We aim to build a truly unified motion model that can understand, generate, and edit human motion within a single framework. Existing motion UMMs remain only partially unified: motion understanding is handled by a language model, while generation is often delegated to a separate diffusion module operating over learned motion latents. We introduce Möbius, which brings the entire diffusion process into the same multimodal representation space used for motion understanding. Clean motion, noisy motion, and text jointly participate in shared attention, while role-specific parameters process understanding and generation streams. Importantly, Möbius operates directly on continuous frame-level raw motion, requiring neither discrete tokenization nor a pretrained motion VAE. This simple formulation naturally supports motion captioning, text-to-motion generation, temporal completion, and instruction-guided editing within a single model. On HumanML3D, Möbius achieves state-of-the-art performance among unified motion models. Scaling to 1.7B parameters and 1,700 hours of motion data further demonstrates that our framework is both effective and scalable.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Multi-turn motion creation with Möbius . A motion sequence is progressively generated, completed, edited, and understood through natural language in multiple turns.
Figure 2: Architectural comparison of unified motion–language modeling paradigms. (a) Language-based motion models discretize motion into tokens and model motion and text within a shared LLM. (b) Continuous motion–language models use the LLM to produce conditioning representations, while motion is generated by an external diffusion module. (c) Möbius brings the denoising process into the unified multimodal backbone, allowing noisy motion and language to interact throughout generation.
Figure 3: Overview of Möbius . Motion understanding and generation share a unified multimodal backbone. Text tokens, clean motion frames, and noisy target frames with flow time t participate in shared attention at every layer, while role-specific parameters handle normalization, projections, and feed-forward transformations. The text head autoregressively predicts captions, and the motion head recovers target frames in parallel for generation, temporal completion, and editing. The central matrices illustrate attention visibility for motion understanding and generation.
Figure 4: Qualitative results on motion understanding and generation. (a) Text-to-motion generation results of HY-Motion ( Wen et al., 2025 ) (yellow), Möbius (blue), and MotionMillion ( Fan et al., 2025 ) (purple). (b) Motion-to-text understanding compared with MotionGPT3 ( Zhu et al., 2025 ) . (c) Instruction-based editing: source (gray), Möbius (blue), and MotionLab ( Guo et al., 2025 ) (green). (d) Temporal completion: prediction, backcasting, in-betweening, and keyframe infilling; known and generated frames are orange and blue, respectively.
Method
Task
R@1 ↑
R@2 ↑
R@3 ↑
FID ↓
MMDist ↓
Diversity →
GT
–
0.7703
0.9030
0.9442
0.0000
14.8785
27.7705
Trained on HumanML3D
T2M-GPT ( Zhang et al., 2023 )
Gen.
0.5516
0.7056
0.7788
25.4913
19.0912
25.5949
MoMask ( Guo et al., 2024 )
Gen.
0.6404
0.7974
0.8609
21.0729
18.1216
25.9789
MDM ( Tevet et al., 2022 )
Gen.
0.5208
0.6937
0.7701
35.5169
19.4246
25.3383
MotionStreamer ( Xiao et al., 2025 )
Gen.
0.6303
0.7865
0.8498
12.2110
16.5810
27.4637
Table 1: Comparison of text-to-motion generation on HumanML3D ( Guo et al., 2022a ) . “Task" indicates whether a model is generation-only (Gen.) or unified for motion understanding and generation (Uni.). We use the evaluator from MotionStreamer ( Xiao et al., 2025 ) .
Method
BLEU-1 ↑
BLEU-4 ↑
ROUGE-L ↑
CIDEr ↑
BERT ↑
R@1 ↑
R@2 ↑
R@3 ↑
MMDist ↓
GT
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
4.5165
1.0000
0.5068
0.7064
0.8041
2.9784
TM2T ( Guo et al., 2022b )
0.4912
0.0760
0.3808
0.1719
0.3215
0.5180
0.7178
0.8079
2.9584
MotionGPT ( Jiang et al., 2023 )
0.4605
0.1210
0.3849
0.3409
0.3388
0.5087
0.6880
0.7776
3.1121
MotionGPT3 ( Zhu et al., 2025 )
0.5383
0.1605
0.4165
0.4077
0.3425
0.5333
0.7178
0.8043
2.8533
UniMuMo ( Yang et al., 2024 )
0.4488
0.1271
0.3560
0.3114
0.4517
0.5162
0.7032
0.7984
2.9658
Ours 0.6B (ML3D only)
0.5664
0.2032
0.4636
0.5754
0.4541
0.6056
0.7936
0.8761
2.4693
Table 2: Comparison of motion captioning on HumanML3D ( Guo et al., 2022a ) . We follow the TM2T evaluation protocol ( Guo et al., 2022b ) using raw captions.
Method
FID ↓
R@1 ↑
R@2 ↑
R@3 ↑
AvgR ↓
MMDist ↓
Diversity →
GT
0.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.0000
8.3500
Source motion (no edit)
0.1066
0.4640
0.6525
0.7502
3.5100
2.2817
8.2000
MotionFix (TMED) ( Athanasiou et al., 2024 )
0.5282
0.3248
0.4877
0.5982
5.3600
3.1974
7.8900
MotionLab ( Guo et al., 2025 )
0.1339
0.4610
0.6308
0.7315
3.7500
2.4112
8.1800
Ours (0.6B) †
0.0955
0.4936
0.6821
0.7828
2.8026
1.8749
8.4468
Table 3: Instruction-based motion editing results on MotionFix ( Athanasiou et al., 2024 ) . † denotes our editing variant trained with additional MotionFix pairs in Phase II. The no-edit source and GT are shown as references and excluded from ranking.
Understanding (M2T)
Generation (T2M)
ID
Routing
Encoding
Training
R@1 ↑
BLEU-1 ↑
CIDEr ↑
BERT ↑
R@1 ↑
R@3 ↑
FID ↓
MMDist ↓
GT
0.5068
1.0000
4.5165
1.0000
0.7703
0.9442
0.0000
14.8785
1
Dense
VQ
Und. → Gen.
0.5695
0.5593
0.4568
0.4296
0.5627
0.7741
6.0912
16.4993
2
Role
VAE
Und. → Gen.
0.5846
0.5619
0.5522
0.4404
0.8251
0.9655
5.9970
13.8139
3
Modality
Frame
Und. only
0.5675
0.5222
0.4525
0.4134
–
–
–
–
4
Modality
Frame
Und. → Gen.
0.0328
0.0776
0.0040
-0.3768
0.7512
0.9250
18.0517
15.3010
Table 4: Ablation study. We study motion encoding, routing, and understanding–generation training. † allows denoising to access only the final-layer context representations; ‡ randomly initializes the denoising parameters instead of transferring those learned during understanding. Their M2T scores equal those of the full model and are not ranked. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best variants, excluding GT.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Möbius -0.6B
Möbius -1.7B
Backbone
Qwen3-0.6B
Qwen3-1.7B
Vocabulary size
151,673
151,673
Total parameters
1.047B
3.148B
Motion representation
HY201, 30 FPS
HY201, 30 FPS
Transformer layers
28
28
Hidden dimension
1,024
2,048
Appendix
Table S1: Architecture specification of Möbius .
Hyper-parameter
Value
Hyper-parameter
Value
Training schedule
Generation objective
M2T training steps
20,000
Prediction target
x0
Generation training steps
200,000
Timestep sampling
Uniform
Warmup steps (each stage)
2,000
Motion dimension
201
Token budget / GPU
65,536
Text condition dropout
0.1
Gradient accumulation
1
Geometric loss
Enabled
Appendix
Table S2: Training and inference hyper-parameters of Möbius -1.7B. We first train motion-to-text (M2T) for 20,000 steps, followed by 200,000 steps of generation-only fine-tuning. Both stages use 2,000 warmup steps. Training batches are dynamically packed by token count. Inference uses EMA weights.
Task
Context / output
Observed motion
T2M
C→Bt
None
M2T
[C,BS]→Y
Full source
Editing
[C,BS]→Bt
Full source
Prediction
[C,BS]→Bt
Prefix Ω
Backcasting
[C,BS]→Bt
Suffix Ω
In-betweening
[C,BS]→Bt
Prefix and suffix
Appendix
Table S3: Unified task construction. Ω denotes observed temporal indices. For temporal tasks, observations use the target timeline.
Setting
Text-to-motion
Motion-to-text
Sampler / decoder
Euler with clean-endpoint-to-velocity conversion
Autoregressive greedy decoding
Steps / time grid
50; uniform on [0,1] ; timestep shift 1.0
Not applicable
CFG scale
3.0
Not applicable
Initialization / input
Standard Gaussian noise
Observed clean motion
Motion length
Reference length, clipped to [2,300] frames at 30 FPS
Input motion length
Response limit / stopping
Not applicable
128 new tokens; stop at the configured EOS token
Appendix
Table S4: T2M and M2T inference-pipeline settings. The response-token limit is the M2T script default. Editing and temporal-inpainting conditions are specified separately in their task protocols.
Model
Task
Batch
Latency (s)
Clips/s
Memory (GiB)
Tokens/clip
0.6B
T2M
1
4.988
0.20
1.99
—
0.6B
T2M
8
6.462
1.24
2.07
—
0.6B
M2T
1
0.319
3.13
2.00
10.0
0.6B
M2T
8
0.898
8.91
2.16
12.4
1.7B
T2M
1
5.072
0.20
5.91
—
1.7B
T2M
8
6.547
1.22
6.00
—
Appendix
Table S5: Inference efficiency. Each input has 150 motion frames (5 seconds at 30 FPS). Latency is the mean per batch over five measured calls after two warmup calls. Memory is peak PyTorch allocated memory, including model weights.
Metric
Definition and interpretation
R@ k↑
Fraction of queries whose paired target ranks among the top k candidates in the task-specific embedding space. Ranks are computed within the candidate set of the corresponding protocol.
FID ↓
Fréchet distance between Gaussian fits to generated and real motion embeddings; measures distributional agreement.
MMDist / MM-D ↓
Mean paired text–motion embedding distance for T2M/M2T; the editing table uses motion–motion distance. This is not maximum mean discrepancy.
M2M-Dist ↓
Mean distance between generated and target motion embeddings for editing.
AvgR ↓
Mean rank of the paired target in editing retrieval; depends on candidate-set size.
Diversity →
Mean embedding distance between sampled motion pairs; compare with the real-data reference.
Appendix
Table S6: Meaning of the evaluation metrics. ↑ and ↓ indicate preferred directions; → indicates closeness to the real-data value.
Figure S1: Additional text-to-motion results. Motion sequences are shown with their conditioning descriptions to illustrate prompt adherence.
Figure S2: Additional motion-to-text examples. The motion sequences and corresponding captions illustrate motion understanding at the example level.
Base
Ours
Q1. How does the body’s height change when stepping up versus stepping down?
Answer
When stepping up, the body moves upward as the person lifts the leg and pushes onto the higher surface. When stepping down, the body moves downward as the person lowers the foot to the lower surface and transfers their weight onto it.
The body’s center of mass rises when stepping up and lowers when stepping down, following the change in support height.
Q2. What happens to the knee and hip joints when a person squats down?
Answer
As a person squats down, both the knees and hips bend to lower the body. The knees move forward while the hips move backward, allowing the person to descend while maintaining balance.
Both the knees and hips flex as the body lowers, with increasing joint flexion toward the bottom of the squat.
Q3. Why is it harder to maintain balance when hopping on one foot than when jumping on both feet?
Answer
Hopping on one foot is more difficult because the body has only one foot supporting its weight. This provides less stability and requires more coordination to keep the body upright, whereas using both feet gives a more stable base of support.
One-foot hopping has a smaller support area, requiring tighter control of the center of mass to remain balanced over the supporting foot.
Appendix
Table S7: Qualitative comparison on motion-knowledge QA and motion-language instruction generation. All questions are text-only and require no motion input.
Variant
R@1 ↑
R@2 ↑
R@3 ↑
FID ↓
MMDist ↓
Main-table model
0.8209
0.9397
0.9670
6.1291
13.9973
Multi-task model
0.8056
0.9221
0.9583
6.6746
14.0824
Appendix
Table S8: T2M performance of the main-table and multi-task 0.6B variants. The first row reproduces Table 1 ; the second uses the multi-task 20k EMA checkpoint. FID is reported in the evaluator’s raw embedding space, as in the main table. M2T scores are unchanged.
Method
MPJPE ↓
[P]-MPJPE ↓
FID ↓
R1 ↑
R2 ↑
R3 ↑
MM-D ↓
GT
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.448
0.646
0.767
3.466
Motion Prediction
CondMDI ( Cohan et al., 2024 )
11.439
5.882
3.213
0.383
0.565
0.667
3.927
Kimodo ( Rempe et al., 2026 )
8.781
1.368
1.480
0.337
0.503
0.616
4.532
HY-Motion (1B) ( Wen et al., 2025 )
9.372
0.856
3.185
0.401
0.592
0.701
4.148
MotionLab ( Guo et al., 2025 )
9.829
4.086
1.108
0.436
0.626
0.733
3.479
Appendix
Table S9: Motion temporal completion on HumanML3D. [P]-MPJPE measures the preservation error on conditioned frames. Lower MPJPE, [P]-MPJPE, FID, and MM-D are better, while higher R-Precision is better.
We present UniMotion, to our knowledge the first unified framework for simultaneous understanding and generation of human motion, natural language, and RGB images within a single architecture. Existing unified models handle only restricted modality subsets (e.g., Motion-Text or static Pose-Image) and predominantly rely on discrete tokenization, which introduces quantization errors and disrupts temporal continuity. UniMotion overcomes both limitations through a core principle: treating motion as a first-class continuous modality on equal footing with RGB. A novel Cross-Modal Aligned Motion VAE (CMA-VAE) and symmetric dual-path embedders construct parallel continuous pathways for Motion and RGB within a shared LLM backbone. To inject visual-semantic priors into motion representations without requiring images at inference, we propose Dual-Posterior KL Alignment (DPA), which distills a vision-fused encoder's richer posterior into the motion-only encoder. To address the cold-start problem -- where text supervision alone is too sparse to calibrate the newly introduced motion pathway -- we further propose Latent Reconstruction Alignment (LRA), a self-supervised pre-training strategy that uses dense motion latents as unambiguous conditions to co-calibrate the embedder, backbone, and flow head, establishing a stable motion-aware foundation for all downstream tasks. UniMotion achieves state-of-the-art performance across seven tasks spanning any-to-any understanding, generation, and editing among the three modalities, with especially strong advantages on cross-modal compositional tasks.
Ziyi Wang, Xinshun Wang, Shuang Chen +2
State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, Peking University, Shenzhen Graduate School, China · Donghua University, China · School of Automation Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology
Grounding human motion in language, and language in motion, is a central step toward physical AI systems that can understand, generate, and communicate human behavior. Unified motion--language systems first coupled the two directions through a shared discrete motion codebook, but quantization limits generation quality. The strongest generators buy quality back at growing cost: stacked residual codebooks enlarge the representation; masked decoding stages, long autoregressive rollouts, and denoising chains of tens to hundreds of steps stretch inference; even the continuous-latent designs among them reach their latent only through an iterative diffusion head; and none of this decoding machinery serves understanding. We therefore propose MUGEN, a unified motion--language framework that pays neither cost: no codebook, one draw. A single adaptive-length autoencoder compresses any-length motion into a few continuous latent slots, the system's only motion representation: the language model generates them for text-to-motion and reads them back for motion understanding. Depth-routed hidden states let each slot read from the transformer depth it needs, and a calibrated head predicts a joint distribution over the full latent set, so a single draw carries the text-conditional, cross-slot variation a description permits. At a decoding cost of K language-model steps, one draw, and one decoder pass, MUGEN leads language-model baselines on FID on HumanML3D while raising retrieval precision above the real-motion reference under the standard evaluator, achieves the best CIDEr and BLEU@4 scores, and surpasses the discrete-token state of the art on every retrieval and alignment metric on SnapMoGen.
Zhankai Ye, Yukai Jin, Bingyang Wei +5
1Florida State University · 2Texas Christian University · University of Miami +1
Large-scale foundation models (LFMs) have recently made impressive progress in text-to-motion generation by learning strong generative priors from massive 3D human motion datasets and paired text descriptions. However, how to effectively and efficiently leverage such single-purpose motion LFMs, i.e., text-to-motion synthesis, in more diverse cross-modal and in-context motion generation downstream tasks remains largely unclear. Prior work typically adapts pretrained generative priors to individual downstream tasks in a task-specific manner. In contrast, our goal is to unlock such priors to support a broad spectrum of downstream motion generation tasks within a single unified framework. To bridge this gap, we present UMO, a simple yet general unified formulation that casts diverse downstream tasks into compositions of atomic per-frame operations, enabling in-context adaptation to unlock the generative priors of pretrained DiT-based motion LFMs. Specifically, UMO introduces three learnable frame-level meta-operation embeddings to specify per-frame intent and employs lightweight temporal fusion to inject in-context cues into the pretrained backbone, with negligible runtime overhead compared to the base model. With this design, UMO finetunes the pretrained model, originally limited to text-to-motion generation, to support diverse previously unsupported tasks, including temporal inpainting, text-guided motion editing, text-serialized geometric constraints, and multi-identity reaction generation. Experiments demonstrate that UMO consistently outperforms task-specific and training-free baselines across a wide range of benchmarks, despite using a single unified model. Code and model will be publicly available. Project Page: https://oliver-cong02.github.io/UMO.github.io/
Xiaoyan Cong, Zekun Li, Zhiyang Dou +9
Brown University · Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Max-Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems +2