sequences, which is colored by the action label.
Prior
Nums
APD ↑
ADE ↓
FDE ↓
MMADE ↓
MMFDE ↓
CMD ↓
FID ↓
Single
-
5.056
0.356
0.421
0.483
0.479
5.854
0.143
MM
1
4.691
0.338
0.408
0.476
0.475
3.215
0.154
MM
8
4.773
0.334
0.403
0.473
0.469
3.038
0.134
MM
16
4.804
0.333
0.399
0.471
0.464
3.015
0.088
MM
32
4.885
0.333
0.400
0.475
0.470
2.955
0.092
Appendix
Table 4: Analysis of varying the number of initialized sub-distributions used to construct the latent space, with results reported on Human3.6M.
Method
Steps
Time
Human3.6M [ 32 ]
APD ↑
ADE ↓
FDE ↓
MMADE ↓
MMFDE ↓
Dopri5
-
504ms
5.046
0.335
0.401
0.472
0.465
Euler
1
16ms
1.196
0.367
0.513
0.513
0.571
Euler
10
88ms
3.427
0.330
0.409
0.476
0.477
Euler
20
174ms
4.069
0.330
0.400
0.472
0.468
Euler
100
886ms
4.804
0.333
0.399
0.471
0.464
Appendix
Table 5: Experimental results on various ODE solvers.
Figure 6: We evaluate the correlation between prediction errors ( ADE and FDE ) and their associated uncertainty ranks (denoted ”Eval”) on Human3.6M and AMASS. As a reference benchmark, we also present the values based on ideal ranks (denoted ”GT”).
Table 6: The area discrepancy in the error distribution.
Figure 7: Qualitative results. We present qualitative comparison results with CoMusion [ 63 ] and SLD [ 72 ] on Human3.6M (top), and with CoMusion [ 63 ] and SkeletonDiff [ 15 ] on AMASS (bottom). In each group, the final row shows visualizations weighted by uncertainty as estimated by our model, with greater opacity indicating higher probability.
Walking
Eating
Smoking
Discussion
Milliseconds
80
160
320
400
80
160
320
400
80
160
320
400
80
160
320
400
ResGRU [ 54 ]
0.28
0.49
0.72
0.81
0.23
0.39
0.62
0.76
0.23
0.39
0.62
0.76
0.31
0.68
1.01
1.09
DMGNN [ 40 ]
0.18
0.31
0.49
0.58
0.17
0.30
0.49
0.59
0.21
0.39
0.81
0.77
0.26
0.65
0.92
0.99
Hisrep [ 52 ]
0.18
0.30
0.46
0.51
0.16
0.29
0.49
0.60
0.22
0.40
0.86
0.80
0.20
0.52
0.78
0.87
KD-Former [ 16 ]
0.15
0.32
0.54
0.61
0.14
0.28
0.50
0.51
0.17
0.37
0.76
1.46
0.19
0.53
0.87
0.90
MSTP-Net [ 12 ]
0.19
0.34
0.50
0.54
0.16
0.29
0.50
0.61
0.21
0.40
0.80
0.78
0.21
0.54
0.79
0.83
Appendix
Table 7: The results of short-term prediction ( ≤ 400ms) compared to baselines on Human3.6M. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Walking
Eating
Smoking
Discussion
Milliseconds
560
720
880
1000
560
720
880
1000
560
720
880
1000
560
720
880
1000
ResGRU [ 54 ]
0.93
-
-
1.03
0.95
-
-
1.08
1.25
-
-
1.50
1.43
-
-
1.69
DMGNN [ 40 ]
0.66
-
-
0.75
0.74
-
-
1.14
0.83
-
-
1.52
1.33
-
-
1.45
Hisrep [ 52 ]
0.59
0.62
0.61
0.64
0.74
0.81
1.01
1.10
0.86
1.00
1.35
1.58
1.29
1.51
1.66
1.63
KD-Former [ 16 ]
0.70
-
-
0.69
0.71
-
-
1.08
1.01
-
-
1.46
1.24
-
-
1.69
MSTP-Net [ 12 ]
0.60
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.72
0.78
0.96
1.08
0.86
0.98
1.30
1.51
1.22
1.42
1.49
1.51
Appendix
Table 8: The results of long-term prediction ( ≥ 560ms) compared to baselines on Human3.6M. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Existing Stochastic 3D Human Motion Prediction models are fundamentally constrained by hard-coding the skeleton kinematics, severely limiting generalization, preventing cross-dataset training, and requiring complex data retargeting. We introduce EquiFusion, the first kinematics-agnostic model to solve this bottleneck, implementing a latent diffusion model with a permutation equivariant architecture. EquiFusion treats the kinematics' connectivity as an explicit input parameter, ensuring its internal computations are inherently agnostic to joint ordering and graph structure. This novel design enables truly cross-dataset generalization to unseen kinematics and unlocks novel zero-shot directions, such as motion prediction from partial or occluded observations and targeted limb generation. EquiFusion achieves state-of-the-art results on major benchmarks, being up to 75% more compact than previous kinematics-specific methods, while achieving faster training and inference. EquiFusion thus establishes a new, flexible standard for robust human motion prediction. Model and training code are available at https://ceveloper.github.io/publications/equifusion/.
Human motion prediction combines the tasks of trajectory forecasting and human pose prediction. For each of the two tasks, specialized models have been developed. Combining these models for holistic human motion prediction is non-trivial, and recent methods have struggled to compete on established benchmarks for individual tasks. To address this, we propose a simple yet effective transformer-based model for human motion prediction. The model employs a stack of self-attention modules to effectively capture both spatial dependencies within a pose and temporal relationships across a motion sequence. This simple, streamlined, end-to-end model is sufficiently versatile to handle pose-only, trajectory-only, and combined prediction tasks without task-specific modifications. We demonstrate that this approach achieves state-of-the-art results across all tasks through extensive experiments on a wide range of benchmark datasets, including Human3.6M, AMASS, ETH-UCY, and 3DPW.
Human motion prediction requires diverse future trajectories that remain consistent with observed motion and the articulated physical structure of the body. Skeletal constraints restrict individual poses, while coordinated motion depends on spatial interactions (between connected joints) and temporal interactions (between time instants). To facilitate human motion prediction in light of these constraints and interactions, we introduce Graph Structured Flow Matching (GSFM), which transports the complete future skeletal trajectory through a single conditional velocity field. The trajectory produces a spatiotemporal skeleton graph, and spatial and temporal attention couple its evolution according to skeletal relations and physical time offsets. Bone directions lie on unit spheres relative to a root joint, and tangent evolution preserves input bone lengths throughout generation. We train a learned velocity field through conditional flow matching along geodesic paths connecting random trajectories centered on the last-observed pose to recorded future trajectories. Experiments on the Archive of Motion capture As Surface Shapes (AMASS) dataset evaluate prediction accuracy, diversity calibration, and motion statistics. We demonstrate the contributions of spatial and temporal message passing in the developed architecture through an ablation study. GSFM models trained on AMASS also perform competitively on the Human3.6M skeleton without parameter updates or retraining, demonstrating applicability to an unseen skeletal structure.
Yixuan Wang, Brandon C. Fallin, Warren E. Dixon
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering University of Florida · Department of Engineering Virginia Tech