We grade MDS-UPDRS gait severity from SMPL motion using three frozen MotionAGFormer encoders as featurizers, reaching macro-F1 0.58 on a hidden, multi-site test set. Because the system's members differ only in their lifting corpus, evaluating encoders singly on that test set isolates what that corpus contributes. Six pools drawn from one inertial dataset, varying only in which walking tasks they include, score between 0.32 and 0.53, and just one of them beats the 0.51 of an encoder given no outside motion at all. What separates them is not how much data they hold but whether they carry a contrast in walking speed, the variation this representation appears to depend : a further pool adding a third collection site at fixed task composition does worse still. The same rule explains why exact synthetic motion and monocularly reconstructed web video both fail to help. Modifying the learned representation itself, rather than the corpus behind it, cost every variant that attempted it.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Inference path. A walk’s SMPL sequence is rendered to 2D joint projections from two synthetic camera views, cut into 81-frame clips, and embedded by three frozen MotionAGFormer encoders. Embeddings are averaged over clips and views, standardized, and passed to per-member MLP heads whose softmax outputs are averaged. The encoders share one WearGait-augmented lifting corpus and differ only in backbone size and seed.
macro-F1
class-0
class-0
hidden
Lifting encoder
(0/1/2)
F1
recall
acc.
test
liftbase (no augmentation)
0.374 ± 0.005
0.495
0.577
0.410
0.51
liftbedlam (+ synthetic)
0.363 ± 0.006
0.401
0.459
0.378
0.43
liftwg (+ WearGait)
0.393 ± 0.001
0.510
0.640
0.422
0.53
liftwglong (+ WearGait, long)
0.406 ± 0.006
0.528
0.658
0.419
0.47
Table 1: Lifting-corpus ablation. Offline columns: LOCO over the four labeled CARE-PD cohorts (2950 walks), three seeds, one ensemble member; macro-F1 over classes 0/1/2 because class 3 appears in only two labeled cohorts. Last column: four-class macro-F1 on the hidden test, one evaluation of the encoder alone. Only the lifting corpus differs between rows.
Pool
Subjects
Sequences
Frames
Hurried-pace
Whole trials
Hidden-test
share
or clips
macro-F1
liftspseg
119
3012
0.45 M
0%
clips
0.32
liftwgsp
119
692
0.85 M
0%
whole
0.35
liftwgmore
120
928
1.31 M
25.4%
whole
0.40
liftmixseg
120
3246
0.52 M
33.8%
clips
0.46
liftwgall
155
1716
2.66 M
27.5%
whole
0.47
Table 2: WearGait pool composition against the hidden test. The six top rows share the same recordings, sensors and inertial-to-SMPL conversion, differing in walking tasks and in whole trials versus short clips. Scores are hidden-test macro-F1, one evaluation per pool, each as a single encoder (not comparable with ensemble figures elsewhere), against 0.51 unaugmented. liftwg is the pool in the final system. The last row adds a third collection site at fixed task composition; † its score is the three-member ensemble, as the single encoder was not evaluated.
Figure 2: The six WearGait pools of Table 2 against the hidden test. Left: hidden-test macro-F1 against the pool’s share of hurried-pace walking; among the four whole-trial pools, more hurried-pace walking means a higher score. Right: the same six pools against corpus size, which shows no such pattern; the largest pool stays below the no-augmentation baseline. One evaluation per pool, each as a single encoder.
Small member
macro-F1 (0/1/2)
class-0 F1
class-0 recall
liftbase
0.391 ± 0.011
0.496
0.599
liftbedlam
0.362 ± 0.019
0.430
0.490
liftwg
0.365 ± 0.014
0.465
0.609
liftwglong
0.372 ± 0.012
0.486
0.621
no lifting member
0.357 ± 0.020
0.411
0.519
Table 3: Lifting encoder inside the three-member ensemble. LOCO over the four labeled CARE-PD cohorts, three seeds, macro-F1 over classes 0/1/2. The two large members and the rest of the pipeline are held fixed, and only the small member varies. Offline only: not every small member was evaluated on the hidden test inside this ensemble.
composition
hidden-test macro-F1
single
base ( 16×128 )
0.51
small ( 26×64 , liftwg )
0.53
pairs without the small encoder
base + large
0.51
large + xlarge
0.52
pairs with the small encoder
small + base
0.54
small + large
0.56
Table 4: Ensemble composition against the hidden test. Learned-feature members are lifting-trained on the same WearGait-augmented corpus and differ in backbone size and random seed; one evaluation per composition. Sizes are layers × width; xlarge is 40 layers. The last block replaces the learned features with hand-crafted descriptors.
extent of change
variant
offline gain
hidden test
none
frozen encoders
—
0.58
features recentered
per-site, forced
—
0.52
pooled over the test set
—
0.49–0.51
input geometry
six camera views
+0.044
0.52
top 2 of 26 blocks
partial unfreeze
+0.030
0.52
lifting corpus
three-site, 178 subjects
−0.014
0.50
Table 5: How much of the frozen representation each variant changed, against its hidden-test score. Offline gains are LOCO over the four labeled CARE-PD cohorts, three seeds, macro-F1 over classes 0/1/2. Hidden-test scores are for the full three-member ensemble with the change applied, so 0.58 is the unmodified final system.
Figure 3: Where external motion sources land in the final system’s predicted-grade space; the dashed lines are its mean predicted grade on CARE-PD walks of classes 0–3 ( 0.44 , 1.01 , 1.61 , 2.96 ). Each source appears under both recovery methods, joined by a line. Every healthy external source sits about a grade above the class-0 reference, and the spread between recovery methods within a source ( 0.05 to 0.12 ) is a fraction of that offset. The recorded walker walks land at the class-3 reference, matching the assistive-device criterion from kinematics alone. BEDLAM carries the organizers’ own ground-truth SMPL and has no recovery step.
Figure 4: Offline movement against hidden-test movement for the six experiments measured under both protocols. Circles are single lifting encoders against the unaugmented baseline (offline: LOCO macro-F1 over classes 0/1/2; hidden test: single-encoder evaluations against 0.51). Diamonds are changes to the final ensemble (offline gains as in Table 5 ; hidden test against 0.58), so deltas are comparable within a marker family rather than across the two. Offline selection would have picked the two largest offline gains; both lost.
In this work, we introduce language-aligned motion representations for domain-generalizable UPDRS-Gait severity estimation, aiming to learn semantically structured motion features that generalize across heterogeneous clinical domains. We first learn motion representations using a Bi-GRU backbone that captures the temporal dynamics of SMPL sequences. Prior to model training, motion captions are generated offline using Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. The backbone is then trained with both classification and text-alignment objectives to learn discriminative and semantically structured motion representations while accounting for the class imbalance present in the training data. We subsequently adapt the learned backbone independently to each source domain so that the model can capture domain-specific motion characteristics. The resulting source-specific models are then merged at the parameter level to consolidate complementary knowledge across source domains into a single domain-generalized model. To further mitigate class imbalance, we perform GPT-5.5-based pseudo labeling, and our final merged models for each site do not use any class-prior correction during inference. The resulting model is evaluated under the unseen-site setting of the MoCha Challenge, using Macro F1 as the primary evaluation metric. Our method achieves a macro-F1 of 0.57 on the hidden test set with only 637K active parameters at inference, ranking 3rd among 58 leaderboard entries in the MoCha 2026 Challenge. The challenge attracted 1,669 submissions from 112 participants and offered monetary prizes sponsored by Machine Medicine Technologies.
We describe the winning entry to the MoCha 2026 Benchmark and Challenge on Parkinsonian Gait, which predicts MDS-UPDRS gait severity from canonicalized SMPL motion recorded at clinical sites unseen during training. The system reaches 0.6945 macro-F1 on the hidden test and ranked first of 58 entries, ahead of the runner-up at 0.5807 and the organizers' baseline at 0.4289, on a frozen public motion encoder with a single 4×512 linear layer. Nearly all of the margin comes from three stages usually treated as bookkeeping: reproducing the reference benchmark's exact head recipe, averaging per-walk posteriors within the subject grouping the organizers ship, and a label-free transductive calibration of the feature mean and the decision operating point. Fine-tuning the encoder lost in four distinct forms, and ten alternative encoders were worse. Every ablation number is a paid read on the hidden test, because our own leave-two-cohort-out cross-validation proved anti-correlated with the deciding score over eleven configurations. We give the negative record in full, and identify our largest gain, subject-level aggregation, as the binding ceiling on this benchmark.
Pathological gait datasets remain scarce due to privacy, recruitment, cost, and movement variability. Our work presents a multimodal LLM-guided framework for pathology-aware 3D gait data synthesis from structured textual descriptions. The proposed method generates fixed-length synthetic skeleton-based gait sequences for pathological gait classification tasks. The framework combines motion tokenisation, pathology-aware language conditioning, LLM-based semantic augmentation, and language-to-gait generation. A key contribution is the proposed pathological tokeniser, which is designed to preserve pathology-specific motion characteristics during discrete representation learning. Experiments suggest that the proposed synthetic sequences improve downstream classification for recurrent classifiers when combined with real data. The best result is obtained using a GRU classifier trained with real and synthetic samples, achieving 92.77% accuracy under a leave-one-subject-out protocol.