M$^3$GPT: An Advanced Multimodal, Multitask Framework  for Motion Comprehension and Generation

Authors: mingshuang  luo
ruibing  hou
zhuo  li
hong  chang
zimo  liu
yaowei  wang
shiguang  shan
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-13 03:05:34

Abstract: This paper presents M$^3$GPT, an advanced $\textbf{M}$ultimodal, $\textbf{M}$ultitask  framework for $\textbf{M}$otion comprehension and generation.  M$^3$GPT operates on three fundamental principles. The first focuses on creating a unified representation space for various motion-relevant modalities. We employ discrete vector quantization for multimodal conditional signals, such as text, music and motion/dance, enabling seamless integration into a large language model (LLM) with a single vocabulary.
The second involves modeling motion generation directly in the raw motion space. This strategy circumvents the information loss associated with a discrete tokenizer, resulting in more detailed and comprehensive motion generation. 
Third, M$^3$GPT learns to model the connections and synergies among various motion-relevant tasks. Text, the most familiar and well-understood modality for LLMs, is utilized as a bridge to establish connections between different motion tasks, facilitating mutual 
reinforcement. To our knowledge, M$^3$GPT is the first model capable of comprehending and generating motions based on multiple signals.
Extensive experiments highlight M$^3$GPT's superior performance across various motion-relevant tasks and its powerful zero-shot generalization capabilities for extremely challenging tasks. Project page: \url{https://github.com/luomingshuang/M3GPT}.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Motion comprehension and generation in multimodality are crucial for diverse applications, including AR/VR creation, video games, and virtual reality. Numerous studies [15, 51, 64, 52] focus on motion comprehension, including captioning 3D human motions and generating music from 3D human dances 2 . Recent advancements in AI [14, 44, 42, 48] have paved the way for motion generation, allowing for various control signals including textual descriptions, music pieces, and human poses. A significant shortcoming of most existing works is their focus on single-modality control signals, overlooking the potential for multimodal information integration. More importantly, the comprehension and generation of motions are predominantly studied in isolation. In reality, human motion cognition and communication indispensably require seamless transitions between any motion-relevant modalities. Therefore, it is vital to develop a unified framework for motion comprehension and generation that can efficiently utilize multiple signals simultaneously.Recent works [12, 62, 63, 58] have shown success in developing a unified multitask motion framework which integrates text-driven and audio-driven motion generation through a single architecture. Employing a large language model (LLM), [60] adeptly handles multimodal control signals, such as text and single-frame pose, to generate consecutive motions. Despite their promising performance in motion generation, these approaches often fall short in comprehending motion. MotionGPT [21] , a recent innovation, constructs a unified motion-language model to generate plausible human motions and natural language descriptions through prompt instructions. However, MotionGPT focuses solely on a single non-motion modality, i.e., text. While aligning motion with one additional modality is relatively straightforward, integrating three or more modalities within a single framework and achieving bidirectional alignment among them to cover a broad range of modalities for motion comprehension and generation presents a formidable challenge.Two main challenges need to be solved for building a unified multimodal framework for motion comprehension and generation. The first is how to create a unified representation space across different motion-relevant modalities. MotionGPT [21] and SpeechGPT [54] separately treat motion and speech as specific language for seamlessly integrating with text. Inspired by these efforts [21, 54] , we view both motion and music as distinct forms of language, facilitating better associations with text via LLMs. Specifically, akin to language, we compress raw motion and music into a sequence of discrete semantic tokens. By encoding motion, music, and language within a single vocabulary, we can build a unified representation space across these different modalities. The second is how to model the connections and synergies among various motion tasks. Different motion-relevant tasks are interconnected and can mutually enhance each other. Since text is the most familiar and well-understood modality for LLMs, we propose employing text as a bridge to establish connections between different motion tasks. Specifically, to better learn the complex music-to-dance task where both input and output modalities are unfamiliar to LLMs, we introduce two auxiliary tasks: musicto-text and text-to-dance, aimed at aligning music and dance modalities with the structured text embedding space. This strategy enables us to establish connections and synergies between musicto-dance and text-to-motion tasks, facilitating the alignment and collaboration of text, music, and motion/dance modalities across different tasks.In this work, we propose a uniform Multimodal, Multitask framework for Motion comprehension and generation, namely M 3 GPT, that leverages the strong language generation capability of LLMs for unifying various motion-relevant tasks, as depicted in Fig. 1 . M 3 GPT comprises three tires. Firstly, M 3 GPT is equipped with multimodal tokenizers capable of compressing raw multimodal data, including motion, music, and text, into a sequence of discrete semantic tokens. These discrete representations allow the core LLM to unify motion comprehension and generation in an autoregressive manner, operating at the discrete semantic representation space. Secondly, different from [21, 60] that solely optimize LLM in discrete semantic space, we jointly train LLM and motion de-tokenizer, optimizing LLM in both discrete semantic space and raw continuous motion space. This operation enables the motion-space error signals from de-tokenizer to backpropagate to LLM, enhancing LLM's ability to generate the details of motion. Thirdly, we construct paired text descriptions for music, and design two auxiliary music-to-text and text-to-dance tasks, which aid in aligning music and dance with the text embedding space. Also, we build up a shared tokenizer for motion and dance data Methods T2M M2T A2D D2A M2M Random M Random T Random A TM2D [12] UDE [62] MotionGPT [60] MotionGPT [21] M3 GPT (Ours) Table 1 : Comparison of recent multimodal, multitask methods across various motion comprehension and generation tasks. T2M: text-to-motion; M2T: motion-to-text; A2D: music-to-dance; D2A: dance-to-music; M2M: motion-to-motion that includes motion prediction and motion in-between. Random M, Random T, and Random A represent the unconstrained generation of motion, text, and music 3 , respectively.to project them into a shared semantic space. These auxiliary tasks and shared tokenizer establish connections between music-to-dance and text-to-motion, enabling mutual reinforcement.We employ a multimodal pre-training + instruction-tuning pipeline to train M 3 GPT, enhancing inter-modal alignment and effectively aligning them with human intent. To our knowledge, M 3 GPT is the first approach to integrate six core tasks of motion comprehension and generation-text-tomotion, motion-to-text, music-to-dance, dance-to-music, motion prediction, and motion in-betweeninto a uniform framework. Extensive experiments demonstrate that M 3 GPT achieves competitive performance across multiple motion-relevant tasks. Additionally, through qualitative results, we demonstrate that M 3 GPT possesses powerful zero-shot generalization capabilities, e.g., long-term dance generation and music-text conditioned dance generation. 
related work: 
 Motion comprehension and Generation. Many existing works focus on studying human appearance, pose, detection, attribute, part parsing and so on [61, 19, 45, 40, 23, 17] . This work focuses on studying human motion, including motion comprehension and motion generation. Motion comprehension involves two core tasks: motion-to-text and dance-to-music. Motion-to-text aims to describe human motion with natural language [37] . For example, recurrent networks have been used in [37] to accomplish this task. Dance-to-music involves creating a piece of music from a given dance [20, 27, 64] . For example, Zhun et al. [64] utilizes a generative adversarial network to generate music from dance videos. On the other hand, motion generation involves generating diverse human motions using multimodal inputs, such as text [44, 56, 15, 5, 57] , music [27, 18, 52, 42] and incomplete motion [31, 1, 3] . Text-to-motion is one of the most important motion generation tasks. Recent works typically map text to motion using different architectures: diffusion model [57] and autoregressive transformer model [15] . Music-to-dance focuses on generating dance movements from music. For example, [42] predicts discrete token sequences conditioned on music, which are then used to regenerate the dance sequence. Motion Completion generates motion conditioning on partial motions, such as motion prediction [31, 1] and motion-in-between [34, 43] . Although these methods have shown promising results in various human motion tasks, most are limited to handling a single task. Until recently, some works [12, 21, 60, 62] attempt to integrate two or more tasks into a unified model, as shown in Tab. 1. However, these works either lack the ability of motion comprehension [62, 60] or fail to handle music modality [12, 21] . In this work, we propose a unified motion comprehension and generation framework that can handle multiple control signals simultaneously.Language Models and Multimodal. Large language models (LLMs) enabled by extensive datasets and model size, such as T5 [39] , Flan-T5 [7] , LLaMA [46] , LLaMA-2 [47] and Vicuna [6] , have demonstrated impressive comprehension and generation capabilities. Researchers have leveraged the capabilities of LLMs to handle multimodal tasks, expanding them to multimodal large language models (MLLMs). For example, AnyGPT [53] employs LLaMA-2 [47] to construct an any-to-any multimodal language model. NExT-GPT [50] employs Vicuna [6] with multimodal adaptors and diffusion decoders to perform tasks across arbitrary combinations of text, images, videos, and audio. Recently, the works [21, 60] attempt to use LLMs for motion-related tasks. [60] uses LLaMA [46] to build a general-purpose motion generator, which, however, lacks the ability to comprehend motion. [21] leverages T5 to construct a unified motion-language model, but cannot deal with music modality.  
method: 
 To enhance the comprehension and generation of motion-relevant modalities, we propose a unified multimodal framework named M 3 GPT. As illustrated in Fig. 2 , M 3 GPT consists of multimodal tokenizers responsible for compressing raw motion and music data into discrete tokens (Sec. 3.1), and a motion-aware language model that learns to understand and generate motion tokens from LLMs by corresponding text and music (Sec. 3.2). To address motion-relevant tasks, we employ a three-stage training scheme encompassing multimodal tokenizers training, modality-alignment pre-training, and instruction tuning (Sec. 3.3). During the inference process, multimodal tokens are decoded back into their original representations by associated de-tokenizers (decoders of multimodal tokenizers), enabling various motion-relevant tasks to be executed via instructions (Sec. 3.4).As shown in Fig. 2 , Multimodal tokenizers aim to discretize continuous human motion and music into language-like tokens, allowing the three modalities to be unified within a single language model. 3D Human Motion Tokenizer. To represent motion in discrete semantic tokens, we build a 3D human motion tokenizer based on Vector Quantized Variational Autoencoders (VQ-VAE) following [12, 62, 21, 60] . The motion tokenizer consists of a motion encoder E m and a motion decoder D m , along with a codebook B m = b 1 , b 2 , . . . , b Nm containing N m discrete semantic vectors. Notably, to facilitate mutual enhancement between motion and dance data, we employ a shared tokenizer for both motions and dances, projecting them into a consistent and shared semantic space. Formally, given a 3D motion sequence m ∈ R Tm×dm , where T m is the time length and d m is the dimensionality of each frame's pose, the motion encoder E m that consists of several 1-D convolutional layers projects m to a latent embeddings z ∈ R Lm×d . Here, L m is the time interval after downsampling and d is the latent dimension. Next, we transform z into a collection of codebook entries through discrete quantization. Specifically, the quantization process replaces each item of z with its nearest embedding in the codebook B m , obtaining the quantized latent vectors e ∈ R Lm×d as follows:EQUATIONThe motion decoder D m , which consists of several 1-D deconvolutional layers, projects the quantized embeddings back to raw motion space as m = D m (e). Following [21, 60] , the motion tokenizer can be trained by the reconstruction loss, embedding loss and commitment loss as follows:EQUATION)where sg [•] is the stop gradient, and β is the factor that adjusts the weight of the commitment loss.After training the motion tokenizer, a motion sequence m can be represented as a sequence of discrete codebook-indices of quantized embedding vector, namely motion tokens q m ∈ R Lm , as follows:EQUATIONMusic Tokenizer. For the music data, we adopt the VQ-VAE in Jukebox [9] as the music tokenizer, which consists of a music encoder E a , a music decoder D a and a music codebook B a . Notably, the limited number of music samples in dance datasets makes it inadequate for training an effective music tokenizer. To leverage the strong representation ability of the tokenizer trained on the large-scale musical dataset, we use the pre-trained VQ-VAE from Jukebox [9] , which has been trained on a dataset of 1.2 million songs. Specifically, we first segment each input music sample into 5-second music segments. Then, for each 5 seconds segment a ∈ R Ta×da , we use the pre-trained music tokenizer {E a , B a } to encode a into a sequence of discrete codebook-indices q a ∈ R La (namely music tokens) following Eq. 3.Expanding Vocabulary. Unified Multimodal Language Model. Equipped with multimodal tokenizers, we can compress multimodal data into discrete token sequences. To be specific, employing the trained motion tokenizer and music tokenizer, the input motion m ∈ R Tm×dm and music a ∈ R Ta×da can be mapped into a sequence of discrete motion tokens q m ∈ R Lm and music tokens q a ∈ R La . Then equipped with a unified vocabulary V , we can formulate various motion-relevant tasks in a general format, where both input and output tokens come from the same vocabulary. These tokens can represent natural language, human motion, music, or any combination, depending on the specific task to be solved. This naturally enables the core LLM to unify motion comprehension and generation tasks in an autoregressive manner.Following [21] , we employ T5 [39] as the language model backbone, which is pre-trained on 750 GB of text tokens. By leveraging this pre-trained large language model, we can harness its powerful modeling capabilities and generalizability to develop a more user-friendly, motion-related human-computer interaction model.The training process is divided into three stages. The first stage is Multimodal Tokenizers Training, which focuses on learning the motion/music tokenizer to represent motion/music as discrete tokens.The second stage is Modality-Alignment Pre-training, which aims to align motion, music, and text modalities, and facilitate collaboration across different motion-relevant tasks. The third stage is Instruction Fine-Tuning, aimed at enhancing the model's instruction-following capability.Stage1: Multimodal Tokenizers Training. We first train a motion tokenizer using the objective defined in Eq. 2. As for the music tokenizer, due to the limited music samples in existing dance datasets, we directly use the pre-trained VQ-VAE model from Jukebox [9] . This process allows any motion sequence and music to be represented as a sequence of tokens, enabling seamless integration with text within LLM. To ensure the stability of LLM training, the encoder of motion tokenizer and whole music tokenizer remain unchanged. Notably, we continue to optimize the decoder of motion tokenizer in subsequent training stages to further enhance the quality of generated motions.Stage2: Modality-Alignment Pre-training. To enable LLM to handle discrete modalities, we utilize paired motion corpus to train LLM in a next-token prediction task. This process aims to align the text, music, and motion modalities for unified reasoning in LLM.• Joint optimization of LLM and motion de-tokenizer. Human motion (especially dance) encompasses intricate details. Previous works [21, 60] keep the motion de-tokenizer fixed during training LLM, which hinders LLM's ability to perceive the distribution and details of motions. Specifically, in the output space of LLM, different motion tokens are treated as independent classes; therefore, the cost of classifying a motion token as semantic-similar token and semantic-distant token is the same. Apparently, relying solely on LLM's autoregressive loss is insufficient for capturing the details of motion. To address this problem, we jointly optimize LLM and motion de-tokenizer in stage2 and stage3. This strategy enables the reconstruction error signals in raw motion space to backpropagate to LLM, enhancing LLM's ability to generate the details of motion.With the goal of minimizing L1 loss between the predicted and real motion, we search for the motion's token sequence that could minimize this L1 loss in original motion space. As the motion de-tokenizer continuously optimizes, the target motion's token sequence, which supervises LLM training, dynamically changes. This dynamic adjustment reduces L1 loss progressively, achieving joint optimization.• Synergy learning of multitasks.Although aligning text with one additional modality is relatively straightforward, integrating multiple modalities (e.g., motion, text, and music) within a single framework poses a significant challenge. Additionally, as noted in [4] , multitask joint training usually achieves inferior performance on each individual task compared to single-task training. This phenomenon is also observed in our text-to-motion task, as shown in Tab. 2. We argue that the large modality difference among different motion-relevant tasks (e.g., music-to-dance and text-to-motion) prevents the model from effectively establishing connections between these tasks. Thus it is difficult for the model to identify a common optimization direction that benefits all tasks.As 'text' serves as a highly semantic descriptor for other modalities and is the most familiar and well-modeled modality to LLM, we use 'text' as a bridge to align motion, text, and music data, thereby mitigating conflicts in aligning multiple modalities. Initially, we construct paired textual descriptions for music samples in the dance datasets. Specifically, we use the style annotations of the music to create paired texts, such as 'a person is dancing Jazz'. Then, we construct two auxiliary tasks using the generated pairs of music and text, i.e., music-to-text and text-to-dance. Through these two auxiliary tasks, M 3 GPT implicitly learns to decompose the complex music-to-dance task into two simpler tasks music-to-text and text-to-dance. Additionally, with a shared tokenizer for motion and dance, text-to-dance and text-to-motion tasks occupy the same matching space, and thus can mutually reinforce each other. In this way, M 3 GPT builds the synergies between the two primary motion generation tasks, music-to-dance and text-to-motion, facilitating mutual reinforcement, as shown in Tab. 2.Combining the above analysis, we jointly train LLM and motion de-tokenizer using a mixture of motion comprehension and generation tasks, along with two auxiliary music-to-text and text-todance tasks. Besides the auxiliary tasks, we consider 2 basic motion comprehension tasks, i.e., motion-to-text and dance-to-music, and 4 basic motion generation tasks, i.e., text-to-motion, musicto-dance, motion prediction and motion in-between. Formally, for a specific task, we denote the source input consisting of a sequence of tokens as q s = q i s Ls i=1 , the target output as q t = q i t Lt i=1 , LLM predicts the probability distribution of potential next token at each step p θ q i t |q <i t , q s in an autoregressive manner. For motion generation tasks, we add a reconstruction loss. Specifically, when the output tokens are motion tokens, we pass them to motion de-tokenizer to generate a motion sequence (denoted as m), where a reconstruction loss is then employed for guidance. Overall, during this training process, the objective is to maximize the log-likelihood of the data distribution and minimize the reconstruction error within raw motion space:EQUATIONwhere m denotes the ground-truth for m generated by motion de-tokenizer, and λ is a hyperparameter to adjust the weight for reconstruction loss.Stage3: Instruction Fine-Tuning. To enhance the generalization and instruction-following capability of M 3 GPT, we construct a multimodal instruction dataset with resort to GPT-4, building upon existing motion datasets. Specifically, we define 11 core tasks, each comprising 200/50/50 training/validation/test instruction templates. For example, an instruction for text-to-motion task could be "Create a motion that complements the poetic elements in <Caption_Placeholder>", with <Caption_Placeholder> standing for any text sequence; an instruction for music-to-dance could be "Script a dance that adapts to the tempo shifts in <Audio_Placeholder>", with <Audio_Placeholder> standing for any music sequence. Further details are available in Appendix B.4.During inference, we evaluate M 3 GPT's performance across multiple motion-relevant tasks and datasets (Sec. 4.2 and Appendix (C, D). Also, we consider two challenging dance generation tasks to evaluate the zero-shot generalization ability of M 3 GPT:(1) Generating long-duration dances from long music. Long-duration dance generation involves creating uninterrupted, coherent dance sequences based on a single piece of music. Due to the limitation of computational cost and memory overload, we train M 3 GPT on the task of 5-second music-to-dance generation. Conversely, during inference, we can combine this training task music-todance to generate an initial 5-second dance segment, and an unseen zero-shot task music+dance-todance that recursively generates subsequent dance segments conditioned on both music and previously generated dance segments, to perform long-duration and coherent dance generation.(2) Generating dance controlled by both music and text. Integrating music and text as control signals in dance generation (music+text-to-dance) augments music-to-dance task with text modality. This process guides the generated dances to synchronize with particular actions described in input texts. Thanks to the tokenizer mechanism, M 3 GPT can seamlessly combine music and text in LLM's input, enabling the integration of text instructions to produce a wide variety of dance sequences. 
experimental setup: 
 Datasets and Preprocessing. We use a large-scale text-to-motion dataset: Motion-X [29] , and two music-to-dance datasets: AIST++ [24] and FineDance [25] . Notably, the 3D pose annotations differ among these datasets, therefore, we standardize their processing for uniform usage. Specifically, we select 22 joints common to these datasets and preprocess the motion samples following [13] , resulting in motion sequences with identical representation. Further details on datasets and preprocessing are provided in Appendix B.1.Evaluation Metrics. Different tasks employ distinct evaluation metrics. We use the most common evaluation metrics to assess the performance of M 3 GPT for each task.(1) Text-to-Motion. Following [21, 12] , we use Frechet Inception Distance (FID), Diversity (Div), R-Precition that calculates the top-1 motion-to-text retrieval accuracy (R TOP1).(2) Motion-to-Text. Following [21] , we use linguistic metrics like BLEU, CIDEr, along with R-Precision for evaluating motion-to-text alignment.(3) Music-to-Dance. Following [26, 52] , we use FID, Diversity and Beat Align Score (BAS) on kinetic features [22] (denoted as "k") to evaluate the dance generation quality. Notably, as noted in [48] , the geometric features [33] are unreliable as a measure of dance generation quality. So we only use the kinetic features for evaluation. (4) Dance-to-Music. Following [52] , we use Beats Coverage Scores (BCS), Beats Hit Scores (BHS), and F1 score to evaluate music generation quality.(5) Motion Prediction and In-Between. Following [21] , we use FID and Diversity to measure the consistency between the provided pose conditions and generated motion. More details and results on other evaluation metrics are provided in Appendix B.2 and C.Implementation Details. For motion tokenizer, we set the codebook size to 512. As for music tokenizer, we use the pre-trained VQ-VAE from Jukebox with a codebook size of 2048. In term of temporal downsampling rate, the motion encoder uses a rate of 4, while the music encoder uses a rate of 128. We utilize T5 base [39] as our language model backbone. For training the motion tokenizer, we use Adam as the optimizer with a batch size of 1000 and an initial learning rate of 10 -4 . To train the language model backbone, we employ the Adafactor_dev optimizer and use CosineAnnealingLR as the learning rate scheduler. The learning rate is set to 2 × 10 -4 for pre-training stage, and 10 -4 for instruction fine-tuning stage. For hyperparameter settings, λ in Eq. 4 is set to 0.2, and β in Eq. 2 is set to 0.02. All our experiments are conducted on 8 NVIDIA A40 GPUs. To evaluate the model's performance across different platforms, we also test our trained M 3 GPT with T5-base on Ascend 910B NPUs. Further details on implementation and hyperparameter analysis are provided in Appendix E. In this section, we conduct ablation studies to validate the effectiveness of our method. We use the same model architecture throughout the experiments. The ablation results are shown in Tab. 2.Effectiveness of joint optimization of LLM and motion de-tokenizer. Different from previous works [21, 60] that fix motion de-tokenizer during training LLM, we jointly optimize LLM and motion de-tokenizer in stage2 and stage3, as detailed in Sec. 3.3. As shown in Tab. 2, the joint optimization consistently brings performance gains across various metrics and most settings. Specifically, it largely enhances the fidelity of generated dances, reflected in a notable decrease in FID k score. We also notice a minor increase (less than 0.003) in FID of text-to-motion task in M 3 GPT. The possible reason is that the motion patterns controlled by text are relatively simple, making LLM optimized solely in discrete semantic space adequate for text-to-motion. Conversely, dances involve greater complexity, necessitating the joint optimization of motion decoder to accurately capture intricate dance movements without compromising information.Effectiveness of synergy learning of multitasks. During the training of M 3 GPT, we introduce a synergy multitask learning strategy by constructing two auxiliary tasks: Text-to-Dance (T2D) and Music-to-Text (A2T), as detailed in Sec. 3.3. As shown in Tab. 2, the inclusion of T2D and A2T consistently brings performance gains across various metrics on both text-to-motion and music-to-dance tasks. Specifically, for music-to-dance, the FID k score is decreased by nearly 10 points, indicating that the synergy learning helps generate more realistic dances. We argue that by incorporating these two auxilary tasks, M 3 GPT implicitly learns to decompose the complex music-to-dance into two simpler tasks, music-to-text and text-to-dance. This way, the text-to-motion task can assist in learning the music-to-dance task, thereby enhancing its performance.In this section, we compare our M 3 GPT with state-of-the-arts on multiple core motion-relevant tasks. We respectively report the comparison results on text-to-motion dataset, Motion-X [29] , and music-to-dance datasets, AIST++ [24] and FineDance [25] . More quantitative and qualitative results are provided in Appendix C and D. Also, in the supplementary material's zip file, we provide the render videos of generated motions/dances and generated music files by our M 3 GPT.Main results on text-to-motion dataset. On the text-to-motion dataset, Motion-X, we evaluate M 3 GPT on 4 tasks, i.e., text-to-motion, motion-to-text, motion prediction, and motion in-between.The comparison results are shown in Tab. 3. As shown, M 3 GPT achieves competitive performance across all evaluated tasks, highlighting its capability to address diverse motion tasks in a single model. Also, for text-to-motion task, M 3 GPT (instruction-tuned only T2M), which combines multitask pretraining and instruction fine-tuning solely on T2M task, yields better performance than Trained single task that only trains the model on T2M task. Tab. 4 presents the results of testing on the Ascend 910B NPUs, where M 3 GPT also achieves comparably good performance. These results demonstrate that multitask pre-training can enhance the performance of individual tasks across different computation platforms. Further results of M 3 GPT trained on NPUs will be presented later.Main results on music-to-dance datasets. On the music-to-dance datasets, AIST++ and FineDance, we evaluate M 3 GPT on 2 tasks, i.e., music-to-dance and dance-to-music. As shown in Tab. 5, in general, the performance of multitask pre-training and instruction fine-tuning in M 3 GPT outperforms single-task training, underscoring the effectiveness of multitask training for dance-relevant tasks. Also, M 3 GPT achieves competitive performance on most metrics. For music-to-dance, the best-performing method on the FineDance dataset is Lodge [26] . This approach features a specialized two-stage architecture for generating long-duration dance sequences, progressively refining movements from coarse to fine granularity using a diffusion model. On AIST++ dataset, M 3 GPT reports the best FID k of 24.34 for music-to-dance task, the best BHS and F1 of 94.0 and 94.9 for dance-to-music task.The results in Tab. 6, tested on the Ascend 910B NPUs, also demonstrate that multitask training can enhance the performance of both music-to-dance and dance-to-music tasks.In this section, we explore M 3 GPT's capabilities in handling zero-shot tasks, as mentioned in Sec. 3.4. Fig. 3 (a) shows the long-term dance generation. As seen, M 3 GPT can generate a coherent dance sequence by seamlessly integrating the music-to-dance and zero-shot music+dance-to-dance tasks. Fig. 3 (b) shows the generated 3D dance with both music and text instruction. We can see that M 3 GPT maintains plausible visual results in accordance with input text instructions (cartweel), underscoring its remarkable zero-shot generalization capability.Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?Answer: [Yes] Justification: See Section 4 and Appendix for implementation details.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not. • If the contribution is a dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable. • Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed. • While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the , with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset). (d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results. 
conclusion: 
 In this paper, we present M 3 GPT, a unified framework for comprehending and generating motion aligned with both text and music modalities. By employing text as a bridge, we build connections and synergies between different motion-relevant tasks, facilitating mutual reinforcement. Additionally, the joint optimization of LLM and motion de-tokenizer further enriches the details of generated motion, enhancing overall motion generation quality. Our extensive evaluations across various motion-relevant tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of M 3 GPT in both motion comprehension and generation. Besides, M 3 GPT exhibits strong zero-shot generalization abilities, enabling it to handle previously unseen and challenging motion-relevant tasks.Limitations and Broader Impacts. Although our M 3 GPT has successfully processed signals from motion, text, and music modalities for motion comprehension and generation, it focuses on modeling human body movements, excluding hands and faces details. Future research can extend the scope of M 3 GPT to include hands and facial modeling.Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? Answer: [Yes] Justification: See https://github.com/luomingshuang/M3GPT. 
experimental setting/details: 
 Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?Answer: [Yes]Justification: See Section 4 and Appendix for implementation details.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them. • The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material. 
experiment statistical significance: 
 Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?Answer: [NA] Justification: Not Applicable. 
experiments compute resources: 
 Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?Answer: [Yes] Justification: See Section 4 and Appendix for implementation details.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage. • The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute.• We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: See References.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL.• The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided. • If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided. • If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators. 
new assets: 
 Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?Answer: [NA] Justification: Not Applicable.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.• Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc. • The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used. • At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file. 
crowdsourcing and research with human subjects: 
 Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?Answer: [NA]Justification: Not Applicable.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper. • According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector. 
institutional review board (irb) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects: 
 Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?Answer: [NA] Justification: Not Applicable.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects. • Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper. • We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution. • For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review. 
 
 Appendix: Due to the lack of a powerful and publicly available text-motion alignment model, we independently leverage existing datasets to develop a functional text-motion alignment model, which is used to evaluate tasks such as text-to-motion, motion-to-text, motion prediction, and motion in-between. We adopt the motion encoder architecture Em from [14] and use the pretrained CLIP [38] ViT-B/32 model for the text encoder Et. As depicted in Fig. 4 EQUATIONWe leverage the largest available text-to-motion dataset, Motion-X [29] , along with widely-used music-todance datasets, AIST++ [24] and FineDance [25] , for our multitask training regimen. Motion-X is used for text-to-motion, motion-to-text, motion prediction, and motion in-between tasks, while AIST++ and FineDance datasets support both music-to-dance and dance-to-music tasks, and are also adapted for motion prediction and in-between tasks to enhance our training resources.Motion-X includes 15.6 million precise 3D whole-body SMPL-X [36] pose annotations across 81.1K motion sequences with sequence-level semantic text descriptions. AIST++ contains 1,409 dance motion sequences across 10 dance genres with SMPL [30] pose annotations, and FineDance provides 7.7 hours of dance, totaling 831,600 frames with SMPL-H [41] poses at 30 fps across 16 dance genres. Tab. 7 shows the training datasets and their corresponding sample numbers that we use to train our model.We standardize data across these datasets by selecting the 22 common joints and normalizing each motion sequence to face the same direction and to run at 30 fps. We use a processing technique consistent with prior research [14, 5, 21] that integrates joint velocities, positions, and rotations for consistent motion representation, facilitating effective utilization across tasks. For the music data, we use the Librosa toolkit [32] to load raw .wav data at a sampling rate of 22050 Hz, processed into features by the Jukebox encoder [9] . To optimize the use of these datasets, we strategically employ data from specific datasets for different tasks. During training for music and dance tasks, we randomly select 5-second segments from complete music tracks and corresponding dance segments as training samples, setting the sample length to 6.25 seconds for motion prediction and in-between tasks with AIST++ and FineDance. When assessing music-to-dance on the FineDance dataset, we don't evaluate all 5-second samples directly. Instead, we generate continuous long dance sequences using music-to-dance and motion prediction, then segment these into 30-second samples for evaluation to align with Lodge's testing methodology. Different tasks utilize specific evaluation metrics. We use the consistent evaluation metrics following prior research [14, 21, 12, 26, 64, 52] .• Text-to-Motion. We measure the discrepancy between generated and actual motion features using Frechet Inception Distance (FID), assess diversity (Div) among all generated motion sequences, and evaluate motion-text semantic correlation with R-precision. Multimodal Distance (MM Dist) quantifies the disparity between motions and texts. A specialized model developed for evaluating the text-to-motion task on the Motion-X dataset with 22 joints is detailed in Appendix A.• Motion-to-Text. We use linguistic metrics including BLEU [35] , ROUGE [28] , CIDEr [49] , and BertScore [59] , along with R-Precision and MM Dist to assess alignment between generated text and motion.• Music-to-Dance. We employ the evaluation framework recommended by FACT [24] and Bailando [42] , utilizing FID, Diversity, and Beat Align Score (BAS) to gauge dance quality. In our paper, we use kinetic features to compute FID and Diversity.• Dance-to-Music. We use metrics from [52, 64] such as Beats Coverage Scores (BCS), Beats Hit Scores (BHS), F1 scores, Beats Coverage Std (CSD), and Beats Hit Std (HSD) to evaluate music generation quality.• Motion Prediction and Motion In-between. We use Average Displacement Error (ADE) and Final Displacement Error (FDE) to assess the quality of predicted motion. The text-motion alignment model aids in evaluating motion prediction performance.We employ a single-node multi-GPU distributed training strategy for M 3 GPT, distributing each task across separate GPUs to facilitate multitask training through shared model parameters. This method allows us to tailor the maximum token length of the LLM for each task, based on the longest sample sequence typical for that task. Specifically, we set the maximum LLM token length to 192 for tasks such as text-to-motion, motion-to-text, motion prediction, and motion in-between. For tasks involving the music modality, such as music-to-dance and dance-to-music, the maximum length is set at 980. This task-specific configuration enables us to optimize batch sizes effectively, thus maximizing GPU utilization.In our experimental setup, the batch size is set to 40 for the text-to-motion, text-to-dance, and motion-to-text tasks, and 4 for the music-to-dance, dance-to-music, and music-to-text tasks. For motion prediction and motion in-between tasks, the batch size is set to 45. We also establish the number of iterations for pre-training at 1,000,000, instruction fine-tuning at 200,000. This structured approach ensures that each task is optimally processed, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of our training regimen.As shown in Fig. 5 , we define 11 core motion-related tasks for the instruction tuning of M 3 GPT, including text-to-motion, random-to-motion, motion-to-text, random-to-text, motion prediction, motion in-between, musicto-dance, dance-to-music, random-to-music, text-to-dance, and music-to-text. The tasks of text-to-dance and music-to-text were specifically constructed based on the music-to-dance datasets. Random-to-X represents the unconstrained generation of motion, text and music. In Tab. 8, we present a selection of command templates for each task, where <Motion_Placeholder>, <Caption_Placeholder>, and <Music_Placeholder> respectively represent the motion sequence (including dance sequence), textual description, and music segment from the training data.In this section, we compare the performance of our M 3 GPT with existing SOTA methods on a broader set of metrics for each task across three datasets: Motion-X [29] , AIST++ [24] , and FineDance [25] . Tab. 9 shows <Motion_Placeholder> What steps might deepen the emotional expression seen in <Motion_Placeholder>? What movements could follow to resolve the suspense built in <Motion_Placeholder>? motion in-between What new character dynamics could the middle section of <Motion_Placeholder> explore? <Motion_Placeholder> Infer the type of dramatic climax that the masked section of <Motion_Placeholder> might contain. What potential themes of ascent or descent could be explored in the middle of <Motion_Placeholder>? music-to-dance Script a dance that adapts to the tempo shifts in <Music_Placeholder>. <Motion_Placeholder> Create a dance that would visually mimic the lyrical journey in <Music_Placeholder>. Compose a dance that explores the genre characteristics of <Music_Placeholder>.Can you design a music for this dance <Motion_Placeholder>? <Music_Placeholder> Please create a music based on this dance <Motion_Placeholder>. Arrange a symphony that captures the shifts in <Motion_Placeholder>.Please generate a music for a dance randomly. <Music_Placeholder> Can you generate a music with dance style? Creat a music for any style dance.Please generate a dance based on the caption <Caption_Placeholder>. <Motion_Placeholder> Create a dance for the text <Caption_Placeholder>. Generate a dance that corresponds to the textual description <Caption_Placeholder>.Describe the dance movements that correspond to the given music <Music_Placeholder>. <Caption_Placeholder> Describe the dance actions that match the provided music <Music_Placeholder>. Detail the dance steps associated with the specified music <Music_Placeholder>.the comparison of text-to-motion on Motion-X dataset. Tab. 10 shows the comparison of motion-to-text on Motion-X dataset. Tab. 11 shows the comparison of music-to-dance on AIST++ and FineDance datasets. Tab. 12 shows the comparison of dance-to-music on AIST++ and FineDance datasets. Tab. 13 and Tab. 14 shows the comparison of motion prediction and motion in-between on Motion-X dataset. Tab. 15 shows the comparison of music-to-text, text-to-dance and text-to-music on AIST++ dataset. Tab. 16 and Tab. 17 show the comparison of motion-related tasks among different size of T5. As shown in these tables, M 3 GPT can achieve competitive performance with SOTAs across all evaluated tasks.Fig. 6 presents visualizations for a variety of tasks, including text-to-motion, motion-to-text, motion prediction, motion in-between, music-to-dance, long-term dance generation, and music-text conditioned dance generation. The visualization results show that our method can generate realistic results across various motion-relevant tasks. Fig. 7 presents the qualitative results between different methods for text-to-motion and music-to-dance.The performance of text-to-motion based on different λ. In Tab. 18, the performance of M 3 GPT on Motion-X dataset is analyzed across different values of λ for the text-to-motion task. The results indicate that as λ increases, the model's recall precision (Top1, Top2, Top3) initially improves but subsequently declines. The optimal performance is achieved at λ = 0.2, as evidenced by the highest scores in RPrecision and modality metrics.Further increases in λ to 0.3 and 0.4 lead to deteriorating performance, particularly in FID and RPrecision, suggesting that excessive λ values may result in over-regularization or reduced adaptability of the model. [24] and FineDance [25] . • The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition. • Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material. • Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.• The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code. • Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments. • The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper. • The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions). • The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.) • The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors). • It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. • It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified. • For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates). • If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.In this paper, the term "motion" generally includes "dance." We distinguish them when referring to specific tasks or scenes, such as text-to-motion, and music-to-dance.Note: in this paper, the term "audio" specifically refers to "music". This designation is adopted to avoid confusion between the initial letter "M" shared by both "music" and "motion," which could lead to ambiguity when these modalities are represented by their initials. 


Decision: This paper introduces $M^3$GPT, a multimodal, multitask framework for motion comprehension and generation, integrating text, music, and motion into a unified representation. The model demonstrates strong performance across tasks and impressive zero-shot generalization capabilities.

Reviewers praised the model’s novelty and its ability to handle multiple input modalities seamlessly within a large language model. However, concerns were raised about the complexity and whether the model’s benefits would generalize to broader tasks. Some reviewers also noted a lack of comparisons with other state-of-the-art frameworks.
The rebuttal provided some clarifications and comparisons, though not all concerns were fully addressed. Despite this, the strong results and novel approach make it a valuable contribution.

Overall, the AC leans towards acceptance, given the paper’s solid contributions to multimodal motion comprehension and generation, while recommending that the authors address the concerns about generalization and further comparisons in future revisions.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: In this paper, the authors introduce $M^3$GPT, a multimodal multitask framework designed for both motion comprehension and generation. Utilizing discrete vector quantization, $M^3$GPT establishes a discrete semantic representation space for various modalities. To avoid information loss during discrete de-tokenization, $M^3GPT$ jointly trains the large language model (LLM) and motion de-tokenizer, thereby optimizing the LLM within both the discrete semantic space and the continuous raw motion space. Furthermore, the authors construct paired text descriptions for music and devise two supplementary tasks music-to-text and text-to-dance, which facilitate the alignment of music and dance within the text embedding space. The efficacy of this approach is demonstrated through experiments across a range of motion-related tasks, and showcases zero-shot generalization capabilities for highly challenging tasks.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The effectiveness of combining text, music, and motion modalities in the $M^3$GPT framework is not thoroughly evaluated. Although the authors present the $M^3$GPT capabilities in handling zero-shot tasks. However, there is still doubt about how can text-to-motion or music-to-dance tasks benefit from the multimodal framework.

2. Some key experiments are missing.

   a. In Table 3, the authors evaluate proposed $M^3$GPT on text-to-motion dataset Motion-X on 4 tasks. However, MotionGPT[1] can also perform the tasks while the comparison between MotionGPT[1] is missing.

   b. Besides motion prediction lacks comparison with models like T2M-GPT[2], since the auto-regressive models are better at prediction.

   c. Motion inbetweening lacks comparison with the state-of-the-art models like MoMask[3] capable of temporal inpainting which can handle motion inbetweening tasks.

3. The qualitative comparison of generated motions by the proposed $M^3$GPT framework from text or music is absent. The inclusion of detailed qualitative results is crucial for providing a comprehensive understanding of the naturalness and overall realism of the generated gestures.


Minor:

1. In Figure 2, there is an error in drawing graphics in the Motion Codebook part.

[1] Jiang, Biao, et al. "Motiongpt: Human motion as a foreign language." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).

[2] Zhang, Jianrong, et al. "Generating human motion from textual descriptions with discrete representations." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023.

[3] Guo, Chuan, et al. "Momask: Generative masked modeling of 3d human motions." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024.
questions: questions: 1. I am curious about the long-duration dance generation mentioned in Page 6, especially if the LLM can maintain coherence and consistency in generating long sequences or this long-duration generation is achieved by the consistency during de-tokenization.

2. In Table 4, the authors evaluate music-to-dance on two datasets AIST++ and FineDance, $M^3$GPT achieves state-of-the-art performance on AIST++, but the performance on FineDance is not that competitive. Could the authors provide more insights into the reasons behind this performance gap between the two datasets?

3. Have authors evaluate different sizes of the $M^3$GPT model? Given the added modalities and tasks, it would be interesting to understand how the model scales with respect to performance and computational requirements.
limitations: limitations: The authors have discussed limitations.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper presents an advanced Multimodal, Multitask framework for Motion comprehension and generation. It aims to create a unified representation space for various motion-relevant modalities and model the connections and synergies among different motion tasks. M3GPT consists of multimodal tokenizers and a motion-aware language model, and is trained through a multimodal pre-training + instruction-tuning pipeline. The model is evaluated on multiple motion-relevant tasks and datasets, and shows competitive performance and strong zero-shot generalization capabilities.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: (1) For supplementary videos, it's hard to judge the quality of music-motion bidirectional generations without combining them in one video; also, long-term dance generation on aist++ dataset is only a little longer than 5s.

(2) The method of Joint optimization of LLM and motion de-tokenizer lacks important details. In line 194-195, I wonder how the gradient from de-tokenizer backprogate to LLM if author use softmax to choose top-1 token.

(3) For motion prediction and In-between tasks, feature-level metrics like FID are not enough, pose-level metrics like MPJPE are needed for comparison.
questions: questions: (1) Did authors try different LLM architecture or different size of T5, what is the conclusion and the training time for T5 base?

(2) Did you evalute two auxiliary tasks music2text or text2dance quantitatively or qualitatively?

(3) For zero-shot tasks, can they combined together for more application? For instance, generating a long dance while we specify text prompt for one segment in the middle of sequence. Also, how about zero-shot text2music?

(4) For tab.4, what is the result of Instruction-tuned only on AIST++ or FineDance of which the setting is similar to the last row in tab.3.

(5) How did you implement motion in-between in pretrained stage use the equation(4)? More specifically, whether your model is conditioned on future target frame, if so, the equation is not precise enough.  

(6) Is there any special token for motion and music in the unified token vocabulary, like start/end of motion/music token? If not, how to ensure the pretrained model generate desired modality? For example, I wanna directly generate dance conditioned on music, but actually the model generate text token.

(7) The statistics of music2text and text2dance paired dataset are missing.

   
I would like to raise the score if authors can well address my concerns questions.
limitations: limitations: N.A
paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper presents M3GPT, which creates a unified representation space for different motion-relevant modalities, including text, music, and motion/dance. The framework employs discrete vector quantization for these modalities, enabling integration into a large language model (LLM) with a single vocabulary. The model operates directly in the raw motion space to avoid information loss associated with discrete tokenizers. Extensive experiments highlight M3GPT’s superior performance across various motion tasks and its zero-shot generalization capabilities.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: - The proposed framework is complex and may require significant computational resources to implement and extend.

- While the experimental results are promising, the paper could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the evaluation metrics and benchmarks used to assess performance. A more extensive comparison with a broader range of baselines could strengthen the argument for its superiority. Also, the paper would benefit from a more in-depth discussion on the potential real-world applications and limitations of M3GPT.
questions: questions: - Could you provide more details on the training process, including the computational resources required and the time taken to train M3GPT?

- Have you conducted any ablation studies to understand the contribution of each component of M3GPT to the overall performance? If so, could you include those results?

- Can you provide more examples or case studies where M3GPT has been applied to real-world scenarios? What challenges were encountered?
limitations: limitations: Limitations have been discussed.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper introduces M3GPT, an advanced Multimodal, Multitask framework for motion comprehension and generation. M3GPT operates based on three fundamental principles. Firstly, it aims to create a unified representation space for various motion-relevant modalities. We employ discrete vector quantization for multimodal control and generation signals, such as text, music, and motion/dance, enabling seamless integration into a large language model (LLM) with a single vocabulary. Secondly, it involves modeling directly in the raw motion space. This strategy circumvents the information loss associated with discrete tokenizers, resulting in more detailed and comprehensive model generation. Thirdly, M3GPT learns to model the connections and synergies among various motion-relevant tasks. Text, being the most familiar and well-understood modality for LLMs, is utilized as a bridge to establish connections between different motion tasks, facilitating mutual reinforcement.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1.	In Table 3, some comparation results are missed. For text to motion generation task, you could compare your method with 1. MoMask: Generative Masked Modeling of 3D Human Motions; 2. Plan, posture, and go: Towards Open-World Text-to-Motion Generation; and 3. Real-time Controllable Motion Generation via Latent Consistency Model. If it’s not suitable for the comparations, you could explain the reason.
2.	The parameterizations (dimensions) of the variable in Section 3 are all missing.
3.	In line 167, T5 is utilized as the language model backbone. While most of the previous model utilize CLIP or BERT, you should include ablation study about the text encoder.
questions: questions: 1.	Is it just a matter of migrating multimodal model to the motion domain? 
2.	What new issues have been encountered in the process？
3.	What is your innovation in solving these problems?
limitations: limitations: The author has addressed the limitations. This paper focuses on modeling human body movements, excluding hands and faces details.

Comments: title: Any questions about the rebuttal
Any questions about the rebuttal
Any questions about the rebuttal
Any questions about the rebuttal
Reply to ethics review
comment: Dear Reviewer 2Gpw:

As the rebuttal period is ending soon, please let us know whether your concerns have been addressed or not, and if there are any further questions.
Dear Reviewer KMVC:

As the rebuttal period is ending soon, please let us know whether your concerns have been addressed or not, and if there are any further questions.
Dear Reviewer Wkeh:

As the rebuttal period is ending soon, please let us know whether your concerns have been addressed or not, and if there are any further questions.
Dear Reviewer ZwnC:

As the rebuttal period is ending soon, please let us know whether your concerns have been addressed or not, and if there are any further questions.
Thanks for your review. We appreciate your feedback. We will increase the discussion of the broader impacts and potential ethical issues concerning our proposed $M^3$GPT in final version. 

**Ethical Issues.** There are several ethical issues. On one hand, if the motion data is derived from real individuals, there are concerns about the privacy of the data used for training and potential misuse of generated motions that resemble real people. On the other hand, the ability to generate realistic human motions could be misused to create misleading or deceptive content, such as in deepfake videos or fraudulent activities. 

**Board Impacts.** The proposed framework boosts the performance of motion comprehension and generation, making it more practical in AR/VR, animation creation, digital human design, etc. Meanwhile, the higher performance may raise  potential risks, such as privacy breaches and the misuse of deepfake human motions.  Therefore the usage of motion data and the proposed framework should be regulated.