PFM-HR: Pose Flow Matching for Humanoid Robots

Yukang Gao^1,2,*, Yi Gu^1,*, Yangchen Zhou^1,*, Xingyu Chen^1,2,*, Zhaorui Wang¹, Fanghai Zhang¹,
Hanyang Cao^1,2, Zhengyang Shen⁴, Ji Ma², Runhan Zhang^2,3, Lei Han², Renjing Xu^{1, $\dagger$}

Abstract

Motion priors improve reinforcement learning for physics-based humanoid tracking, but temporal priors require ordered motion clips, while pose priors provide limited guidance for policy-induced pose transitions. We present Pose Flow Matching for Humanoid Robots (PFM-HR), a reusable flow matching prior trained directly on large-scale unordered pose data. PFM-HR introduces the Pose Geometry Score (PGS), which quantifies how joint coordinate changes during rollouts align with the local geometry of pose variation captured by the prior. Using PGS to modulate the tracking reward guides policy exploration toward structured pose changes while keeping the prior frozen across tracking tasks. Experiments demonstrate that PFM-HR improves both single-motion and general motion tracking, especially for highly dynamic motions.

I Introduction

Humanoid robots hold considerable promise for operating in human-centered environments, where their humanlike morphology allows them to use the same spaces, tools, and interaction patterns as people [1, 35, 39, 7]. Recent advances in reinforcement learning (RL) have enabled increasingly capable humanoid locomotion and control. Yet dynamic feasibility alone does not specify how the joints should vary together to produce coordinated humanlike motion. Even with task and tracking rewards, the policy receives limited guidance on such joint dependencies and must discover them through exploration in a high-dimensional control space. This burden becomes particularly severe for dynamic motions that require precise whole-body coordination.

Refer to caption — Figure 1: Overview of PFM-HR. PFM-HR learns a reusable Flow Matching pose prior from large-scale, unordered pose data and keeps it frozen during policy learning. The yellow arrows illustrate representative joint-coordinate changes between consecutive rollout poses, whose normalized pattern is evaluated by the *Pose Geometry Score* (PGS) through the prior’s local response. PGS then modulates the tracking reward to guide dynamic motion tracking.

Data-driven motion priors address this problem by guiding policy optimization toward behaviors supported by demonstrations. DeepMimic tracks reference trajectories to reproduce complex skills [23], while adversarial methods such as AMP and ADD learn discriminator-based rewards that encourage realistic motion and reduce manual reward engineering [25, 4, 38]. Although effective, these discriminator-based priors are commonly trained together with the control policy, which limits their reuse across tasks. Recent frozen priors improve modularity but introduce a different trade-off. PDF-HR learns a reusable pose-distance field from retargeted humanoid data and improves downstream tracking [5], but it requires precomputed pose–distance supervision and scores each pose without considering the relative joint changes that produced it. SMP instead studies reusable score-matching motion priors in a different control formulation, repurposing a pretrained motion diffusion model as a reward through score distillation [20]. This captures temporal motion structure, but requires ordered motion clips and incurs repeated score-model evaluations during RL. This leaves a gap between efficient pose-wise priors, which do not evaluate how joints change together, and temporal priors, which require ordered data and heavier online inference.

We address this gap with Pose Flow Matching for Humanoid Robots (PFM-HR), a reusable Flow Matching prior trained directly on individual humanoid poses, with the training corpus treated as an unordered collection [11]. PFM-HR requires neither pose–distance supervision nor temporally segmented motion clips. It is pretrained independently of the control policy, remains frozen during downstream RL, and can be extended through continued training as additional pose data become available.

Our key insight is that a denoiser trained only on marginal pose samples still captures local pose geometry. Under the Gaussian Flow Matching path, the Jacobian of the population-optimal denoising map is proportional to the conditional covariance of clean poses [19, 21]. Its directional response therefore reflects conditional modes of joint co-variation.

PFM-HR applies this Jacobian to the normalized joint-coordinate change between consecutive rollout poses and defines the squared Jacobian–vector response as the Pose Geometry Score (PGS). A high PGS indicates that the relative joint changes align with co-variation modes strongly represented by the pose prior. After reference-specific calibration, PGS modulates the tracking reward to reduce learning signals from weakly supported change patterns.

Our contributions are threefold:

•

We introduce a scalable, reusable Flow Matching pose prior trained on unordered humanoid poses. We demonstrate pretraining on 60 million poses and efficient expansion through continued training.
•

We establish a conditional covariance interpretation of the denoiser’s response and formulate the Pose Geometry Score for measuring response along the joint coordinate change patterns of policy generated pose updates.
•

We integrate PGS into an efficient, reference calibrated reward modulation mechanism for humanoid tracking. Experiments on single-trajectory tracking and general motion tracking benchmarks demonstrate improved sample efficiency and tracking accuracy over baselines.

II Related Work

Physics-based Humanoid Motion Tracking. Deep reinforcement learning has become a central paradigm for physics-based humanoid motion tracking. DeepMimic [23] demonstrated that physically simulated characters can reproduce highly dynamic skills by tracking motion-capture references. Subsequent work learns reusable motion representations to improve control and downstream task learning. These include VAE-based controllers [33, 31, 28], discrete representations [34, 41], and reusable skill spaces such as ASE, CALM, and PULSE [24, 29, 16]. Adversarial methods instead derive motion-style rewards directly from demonstrations. AMP [25, 4] replaces hand-designed style objectives with a discriminator, while ADD [38] extends this formulation by balancing multiple tracking objectives.

Large-scale trackers further improve motion coverage and robustness. PHC [15] scales physics-based imitation to thousands of motion clips and supports recovery from large deviations. More recent systems, including GMT [3], BeyondMimic [10], and SONIC [17], target diverse and previously unseen motions. Heracles [27] further connects generative motion synthesis with physics-based tracking through a state-conditioned middleware that adapts high-level references under large state deviations. These methods substantially broaden the capabilities of humanoid controllers, but their motion knowledge is typically embedded in a pretrained policy or learned jointly with the controller. Scaling them therefore requires large motion datasets [18, 6, 2] and extensive policy training. PFM-HR instead studies a frozen, controller-independent prior that can be attached to task-specific tracking policies as a dense reward signal.

Human and Humanoid Motion Priors. Human pose and motion priors are widely used to regularize motion recovery and synthesis [14, 13, 37]. PoseNDF [30] models pose plausibility with an implicit neural distance field. NRDF [8] improves its geometric consistency, while NRMF [36] extends distance-based priors to continuous motion. PDF-HR [5] adapts neural pose distance fields to humanoid control and demonstrates that a frozen pose prior can improve downstream tracking. These methods provide reusable state-level regularization, but constructing distance supervision requires an additional sampling stage.

Generative models provide another route to reusable priors. SMP [20] converts a pretrained motion diffusion model into an RL reward through Score Distillation Sampling, separating prior learning from policy optimization while retaining temporal motion information. This motion-level representation captures dependencies across consecutive states, but requires ordered clips. In contrast, priors trained on individual poses can use unordered pose collections and avoid modeling fixed temporal windows. However, they typically evaluate each pose independently and do not explicitly characterize how joint coordinates vary together around the current pose.

This gap motivates a reusable prior that can be trained on unordered pose collections while still revealing how joint coordinates vary together. Such a prior would retain the efficiency of pose based modeling while providing richer guidance than an independent pose plausibility score.

III Methodology

III-A Problem Formulation

Robot pose representation. We represent a humanoid pose by its actuated joint configuration. Let the robot have $N_{J}$ actuated degrees of freedom. At control step $k$ , the pose is written as [5]

\mathbf{q}_{k}=[q_{k}^{1},q_{k}^{2},\dots,q_{k}^{N_{J}}]^{\top}\in\mathcal{Q}\subset\mathbb{R}^{N_{J}},

(1)

where $q_{k}^{i}$ denotes the $i$ -th actuated joint coordinate and $\mathcal{Q}$ is bounded by the robot joint limits. We use normalized joint coordinates as the input representation for the pose prior. For brevity, $\mathbf{q}_{k}$ denotes the normalized pose hereafter.

During a rollout, the policy generates a pose sequence $\{\mathbf{q}_{k}\}_{k=0}^{T}$ . We characterize the rollout update ending at step $k$ by the finite-difference joint-coordinate velocity

\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}=\frac{\mathbf{q}_{k}-\mathbf{q}_{k-1}}{\Delta t}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{J}},

(2)

where $\Delta t$ is the control interval. While $\mathbf{q}_{k-1}$ identifies the location of the rollout in pose space, $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}$ records the joint-coordinate changes induced by the policy over one control interval. This pattern describes which joint coordinates vary together, including their relative magnitudes and signs.

RL-based motion tracking. We formulate humanoid motion tracking as a finite-horizon discrete-time Markov decision process $\mathcal{M}=\langle\mathcal{S},\mathcal{A},\mathcal{P},r,\gamma\rangle$ . At each control step $k$ , the policy $\pi_{\theta}$ observes $\mathbf{s}_{k}\in\mathcal{S}$ and samples an action $\mathbf{a}_{k}\sim\pi_{\theta}(\cdot\mid\mathbf{s}_{k})$ . The simulator then evolves according to $\mathbf{s}_{k+1}\sim\mathcal{P}(\cdot\mid\mathbf{s}_{k},\mathbf{a}_{k})$ . The policy is trained to maximize

J(\pi_{\theta})=\mathbb{E}_{\tau\sim\pi_{\theta}}\left[\sum_{k=0}^{T-1}\gamma^{k}r(\mathbf{s}_{k},\mathbf{a}_{k})\right].

(3)

In humanoid motion tracking, the reward commonly combines task and tracking terms,

r_{k}=w^{G}r_{k}^{G}+w^{T}r_{k}^{T},

(4)

where $r_{k}^{G}$ measures task progress, $r_{k}^{T}$ measures agreement with the reference motion, and $w^{G}$ and $w^{T}$ are scalar weights. Optimizing these task-specific objectives alone provides no explicit guidance from the statistical dependencies among joint coordinates in human pose data.

PFM-HR augments the tracking reward using a frozen Flow Matching pose prior trained on unordered poses. At each rollout step, PGS applies the denoiser Jacobian at $\mathbf{q}_{k-1}$ to the normalized joint-coordinate change, measuring its alignment with the joint co-variation structure encoded by the pose distribution.

III-B Pose Prior Learning with Flow Matching

We pretrain an unconditional Flow Matching model on individual poses sampled from a large-scale motion corpus. The training data are treated as an unordered pose collection, from which the model learns the marginal pose distribution $p_{\mathrm{data}}$ . Let $\boldsymbol{x}\sim p_{\mathrm{data}}$ be a clean pose and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\sim\mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{0},\mathbf{I})$ an independent Gaussian sample. Both training poses $\boldsymbol{x}$ and rollout poses $\boldsymbol{q}_{k}$ use the normalized representation defined in Section III-A. We sample $t$ from a logit-normal distribution and construct the linear Flow Matching path [11, 12]

\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=t\boldsymbol{x}+(1-t)\boldsymbol{\epsilon}.

(5)

This path interpolates between the Gaussian source distribution at $t=0$ and the pose distribution at $t=1$ . Its conditional velocity is

\boldsymbol{v}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{z}_{t}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}.

(6)

Following JiT [9], we parameterize the velocity field through a clean-pose predictor $\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)$ . The predicted velocity is

\boldsymbol{v}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)=\frac{\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)-\boldsymbol{z}_{t}}{\max(1-t,\delta)},

(7)

where $\delta>0$ stabilizes the denominator near $t=1$ . We optimize the Flow Matching objective

\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{FM}}(\phi)=\mathbb{E}_{t,\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}\left[\left\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)\right\|_{2}^{2}\right].

(8)

For $t\leq 1-\delta$ , the velocity residual satisfies $\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v}_{\phi}=(\boldsymbol{x}-\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi})/(1-t)$ . Therefore, at any fixed timestep in this regime, minimizing Eq. (8) is equivalent to clean pose regression, whose population optimal predictor is the conditional mean

F_{t}^{*}(\boldsymbol{z})=\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol{x}\mid\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=\boldsymbol{z}\right].

(9)

We denote the learned approximation to this conditional mean by

F_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t):=\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t).

(10)

During policy learning, $F_{\phi}$ remains frozen and is queried at $(\boldsymbol{q}_{k-1},t_{\mathrm{eval}})$ , where $t_{\mathrm{eval}}\leq 1-\delta$ .

III-C Pose Geometry Score

The Pose Geometry Score measures whether the relative joint changes produced by the policy agree with the conditional co-variation structure encoded by the pose prior.

Denoiser-induced pose geometry. For fixed $t\leq 1-\delta$ , the population-optimal denoiser in Eq. (9) satisfies [19]

\mathbf{J}_{t}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z}):=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{z}}F_{t}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z})=\frac{t}{(1-t)^{2}}\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}),

(11)

where $\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})=\operatorname{Cov}[\boldsymbol{x}\mid\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=\boldsymbol{z}]$ . In particular, its off-diagonal entries describe conditional co-variation between joint coordinates. For the learned denoiser, we define $\mathbf{J}_{\phi}=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{z}}F_{\phi}$ and

\mathbf{G}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)=\mathbf{J}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)^{\top}\mathbf{J}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)\succeq\mathbf{0}.

(12)

Pose Geometry Score. At rollout step $k$ , we construct a query using the same corruption parameterization as in pretraining:

\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{k-1}=t_{\mathrm{eval}}\mathbf{q}_{k-1}+(1-t_{\mathrm{eval}})\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{k},\quad\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{k}\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I}),

(13)

where $t_{\mathrm{eval}}\leq 1-\delta$ is fixed during policy learning. We then set $\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}=\mathbf{J}_{\phi}(\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{k-1},t_{\mathrm{eval}})$ and $\mathbf{G}_{\phi,k}=\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}^{\top}\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}$ .

The joint-coordinate change pattern is represented by

\boldsymbol{d}_{k}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}}{\sqrt{\|\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}\|_{2}^{2}+\varepsilon_{\mathrm{num}}}},

(14)

which retains the relative changes across joints while reducing sensitivity to their overall magnitude. We define the Pose Geometry Score (PGS) as

s_{\mathrm{PGS},k}:=\|\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}\boldsymbol{d}_{k}\|_{2}^{2}=\frac{\|\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}\|_{2}^{2}}{\|\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}\|_{2}^{2}+\varepsilon_{\mathrm{num}}}.

(15)

The score is computed by a Jacobian–vector product without explicitly constructing the Jacobian or geometric tensor.

At the population optimum, with $\mathbf{C}_{k}=\mathbf{C}_{t_{\mathrm{eval}}}(\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{k-1})$ ,

s_{\mathrm{PGS},k}^{\star}=\left(\frac{t_{\mathrm{eval}}}{(1-t_{\mathrm{eval}})^{2}}\right)^{2}\boldsymbol{d}_{k}^{\top}\mathbf{C}_{k}^{2}\boldsymbol{d}_{k}.

(16)

This expression weights the projection of $\boldsymbol{d}_{k}$ onto each conditional co-variation mode by its squared variance. A high PGS therefore indicates a joint-change pattern strongly supported by the pose prior. After calibration, PGS increases the reward contribution of such coordinated updates and reduces that of weakly supported patterns, biasing policy optimization toward coordinated humanoid poses. The detailed covariance derivation is provided in the supplementary material.

III-D Score Calibration and Reward Modulation

Evaluation-Timestep Selection. The evaluation timestep determines the noise scale at which the prior is queried and therefore affects the sensitivity of pose geometry score to pose-change patterns. We examine this sensitivity under the general motion tracking setting. For each $t_{\mathrm{eval}}\in\{0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.75,0.8,0.9\}$ , we train a single policy on the same 34-sequence subset of LaFAN1 [6], excluding the six FallAndGetUp sequences. Each policy is trained for 12 billion samples and evaluated with tracking horizons of 10, 20, and 30 seconds, while all other settings are held fixed. Figure 3 shows that intermediate timesteps provide faster convergence and lower position errors. Strong corruption at small $t$ reduces pose specificity, whereas near $t=1$ the denoising map approaches the identity and becomes less discriminative. We therefore use $t_{\mathrm{eval}}=0.75$ throughout the remaining experiments. Additional timestep selection details are included in the supplementary material.

Reference-calibrated reward modulation. For each transition in a reference motion $\mathcal{R}_{\tau}$ , we define $\boldsymbol{\xi}^{\mathrm{ref}}_{n}=(\boldsymbol{q}^{\mathrm{ref}}_{n}-\boldsymbol{q}^{\mathrm{ref}}_{n-1})/\Delta t$ and obtain $\boldsymbol{d}^{\mathrm{ref}}_{n}$ using Eq. (14). Before policy training, we compute PGS for all reference transitions and construct the empirical CDF $\widehat{F}_{\tau}$ . During rollout, the score is mapped to its reference percentile $u_{k}^{\tau}=\widehat{F}_{\tau}(s_{\mathrm{PGS},k})$ and converted into

\rho_{k}^{\tau}=\operatorname{clip}\left(\frac{p_{\mathrm{good}}-u_{k}^{\tau}}{p_{\mathrm{good}}-p_{\mathrm{bad}}},0,1\right),\qquad r_{k}^{P}=\exp(-\alpha\rho_{k}^{\tau}),

(17)

where $\alpha=0.5$ , $p_{\mathrm{good}}=0.05$ , and $p_{\mathrm{bad}}=0.01$ . The final reward is

r_{k}=w^{G}r_{k}^{G}+w^{T}r_{k}^{T}r_{k}^{P}.

(18)

The tracking reward is unchanged above $p_{\mathrm{good}}$ and maximally attenuated below $p_{\mathrm{bad}}$ .

IV Experiments

IV-A Experimental Setup

Baselines and prior training. Across both tracking settings, we compare vanilla ADD [38], ADD w/ PDF-HR [5], and ADD w/ PFM-HR under the same ADD-based motion tracking backbone; score-matching prior SMP [20] uses a different control formulation and is not directly compatible with this plug-in comparison. For a controlled comparison, PDF-HR and PFM-HR are pretrained on the same unmirrored BONES-SEED [2] pose corpus. PDF-HR constructs pose–distance pairs using its official implementation.

Evaluation metrics. We evaluate sample efficiency and tracking accuracy. Policies are evaluated every 100 training iterations on 4096 test episodes. Success rate is defined as the mean fraction of reference trajectory tracked continuously. Sample efficiency is measured by the number of training samples required to first reach an $80\%$ success rate. We additionally measure position and rotation errors:

	$\displaystyle E^{\mathrm{pos}}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{N+1}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N}e_{j}^{\mathrm{pos}}+e_{\mathrm{root}}^{\mathrm{pos}}\right),$		(19)
	$\displaystyle E^{\mathrm{rot}}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{N+1}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N}e_{j}^{\mathrm{rot}}+e_{\mathrm{root}}^{\mathrm{rot}}\right),$		(20)

where $N$ is the number of non-root joints. Joint errors are measured in the robot-local frame, while root errors are measured in the global frame. Lower values indicate better tracking accuracy. Due to space constraints, additional metrics and rotation errors are reported in the supplementary material.

Implementation details. All policies are trained on 8 NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPUs using 4096 parallel environments and the default MimicKit configuration. PFM-HR uses a residual MLP with 10 blocks and a hidden dimension of 1024. The Flow Matching timestep is injected through adaLN-Zero conditioning [22], and the pretrained model remains frozen during policy training. Further implementation details for pretraining and policy learning are provided in the supplementary material.

IV-B Single-trajectory Motion Tracking

Experiment settings. For single-trajectory tracking, we compare vanilla ADD [38] with two prior-augmented variants, ADD w/ PDF-HR [5] and ADD w/ PFM-HR, on nine MimicKit tasks [26]: Walk, Run, Jump, Spinkick, Cartwheel, Backflip, Sideflip, Double Kong, and Speed Vault.

Results. Table II reports sample efficiency and positional tracking error. ADD w/ PDF-HR is more sample-efficient on Walk, Run, and Spinkick, while ADD w/ PFM-HR performs best on the other six tasks. Both prior-based methods solve Backflip and Double Kong, where vanilla ADD fails, with PFM-HR converging faster on both. ADD w/ PFM-HR also achieves the lowest or tied-lowest positional error on eight tasks, although the margins are generally small. Overall, PFM-HR provides the best balance between convergence and tracking accuracy, particularly on dynamic motions. By evaluating the prior response along rollout pose changes, PFM-HR guides learning toward plausible joint-coordinate transitions. Qualitative comparisons are shown in Fig. 5.

Real-world deployment. We use the BeyondMimic training and deployment pipeline [10], adding PFM-HR solely as a frozen prior during simulation training while leaving the deployment pipeline unchanged.

Skill	BM	BM w/ PDF-HR	BM w/ PFM-HR
Spinkick	$331.776^{\pm 18.536}$	$279.098^{\pm 6.179}$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{251.425}^{\pm 0.000}}$
Kick combo	$399.515^{\pm 16.348}$	$347.283^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{339.110}^{\pm 6.179}$
Cartwheel	$409.117^{\pm 12.358}$	$291.742^{\pm 18.536}$	$\mathbf{283.225}^{\pm 10.702}$
Backflip	$443.052^{\pm 6.179}$	$318.620^{\pm 12.358}$	$\mathbf{309.794}^{\pm 6.179}$

TABLE I: Sample efficiency across prior configurations in BeyondMimic. We report the simulation training samples required to reach

SR\geq 80\%

in millions. Lower values are better, and the best means are highlighted.

We evaluate four dynamic skills: spinkick, kick combo, cartwheel, and backflip. In Table I, BM denotes the original BeyondMimic method without an auxiliary pose prior, while BM w/ PDF-HR and BM w/ PFM-HR augment BM with PDF-HR and our PFM-HR, respectively. BM w/ PFM-HR requires the fewest simulation samples to reach $SR\geq 80\%$ across all skills, reducing the requirements by $15.1\%$ – $30.8\%$ relative to BM. The successful executions in Fig. 4 demonstrate PFM-HR’s compatibility with real-world deployment without additional deployment-time computation.

IV-C General Motion Tracking

Experiment settings. For general motion tracking, we train a single policy on a subset of LaFAN1 [6]. The subset contains 34 sequences, excluding six FallAndGetUp sequences. Each policy is trained for 12 billion samples and evaluated with tracking horizons of 10, 20, and 30 seconds.

Results. Table II reports general motion tracking errors across different episode lengths. Under the same ADD backbone and training budget, PFM-HR achieves the lowest position and rotation errors at all three horizons. Averaged across horizons, it reduces position error by $7.6\%$ over ADD and $10.3\%$ over PDF-HR, while reducing rotation error by $3.6\%$ and $7.3\%$ , respectively. In contrast, PDF-HR yields errors comparable to or higher than vanilla ADD.

IV-D Ablation Study

Impact of Prior-Data Scale and Coverage. We train pose priors on three nested BONES-SEED subsets [2], $\mathcal{D}_{15\mathrm{M}}\subset\mathcal{D}_{30\mathrm{M}}\subset\mathcal{D}_{60\mathrm{M}}$ . The $15$ M subset is balanced across Locomotion, Dances, Gaming, Sport, and Other; the $30$ M subset adds stratified samples from the same categories; and the $60$ M subset contains the full corpus. All model and policy settings are fixed, and the reference-specific PGS thresholds are recomputed for each prior. Figure 2 shows that larger pretraining sets generally improve both locomotion and acrobatic tracking, with the $60$ M prior achieving the strongest overall performance. Because scale and coverage increase together, the results reflect their combined effect.

Extending the $30$ M prior to $60$ M requires $65$ GPU-hours, compared with $100$ GPU-hours for training from scratch. At the same scale, generating the pose-distance supervision for PDF-HR [5] requires over $500$ GPU-hours in our implementation, excluding network training.

Single-Trajectory Tracking
Skill	Samples ( $SR\geq 80\%$ ) [M] ( $\downarrow$ )			Position Error [m] ( $\downarrow$ )
	ADD	ADD w/ PDF-HR	ADD w/ PFM-HR	ADD	ADD w/ PDF-HR	ADD w/ PFM-HR
Walk	$70.036^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{56.929}^{\pm 6.179}$	$65.667^{\pm 0.000}$	$\mathbf{0.008}^{\pm 0.001}$	$0.009^{\pm 0.000}$	$\mathbf{0.008}^{\pm 0.003}$
Run	$113.727^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{70.036}^{\pm 6.179}$	$74.405^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{0.015}^{\pm 0.000}$	$0.017^{\pm 0.000}$	$0.016^{\pm 0.001}$
Jump	$222.953^{\pm 10.702}$	$188.001^{\pm 16.348}$	$\mathbf{183.632}^{\pm 10.702}$	$0.022^{\pm 0.003}$	$0.024^{\pm 0.001}$	$\mathbf{0.020}^{\pm 0.003}$
Spinkick	$135.572^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{91.881}^{\pm 0.000}$	$109.358^{\pm 6.179}$	$0.031^{\pm 0.000}$	$0.032^{\pm 0.001}$	$\mathbf{0.030}^{\pm 0.001}$
Cartwheel	$183.632^{\pm 0.000}$	$161.787^{\pm 12.358}$	$\mathbf{144.310}^{\pm 18.536}$	$0.031^{\pm 0.000}$	$\mathbf{0.028}^{\pm 0.003}$	$\mathbf{0.028}^{\pm 0.003}$
Backflip	Failed	$183.632^{\pm 18.536}$	$\mathbf{157.417}^{\pm 10.702}$	Failed	$0.048^{\pm 0.000}$	$\mathbf{0.045}^{\pm 0.001}$
Sideflip	$336.549^{\pm 62.708}$	$166.156^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{161.787}^{\pm 6.179}$	$0.051^{\pm 0.002}$	$0.050^{\pm 0.003}$	$\mathbf{0.049}^{\pm 0.001}$
Speed Vault	$388.978^{\pm 49.430}$	$122.465^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{118.096}^{\pm 0.000}$	$0.024^{\pm 0.001}$	$0.023^{\pm 0.000}$	$\mathbf{0.021}^{\pm 0.003}$
Double Kong	Failed	$288.489^{\pm 10.702}$	$\mathbf{205.477}^{\pm 6.179}$	Failed	$0.031^{\pm 0.001}$	$\mathbf{0.028}^{\pm 0.001}$
General Motion Tracking Across Episode Lengths
Episode	Position Error [m] ( $\downarrow$ )			Rotation Error [rad] ( $\downarrow$ )
Length [s]	ADD	ADD w/ PDF-HR	ADD w/ PFM-HR	ADD	ADD w/ PDF-HR	ADD w/ PFM-HR
10	$0.022^{\pm 0.001}$	$0.023^{\pm 0.002}$	$\mathbf{0.021}^{\pm 0.001}$	$0.121^{\pm 0.007}$	$0.129^{\pm 0.011}$	$\mathbf{0.119}^{\pm 0.009}$
20	$0.023^{\pm 0.002}$	$0.023^{\pm 0.003}$	$\mathbf{0.020}^{\pm 0.002}$	$0.123^{\pm 0.007}$	$0.127^{\pm 0.008}$	$\mathbf{0.117}^{\pm 0.008}$
30	$0.022^{\pm 0.001}$	$0.022^{\pm 0.002}$	$\mathbf{0.020}^{\pm 0.002}$	$0.122^{\pm 0.008}$	$0.125^{\pm 0.007}$	$\mathbf{0.117}^{\pm 0.007}$

TABLE II: Quantitative comparison of sample efficiency and tracking accuracy. The upper block reports single-trajectory tracking results, where samples denote the number of samples required to reach

SR\geq 80\%

and position errors are reported in meters. The lower block reports general motion tracking across different episode lengths using joint position and rotation errors. We benchmark our method against ADD [38] and ADD w/ PDF-HR [5]. Results are reported as mean with standard deviation in superscript across three independent random seeds. A motion is marked as “Failed” if all three trials fail to converge within

6000

training iterations. Highlighted entries indicate the best mean result for each skill and metric.

Skill	Samples ( $SR\geq 80\%$ ) [M] ( $\downarrow$ )			Position Error [m] ( $\downarrow$ )
	$\boldsymbol{v}$ -Pred	FM-Recon	Ours	$\boldsymbol{v}$ -Pred	FM-Recon	Ours
Walk	$70.036^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{56.929}^{\pm 6.179}$	$65.667^{\pm 0.000}$	$\mathbf{0.008}^{\pm 0.003}$	$\mathbf{0.008}^{\pm 0.001}$	$\mathbf{0.008}^{\pm 0.003}$
Run	$83.143^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{74.405}^{\pm 16.348}$	$\mathbf{74.405}^{\pm 6.179}$	$0.017^{\pm 0.000}$	$0.018^{\pm 0.001}$	$\mathbf{0.016}^{\pm 0.001}$
Backflip	$170.525^{\pm 18.536}$	$170.525^{\pm 18.536}$	$\mathbf{157.417}^{\pm 10.702}$	$0.047^{\pm 0.001}$	$0.046^{\pm 0.000}$	$\mathbf{0.045}^{\pm 0.001}$
Sideflip	$166.156^{\pm 6.179}$	$\mathbf{161.787}^{\pm 12.358}$	$\mathbf{161.787}^{\pm 6.179}$	$0.051^{\pm 0.001}$	$0.051^{\pm 0.003}$	$\mathbf{0.049}^{\pm 0.001}$

TABLE III: Ablation studies of the Flow Matching prediction parameterization and reward paradigm. We compare PFM-HR against two variants on single-trajectory tracking:

\boldsymbol{v}

-Pred replaces the

\boldsymbol{x}

-prediction parameterization with

\boldsymbol{v}

-prediction, while FM-Recon uses the same pretrained Flow Matching prior but replaces the PGS reward with an SDS-style reward.

Reward Formulation Comparison. We compare ADD, FM-Recon, and PFM-HR to separate the contribution of the learned prior from its reward formulation. ADD provides a prior-free baseline. FM-Recon uses the same frozen denoiser to score individual poses through reconstruction [32, 40], whereas PFM-HR evaluates Jacobian response along rollout pose changes. For rollout pose $\boldsymbol{q}_{k}$ , FM-Recon evaluates three noise levels $\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{FM}}=\{0.55,0.65,0.80\}$ , whose signal-to-noise ratios follow the noise-level ensemble used by SMP. At each $t_{m}$ , it samples $\boldsymbol{z}_{k,m}=t_{m}\boldsymbol{q}_{k}+(1-t_{m})\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{k,m}$ and computes

e_{k,m}^{\mathrm{FM}}=\left\|F_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{k,m},t_{m})-\boldsymbol{q}_{k}\right\|_{2}^{2}.

(21)

To account for scale differences across noise levels, each error is converted to its reverse percentile under the corresponding reference distribution. The resulting percentiles are averaged and mapped to the same reward range as PGS, with all other settings unchanged.

Comparing ADD with FM-Recon evaluates the contribution of the frozen prior, while comparing FM-Recon with PFM-HR assesses multi-level pose reconstruction against directional Jacobian scoring. Table III shows that PFM-HR provides larger improvements on dynamic motions. With a batch size of 4096 on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 GPU, three denoiser evaluations require $1.8$ ms, whereas one Jacobian–vector product requires $0.75$ ms.

Prediction Parameterization Comparison. We compare $\boldsymbol{v}$ -prediction and $\boldsymbol{x}$ -prediction while keeping the training data, architecture, Flow Matching path, and policy-training configuration fixed. For $\boldsymbol{v}$ -prediction, the clean-pose map used by PGS is recovered as

F_{\phi}^{(\boldsymbol{v})}(\boldsymbol{z},t)=\boldsymbol{z}+(1-t)\boldsymbol{v}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t),\qquad t\leq 1-\delta.

(22)

We then construct PGS from its input Jacobian using the same evaluation timestep, calibration, and reward modulation, thereby isolating the effect of the prediction target. As shown in Table III, both parameterizations perform similarly on basic locomotion, whereas $\boldsymbol{x}$ -prediction performs better on dynamic motions, particularly Backflip. Because the two variants share the same architecture and prior-query cost, the results suggest that direct clean-pose prediction provides a more effective Jacobian response for a finite-capacity model.

V Conclusion

We presented PFM-HR, a reusable Flow Matching pose prior for physics-based humanoid motion tracking that can be trained directly on large-scale unordered pose data, without pose-distance supervision or temporally segmented motion clips. Its Pose Geometry Score uses the denoiser Jacobian to evaluate whether policy-induced pose changes align with the joint co-variation patterns captured by the prior. This score can be computed efficiently through a Jacobian–vector product and used to modulate tracking rewards while keeping the prior frozen. By separating prior learning from policy optimization, PFM-HR allows a single pretrained model to provide geometry-aware guidance across different tracking tasks. Experiments demonstrate improved sample efficiency and tracking accuracy, particularly for dynamic and acrobatic motions, as well as compatibility with real-world humanoid deployment. These results show that the local geometry learned from unordered poses can provide useful control guidance even without explicit temporal supervision.

VI Limitations

PFM-HR captures local co-variation in the marginal pose distribution rather than temporal dynamics. Because the training poses are unordered and PGS is invariant to direction reversal at a fixed query pose, it cannot assess the likelihood, direction, or ordering of temporal transitions. Consequently, opposite transitions may receive similar geometric evaluations even when only one is consistent with the intended motion. The reliability of PGS also depends on the coverage of the pose dataset, and its guidance may be less informative for poses far from the training distribution. Future work will explore sign-sensitive scores and temporally conditioned priors while preserving the efficiency and reusability of PFM-HR.

References

[1] A. Allshire, H. Choi, J. Zhang, D. McAllister, A. Zhang, C. M. Kim, T. Darrell, P. Abbeel, J. Malik, and A. Kanazawa (2025) Visual imitation enables contextual humanoid control. In Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), Cited by: §I.
[2] Bones Studio (2026) Ai datasets for machine learning and motion capture. Note: https://bones.studio/ai-datasets/Accessed: 2026-05-06 Cited by: §II, §IV-A, §IV-D.
[3] Z. Chen, M. Ji, X. Cheng, X. Peng, X. B. Peng, and X. Wang (2025) GMT: general motion tracking for humanoid whole-body control. arXiv:2506.14770. Cited by: §II.
[4] A. Escontrela, X. B. Peng, W. Yu, T. Zhang, A. Iscen, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel (2022) Adversarial motion priors make good substitutes for complex reward functions. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 25–32. Cited by: §I, §II.
[5] Y. Gu, Y. Gao, Y. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Feng, M. Zhao, Y. Mo, Z. Wang, L. Xu, and R. Xu (2026) PDF-hr: pose distance fields for humanoid robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04851. Cited by: §I, §II, §III-A, §IV-A, §IV-B, §IV-D, TABLE II.
[6] F. G. Harvey, M. Yurick, D. Nowrouzezahrai, and C. Pal (2020) Robust motion in-betweening. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 39 (4), pp. 60–1. Cited by: §II, §III-D, §IV-C.
[7] X. He, S. Xu, X. Li, R. Dong, L. Bian, Y. Wang, and L. Gui (2026) ULTRA: unified multimodal control for autonomous humanoid whole-body loco-manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03279. Cited by: §I.
[8] Y. He, G. Tiwari, T. Birdal, J. E. Lenssen, and G. Pons-Moll (2024) NRDF: neural riemannian distance fields for learning articulated pose priors. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Cited by: §II.
[9] T. Li and K. He (2025) Back to basics: let denoising generative models denoise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13720. Cited by: §III-B.
[10] Q. Liao, T. E. Truong, X. Huang, Y. Gao, G. Tevet, K. Sreenath, and C. K. Liu (2025) BeyondMimic: from motion tracking to versatile humanoid control via guided diffusion. External Links: 2508.08241, Link Cited by: §II, §IV-B.
[11] Y. Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le (2023) Flow matching for generative modeling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §I, §III-B.
[12] X. Liu, C. Gong, and Q. Liu (2022) Flow straight and fast: learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003. Cited by: §III-B.
[13] J. Lu, J. Lin, H. Dou, A. Zeng, Y. Deng, X. Liu, Z. Cai, L. Yang, Y. Zhang, H. Wang, and Z. Liu (2025) DPoser-x: diffusion model as robust 3d whole-body human pose prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00599. Cited by: §II.
[14] J. Lu, J. Lin, H. Dou, A. Zeng, Y. Deng, Y. Zhang, and H. Wang (2024) DPoser: diffusion model as robust 3d human pose prior. External Links: 2312.05541, Link Cited by: §II.
[15] Z. Luo, J. Cao, K. Kitani, W. Xu, et al. (2023) Perpetual humanoid control for real-time simulated avatars. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 10895–10904. Cited by: §II.
[16] Z. Luo, J. Cao, J. Merel, A. Winkler, J. Huang, K. Kitani, and W. Xu (2024) Universal humanoid motion representations for physics-based control. In International Conference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2024, pp. 56766–56782. Cited by: §II.
[17] Z. Luo, Y. Yuan, T. Wang, C. Li, S. Chen, F. Castañeda, Z. Cao, J. Li, D. Minor, Q. Ben, X. Da, R. Ding, C. Hogg, L. Song, E. Lim, E. Jeong, T. He, H. Xue, W. Xiao, Z. Wang, S. Yuen, J. Kautz, Y. Chang, U. Iqbal, L. Fan, and Y. Zhu (2025) SONIC: supersizing motion tracking for natural humanoid whole-body control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07820. Cited by: §II.
[18] N. Mahmood, N. Ghorbani, N. F. Troje, G. Pons-Moll, and M. J. Black (2019) AMASS: archive of motion capture as surface shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 5442–5451. Cited by: §II.
[19] H. Manor and T. Michaeli (2023) On the posterior distribution in denoising: application to uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13598. Cited by: §I, §III-C.
[20] Y. Mu, Z. Zhang, Y. Shi, D. Yang, M. Matsumoto, K. Imamura, G. Tevet, C. Guo, M. Taylor, C. Shu, P. Xi, and X. B. Peng (2026) SMP: reusable score-matching motion priors for physics-based character control. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2026). Cited by: §I, §II, §IV-A.
[21] J. Nadar, S. Foti, and T. Birdal (2026) PoseD-flow: versatile and guided flow matching model of human pose. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21165–21175. Cited by: §I.
[22] W. Peebles and S. Xie (2023) Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 4195–4205. Cited by: §IV-A.
[23] X. B. Peng, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, and M. Van de Panne (2018) Deepmimic: example-guided deep reinforcement learning of physics-based character skills. ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) 37 (4), pp. 1–14. Cited by: §I, §II.
[24] X. B. Peng, Y. Guo, L. Halper, S. Levine, and S. Fidler (2022) Ase: large-scale reusable adversarial skill embeddings for physically simulated characters. ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG) 41 (4), pp. 1–17. Cited by: §II.
[25] X. B. Peng, Z. Ma, P. Abbeel, S. Levine, and A. Kanazawa (2021) Amp: adversarial motion priors for stylized physics-based character control. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 40 (4), pp. 1–20. Cited by: §I, §II.
[26] X. B. Peng (2025) MimicKit: a reinforcement learning framework for motion imitation and control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13794. Cited by: §IV-B.
[27] Z. Tao, Z. Su, P. Liu, J. Sun, W. Que, J. Ma, J. Yu, J. Cao, P. Sun, H. Liang, et al. (2026) Heracles: bridging precise tracking and generative synthesis for general humanoid control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27756. Cited by: §II.
[28] C. Tessler, Y. Guo, O. Nabati, G. Chechik, and X. B. Peng (2024) MaskedMimic: unified physics-based character control through masked motion inpainting. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG). Cited by: §II.
[29] C. Tessler, Y. Kasten, Y. Guo, S. Mannor, G. Chechik, and X. B. Peng (2023) Calm: conditional adversarial latent models for directable virtual characters. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 conference proceedings, pp. 1–9. Cited by: §II.
[30] G. Tiwari, D. Antić, J. E. Lenssen, N. Sarafianos, T. Tung, and G. Pons-Moll (2022) Pose-ndf: modeling human pose manifolds with neural distance fields. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 572–589. Cited by: §II.
[31] J. Won, D. Gopinath, and J. Hodgins (2022) Physics-based character controllers using conditional vaes. ACM Trans. Graph. 41 (4). External Links: Link Cited by: §II.
[32] X. Yang, C. Chen, F. Liu, G. Lin, et al. (2025) Text-to-image rectified flow as plug-and-play priors. In International Conference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2025, pp. 13896–13920. Cited by: §IV-D.
[33] H. Yao, Z. Song, B. Chen, and L. Liu (2022) ControlVAE: Model-Based Learning of Generative Controllers for Physics-Based Characters. ACM Transactions on Graphics 41 (6), pp. 183:1–183:16. External Links: ISSN 0730-0301 Cited by: §II.
[34] H. Yao, Z. Song, Y. Zhou, T. Ao, B. Chen, and L. Liu (2024) Moconvq: unified physics-based motion control via scalable discrete representations. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 43 (4), pp. 1–21. Cited by: §II.
[35] S. Yin, Y. Ze, H. Yu, C. K. Liu, and J. Wu (2025) VisualMimic: visual humanoid loco-manipulation via motion tracking and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20322. Cited by: §I.
[36] Z. Yu, S. Foti, L. Zhang, A. Zhao, C. Keskin, S. Zafeiriou, and T. Birdal (2025) Geometric neural distance fields for learning human motion priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.09667. Cited by: §II.
[37] S. Zhang, B. L. Bhatnagar, Y. Xu, A. Winkler, P. Kadlecek, S. Tang, and F. Bogo (2024) RoHM: robust human motion reconstruction via diffusion. In CVPR, Cited by: §II.
[38] Z. Zhang, S. Bashkirov, D. Yang, Y. Shi, M. Taylor, and X. B. Peng (2025) Physics-based motion imitation with adversarial differential discriminators. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Conference Papers, pp. 1–12. Cited by: §I, §II, §IV-A, §IV-B, TABLE II.
[39] S. Zhao, Y. Ze, Y. Wang, C. K. Liu, P. Abbeel, G. Shi, and R. Duan (2025) ResMimic: from general motion tracking to humanoid whole-body loco-manipulation via residual learning. External Links: 2510.05070, Link Cited by: §I.
[40] M. Zhou, Y. Gu, H. Zheng, L. Song, G. He, Y. Zhang, W. Hu, and Y. Yang (2025) Score distillation of flow matching models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25127. Cited by: §IV-D.
[41] Q. Zhu, H. Zhang, M. Lan, and L. Han (2023) Neural categorical priors for physics-based character control. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 42 (6), pp. 1–16. Cited by: §II.

Supplementary Material

Appendix A Denoiser-Induced Pose Geometry

This section establishes the connection between the population-optimal clean-pose predictor and the conditional covariance of clean poses, and then derives the Pose Geometry Score (PGS). Fix $t\in(0,1-\delta]$ and let $\sigma_{t}=1-t$ , where $\delta>0$ is a small constant (we use $\delta=10^{-3}$ ) that clamps the velocity denominator near $t=1$ . We assume that the clean-pose distribution has a finite second moment and satisfies the regularity conditions required to exchange differentiation and integration below. Let $D$ denote the dimension of the pose representation. In this work, we use $D=N_{J}=29$ for the Unitree G1 humanoid robot, matching the normalized pose representation of the main paper.

A-A Population-Optimal Clean-Pose Predictor

Let $\boldsymbol{x}\sim p_{\mathrm{data}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I})$ be independent, where $p_{\mathrm{data}}$ denotes the clean-pose distribution (a probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^{D}$ ). Under the linear Flow Matching path, with $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ held fixed along the path,

\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=t\boldsymbol{x}+\sigma_{t}\boldsymbol{\epsilon},\boldsymbol{v}=\frac{d\boldsymbol{z}_{t}}{dt}=\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}=\frac{\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{z}_{t}}{\sigma_{t}}.

(23)

A clean-pose predictor $\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}$ induces the velocity field

\boldsymbol{v}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)=\frac{\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)-\boldsymbol{z}_{t}}{\sigma_{t}}.

(24)

Therefore, at a fixed timestep $t$ , the Flow Matching objective can be written as

\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{FM},t}(\phi)=\frac{1}{\sigma_{t}^{2}}\mathbb{E}\!\left[\left\|\boldsymbol{x}-\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)\right\|_{2}^{2}\right].

(25)

The derivation below considers the regime $t\leq 1-\delta$ , which is also the regime used for PGS evaluation. In this regime, the denominator clamp in the implemented velocity parameterization is inactive and the velocity residual is exactly proportional to the clean-pose regression residual. Because $\sigma_{t}^{-2}$ depends only on $t$ , it does not alter the pointwise population minimizer at that timestep. Thus, over the unrestricted class of square-integrable predictors, a population-optimal clean-pose predictor is

\mathbf{F}_{t}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z})=\mathbb{E}\!\left[\boldsymbol{x}\mid\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=\boldsymbol{z}\right],

(26)

defined $p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})$ -almost everywhere, where $p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})=\int p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}\mid\boldsymbol{x})\,\mu_{\mathrm{data}}(d\boldsymbol{x})$ is the marginal density of $\boldsymbol{z}_{t}$ .

A-B Jacobian–Conditional Covariance Identity

The Gaussian likelihood induced by the path in Eq. (23), together with its score, is

	$\displaystyle p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}\mid\boldsymbol{x})$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{(2\pi\sigma_{t}^{2})^{D/2}}\exp\!\left(-\frac{\\|\boldsymbol{z}-t\boldsymbol{x}\\|_{2}^{2}}{2\sigma_{t}^{2}}\right),$		(27)
	$\displaystyle\nabla_{\boldsymbol{z}}\log p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}\mid\boldsymbol{x})$	$\displaystyle=-\frac{\boldsymbol{z}-t\boldsymbol{x}}{\sigma_{t}^{2}}.$		(28)

Let $\mu_{\mathrm{data}}$ denote the clean-pose probability measure, i.e., the measure underlying $p_{\mathrm{data}}$ introduced above. The conditional mean can be expressed as

\mathbf{F}_{t}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z})=\frac{\int\boldsymbol{x}\,p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}\mid\boldsymbol{x})\,\mu_{\mathrm{data}}(d\boldsymbol{x})}{\int p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}\mid\boldsymbol{x})\,\mu_{\mathrm{data}}(d\boldsymbol{x})}.

(29)

Differentiating this ratio gives, for coordinates $i,j$ ,

	$\displaystyle\frac{\partial F_{t,i}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z})}{\partial z_{j}}$	$\displaystyle=\operatorname{Cov}\!\left[x_{i},\frac{\partial}{\partial z_{j}}\log p_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}\mid\boldsymbol{x})\,\middle\|\,\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=\boldsymbol{z}\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\frac{t}{\sigma_{t}^{2}}\operatorname{Cov}\!\left[x_{i},x_{j}\,\middle\|\,\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=\boldsymbol{z}\right].$		(30)

Consequently,

\mathbf{J}_{t}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z}):=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{z}}\mathbf{F}_{t}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z})=\frac{t}{(1-t)^{2}}\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}),

(31)

where $\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z}):=\operatorname{Cov}\!\left[\boldsymbol{x}\mid\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=\boldsymbol{z}\right]$ . This is the Jacobian–conditional covariance identity used in Eq. (11) of the main paper. In particular, the off-diagonal entries of $\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})$ describe posterior co-variation between pose coordinates at the queried noisy pose.

A-C Induced Positive-Semidefinite Geometry

For a differentiable learned predictor $\mathbf{F}_{\phi}$ , define

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{J}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)$	$\displaystyle=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{z}}\mathbf{F}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t),$		(32)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{G}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{J}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)^{\top}\mathbf{J}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t).$		(33)

For any $\mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{R}^{D}$ ,

\mathbf{a}^{\top}\mathbf{G}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)\mathbf{a}=\|\mathbf{J}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z},t)\mathbf{a}\|_{2}^{2}\geq 0.

(34)

Thus, $\mathbf{G}_{\phi}$ defines a positive-semidefinite pullback quadratic form, possibly degenerate, which we refer to as the denoiser-induced local pose geometry. This establishes Eq. (12) of the main paper. At the population optimum, Eq. (31) and the symmetry of the conditional covariance give

\mathbf{G}_{t}^{\star}(\boldsymbol{z})=\left(\frac{t}{(1-t)^{2}}\right)^{2}\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})^{2}.

(35)

where $\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})^{2}$ denotes the matrix square $\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})\mathbf{C}_{t}(\boldsymbol{z})$ .

A-D Pose Geometry Score

At rollout step $k$ , the finite-difference joint-coordinate velocity and its stabilized direction are

	$\displaystyle\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{\mathbf{q}_{k}-\mathbf{q}_{k-1}}{\Delta t},$		(36)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{d}_{k}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}}{\sqrt{\\|\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}\\|_{2}^{2}+\eta_{\mathrm{num}}}}.$		(37)

Here, $\eta_{\mathrm{num}}>0$ denotes a small numerical stabilization constant (we use $\eta_{\mathrm{num}}=10^{-6}$ ; this is the $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{num}}$ of the main paper) that prevents division by near-zero values, and $\mathbf{q}_{k}$ denotes the normalized joint-coordinate pose representation used in the main paper. For a corruption draw $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{k}\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I})$ , let

	$\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{k-1}$	$\displaystyle=t_{\mathrm{eval}}\mathbf{q}_{k-1}+(1-t_{\mathrm{eval}})\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{k},$		(38)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{J}_{\phi}\!\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{k-1},t_{\mathrm{eval}}\right),$		(39)

where $t_{\mathrm{eval}}\leq 1-\delta$ . The PGS is then

	$\displaystyle s_{\mathrm{PGS},k}$	$\displaystyle:=\\|\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}\mathbf{d}_{k}\\|_{2}^{2}$
		$\displaystyle=\frac{\\|\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}\\|_{2}^{2}}{\\|\boldsymbol{\xi}_{\mathrm{env},k}\\|_{2}^{2}+\eta_{\mathrm{num}}}.$		(40)

This recovers Eq. (15) of the main paper. The product $\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}\mathbf{d}_{k}$ can be evaluated directly with one Jacobian–vector product, without explicitly constructing either $\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}$ or $\mathbf{G}_{\phi,k}$ .

To obtain the population interpretation, suppose that the learned Jacobian agrees with the population-optimal Jacobian at the queried point, and define

\mathbf{J}_{\phi,k}=\mathbf{J}_{t_{\mathrm{eval}}}^{\star}(\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{k-1}),\qquad\mathbf{C}_{k}=\mathbf{C}_{t_{\mathrm{eval}}}(\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{k-1}).

(41)

Equation (31) then gives

s_{\mathrm{PGS},k}^{\star}=\left(\frac{t_{\mathrm{eval}}}{(1-t_{\mathrm{eval}})^{2}}\right)^{2}\mathbf{d}_{k}^{\top}\mathbf{C}_{k}^{2}\mathbf{d}_{k},

(42)

which is Eq. (16) of the main paper.

Because $\mathbf{C}_{k}$ is symmetric and positive semidefinite, it admits the eigendecomposition

\mathbf{C}_{k}=\mathbf{U}_{k}\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_{k,1},\ldots,\lambda_{k,D})\mathbf{U}_{k}^{\top},\qquad\lambda_{k,i}\geq 0.

(43)

Writing the stabilized rollout direction in this eigenbasis as

\mathbf{d}_{k}=\sum_{i=1}^{D}a_{k,i}\mathbf{u}_{k,i},\qquad\sum_{i=1}^{D}a_{k,i}^{2}=\|\mathbf{d}_{k}\|_{2}^{2}\leq 1,

(44)

we obtain

s_{\mathrm{PGS},k}^{\star}=\left(\frac{t_{\mathrm{eval}}}{(1-t_{\mathrm{eval}})^{2}}\right)^{2}\sum_{i=1}^{D}\lambda_{k,i}^{2}a_{k,i}^{2}.

(45)

Thus, at a fixed corruption timestep, the population-optimal PGS is large when the stabilized rollout direction has substantial components along posterior pose-variation modes with large conditional covariance eigenvalues. This interpretation concerns the local co-variation structure of the marginal pose distribution and does not require temporally ordered prior-training data. For a learned predictor, the interpretation is approximate to the extent that its input Jacobian agrees with the population-optimal Jacobian at the queried point.

Appendix B Robustness of Online PGS Evaluation

PGS is evaluated online using a stochastically corrupted pose query. Given a transition $(\mathbf{q}_{i},\mathbf{d}_{i})$ , we corrupt the pose query by interpolating toward Gaussian noise at the evaluation timestep $t_{\mathrm{eval}}$ :

\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i}=t_{\mathrm{eval}}\mathbf{q}_{i}+(1-t_{\mathrm{eval}})\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{i},\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{i}\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I}),

(46)

and obtain the score

s_{\mathrm{PGS}}(\mathbf{q}_{i},\mathbf{d}_{i};t_{\mathrm{eval}})=\left\|J_{\phi}\!\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{q}}_{i},t_{\mathrm{eval}}\right)\mathbf{d}_{i}\right\|_{2}^{2}.

(47)

We use the same frozen pose prior as in the main experiments and evaluate on transitions sampled from 100 motions randomly selected from the BONES-SEED dataset; all reported metrics are averaged over these transitions. We note that these transitions are drawn from the pose prior’s training corpus; the study measures the internal consistency of the learned PGS under pose-change perturbations rather than its generalization to held-out poses. The remainder of this section is organized as follows. We first select the evaluation timestep by measuring how well PGS discriminates coordinated joint changes from structurally perturbed ones across timesteps. We then verify that, at the selected timestep, the single-sample estimate remains consistent under stochastic corruption. Finally, we show that PGS is insensitive to the overall magnitude of a pose change while remaining sensitive to the inter-joint coordination pattern.

B-A Effect of the Evaluation Timestep

The evaluation timestep determines the corruption scale at which the frozen pose prior is queried, and it may consequently affect the ability of PGS to distinguish coordinated joint changes from structurally perturbed ones. To study this, we measure the structural discriminability of PGS across

t_{\mathrm{eval}}\in\{0.4,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.75,0.8,0.9\}.

(48)

For every transition, we retain the original pose $\mathbf{q}_{i}$ and the joint-change direction $\mathbf{d}_{i}$ , and construct perturbed change directions that preserve the pose query. To measure how the structural discrimination varies with the amount of disruption, we sweep the severity of each perturbation:

TABLE IV: Robustness and computational cost of PGS under stochastic corruption samples. The 128-sample estimate is used as the high-accuracy offline reference.

$K$	Rank corr. $\uparrow$	Percentile MAE $\downarrow$	Region agree. $\uparrow$	Reward MAE $\downarrow$	Latency (ms) $\downarrow$
1	0.976	0.013	97.9%	0.010	0.750
2	0.981	0.011	98.4%	0.007	1.308
4	0.990	0.009	98.9%	0.004	2.847
8	0.996	0.005	99.3%	0.002	5.991
Ref. ( $K=128$ )	1.000	0.000	100.0%	0.000	97.112

Angular perturbation. The change direction is rotated by $\theta\in\{15^{\circ},30^{\circ},45^{\circ},60^{\circ},75^{\circ},90^{\circ}\}$ within the plane spanned by $\mathbf{d}_{i}$ and a unit vector $\mathbf{n}_{\perp,i}$ sampled uniformly from the orthogonal complement of $\mathbf{d}_{i}$ :

\widetilde{\mathbf{d}}_{i}(\theta)=\cos(\theta)\mathbf{d}_{i}+\sin(\theta)\mathbf{n}_{\perp,i}.

(49)

Which rotates the change direction while approximately preserving its norm (the stabilized direction $\mathbf{d}_{i}$ deviates from unit norm only by the small stabilization term of Eq. (37)).

Joint permutation. A random subset comprising a fraction $\rho\in\{25\%,50\%,75\%,100\%\}$ of the joint-coordinate blocks is selected and permuted, disrupting the relative change pattern while preserving the set of local changes.

Independent sign flip. A random subset comprising a fraction $\rho\in\{25\%,50\%,75\%,100\%\}$ of the joint-coordinate blocks is selected, and the change directions of the selected blocks are reversed. For $\rho<100\%$ , this disrupts the relative change pattern; at $\rho=100\%$ it is a global sign flip, which leaves the quadratic PGS invariant at a fixed query pose.

For each transition, the original and perturbed directions are evaluated using the corrupted pose query of Eq. (46) and the Gaussian noise sample. The corrupted query and the Gaussian noise sample are held fixed across the original and perturbed evaluations, so their score difference is caused only by the change in the inter-joint structure.

Timestep-specific calibration. Raw PGS values cannot be compared directly across evaluation timesteps because the scale of the denoiser Jacobian depends on $t_{\mathrm{eval}}$ . We therefore independently recompute the reference PGS distribution and empirical CDF $\widehat{F}_{\tau,t}$ for every timestep, evaluating each reference PGS with a single corruption sample from Eq. (46), consistent with the $K=1$ online estimator.

For the original transition, we compute

u_{i}(t)=\widehat{F}_{\tau,t}\left(s_{\mathrm{PGS}}(\mathbf{q}_{i},\mathbf{d}_{i};t)\right),

(50)

and for a perturbed direction $\widetilde{\mathbf{d}}_{i}$ ,

\widetilde{u}_{i}(t)=\widehat{F}_{\tau,t}\left(s_{\mathrm{PGS}}(\mathbf{q}_{i},\widetilde{\mathbf{d}}_{i};t)\right).

(51)

We define the structural discrimination score for perturbation $\mathcal{P}$ at severity level $s$ as the average decrease in the calibrated percentile:

D_{\mathcal{P},s}(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[u_{i}(t)-\widetilde{u}_{i}^{\mathcal{P},s}(t)\right].

(52)

Because each perturbation is swept over a set of severity levels $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}$ (the rotation angle $\theta$ for the angular perturbation and the joint fraction $\rho$ for joint permutation and sign flip), we report the severity-averaged score

D_{\mathcal{P}}(t)=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}|}\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{P}}}D_{\mathcal{P},s}(t).

(53)

A larger positive value indicates that PGS assigns substantially lower reference-relative scores after the joint-change structure is disrupted and therefore provides stronger structural discrimination. Values close to zero indicate that PGS responds similarly to the original and perturbed change patterns.

TABLE V: Structural discrimination of PGS at different evaluation timesteps. Each entry reports the decrease in reference-relative percentile after perturbation, averaged over the severity levels of each perturbation. Higher values indicate stronger discrimination. The reference PGS distribution is recalibrated independently for every timestep.

$t_{\mathrm{eval}}$	Angular	Permutation	Sign flip	Average
0.40	0.061	0.050	0.019	0.043
0.50	0.089	0.076	0.028	0.064
0.60	0.121	0.105	0.040	0.089
0.70	0.159	0.135	0.053	0.116
0.75	0.169	0.146	0.057	0.124
0.80	0.164	0.138	0.054	0.119
0.90	0.106	0.086	0.033	0.075

TABLE VI: Robustness of PGS to magnitude and joint-change-pattern perturbations.

\Delta

Percentile and

\Delta r^{P}

are measured relative to the unperturbed transition.

Perturbation	Severity	Normalized PGS	$\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ Percentile	$\boldsymbol{\Delta r^{P}}$	Region agreement
None	–	1.000	0.000	0.000	100.0%
Magnitude scaling	$c=0.25$	0.984	$-0.004$	$-0.001$	99.1%
	$c=0.5$	0.995	$-0.001$	$-0.000$	99.7%
	$c=2$	1.001	$+0.000$	$+0.000$	99.8%
	$c=4$	1.002	$+0.001$	$+0.000$	99.6%
Angular perturbation	$\theta=15^{\circ}$	0.928	$-0.018$	$-0.006$	96.1%
	$\theta=30^{\circ}$	0.794	$-0.057$	$-0.021$	89.4%
	$\theta=45^{\circ}$	0.623	$-0.126$	$-0.058$	78.6%
	$\theta=60^{\circ}$	0.441	$-0.214$	$-0.118$	65.2%
	$\theta=75^{\circ}$	0.350	$-0.280$	$-0.160$	57.5%
	$\theta=90^{\circ}$	0.268	$-0.318$	$-0.205$	50.7%
Joint permutation	25% joints	0.842	$-0.043$	$-0.015$	91.8%
	50% joints	0.654	$-0.112$	$-0.047$	81.0%
	75% joints	0.510	$-0.180$	$-0.100$	70.3%
	100% joints	0.372	$-0.251$	$-0.151$	59.5%
Independent sign flip	25% joints	0.878	$-0.032$	$-0.010$	93.4%
	50% joints	0.712	$-0.091$	$-0.035$	84.8%
	75% joints	0.660	$-0.105$	$-0.040$	83.0%
	100% joints	1.000	$0.000$	$0.000$	100.0%

TABLE VII: Architecture and training configuration of the PFM-HR pose prior.

Component	Configuration
Input/output dimension	$N_{J}$ =29
Backbone	Residual MLP
Number of residual blocks	10
Hidden dimension	1024
Timestep embedding	Sinusoidal embedding + MLP
Timestep conditioning	adaLN-Zero
Normalization	RMSNorm
Activation	SiLU
Prediction target	Clean pose
Training loss	Flow Matching velocity loss

TABLE VIII: PPO implementation details. The hyperparameters follow the official MimicKit ADD configuration.

Hyperparameter	Value	Hyperparameter	Value
Parallel environments	4,096	Rollout length	32
Samples per iteration	131,072	Discount factor $\gamma$	0.99
TD( $\lambda$ ) / GAE parameter	0.95	PPO clipping ratio	0.2
Normalized advantage clipping	4.0	Actor optimization epochs	5
Critic optimization epochs	2	Actor minibatch size	16,384
Critic minibatch size	8,192	Actor learning rate	$1\times 10^{-4}$
Critic learning rate	$1\times 10^{-4}$	Optimizer	SGD
Actor network	$[1024,1024]$	Critic network	$[1024,1024]$
Action distribution	Fixed Gaussian	Action standard deviation	0.05
Actor output init. scale	0.01	Action-bound coefficient	10.0
Entropy coefficient	0.0	Action regularization	0.0
Mixed-precision training	Disabled	Normalizer samples	$10^{8}$

Table V shows an inverted-U-shaped relationship between the evaluation timestep and the structural discriminability of PGS. The average discrimination score increases from $0.043$ at $t_{\mathrm{eval}}=0.4$ to $0.124$ at $t_{\mathrm{eval}}=0.75$ , and subsequently decreases to $0.075$ at $t_{\mathrm{eval}}=0.9$ . A similar trend is observed consistently across angular perturbation, joint permutation, and independent sign flip.

The neighboring timesteps $0.7$ and $0.8$ also obtain relatively strong average scores of $0.116$ and $0.119$ , respectively, indicating that PGS remains effective within an intermediate timestep range rather than depending on a narrowly tuned value. Among the evaluated settings, $t_{\mathrm{eval}}=0.75$ provides the strongest average response to disrupted joint-change structures, which is consistent with the timestep selected by the validation sweep reported in the main paper.

B-B Stability under Stochastic Corruption

At the selected evaluation timestep $t_{\mathrm{eval}}=0.75$ , we first verify that the online estimate remains consistent under stochastic corruption. For a fixed transition $(\mathbf{q}_{i},\mathbf{d}_{i})$ , we draw $K$ independent corrupted queries from Eq. (46) and obtain $K$ score samples $s_{i}^{(j)}=s_{\mathrm{PGS}}(\mathbf{q}_{i},\mathbf{d}_{i};t_{\mathrm{eval}})$ , $j=1,\ldots,K$ , one per corrupted query. The estimate obtained using $K$ independent corruption samples is

\widehat{s}_{i}^{(K)}=\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^{K}s_{i}^{(j)}.

(54)

We use an independently sampled $K_{\mathrm{ref}}=128$ estimate as the high-accuracy reference and compare it with $K\in\{1,2,4,8\}$ . Importantly, the proposed method uses $K=1$ during policy training, drawing a fresh corruption sample at every rollout step, and therefore requires only one JVP per rollout step. We report four metrics. The Spearman rank correlation measures how faithfully the ordering of the $K$ -sample estimates matches the reference ordering across transitions. The percentile MAE is the mean absolute error between the reference-relative percentiles obtained from the $K$ -sample and reference estimates, and the reward MAE is the corresponding mean absolute error of the resulting reward multiplier. Finally, we measure the calibration-region agreement: each reference-relative percentile $u$ is mapped to one of three reward regions by

\mathcal{B}(u)=\begin{cases}0,&u<p_{\mathrm{bad}},\\ 1,&p_{\mathrm{bad}}\leq u<p_{\mathrm{good}},\\ 2,&u\geq p_{\mathrm{good}},\end{cases}

(55)

and the agreement is the fraction of transitions for which the $K$ -sample and reference estimates fall into the same region. The same binning is reused for the perturbation study below. Latency is measured for one online PGS evaluation step using a batch size of 4096 on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 GPU.

Results. As shown in Table IV, the single-sample estimator achieves a Spearman rank correlation of $0.976$ and a calibration-region agreement of $97.9\%$ with the 128-sample reference, while adding only $0.75$ ms per evaluation step, over two orders of magnitude cheaper than the $97.1$ ms reference estimate. Increasing the number of corruption samples provides only marginal improvements, supporting the use of a single JVP as a stable and efficient online PGS estimator during policy training.

B-C Robustness to Pose-Change Perturbations

At the selected evaluation timestep $t_{\mathrm{eval}}=0.75$ , we examine whether PGS distinguishes the overall magnitude of a joint-coordinate change from its inter-joint coordination pattern.

For magnitude scaling, denoting by $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}=(\mathbf{q}_{i}-\mathbf{q}_{i-1})/\Delta t$ the finite-difference velocity of transition $i$ , we construct

\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}^{(c)}=c\,\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i},\qquad c\in\{0.25,0.5,1,2,4\},

(56)

and obtain the corresponding normalized direction as

\mathbf{d}_{i}^{(c)}=\frac{\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}^{(c)}}{\sqrt{\|\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}^{(c)}\|_{2}^{2}+\eta_{\mathrm{num}}}}.

(57)

Since PGS depends primarily on the normalized joint-change direction, its response should remain approximately invariant to $c$ , except when the change magnitude becomes comparable to the numerical stabilization term.

To assess the sensitivity to the inter-joint coordination pattern, we evaluate the perturbation family of Section B-A across severities: the angular rotation of Eq. (49) at $\theta\in\{15^{\circ},30^{\circ},45^{\circ},60^{\circ},75^{\circ},90^{\circ}\}$ , and joint permutation and independent sign flips applied to $\rho\in\{25\%,50\%,75\%,100\%\}$ of the joint-coordinate blocks. Table VI reports all of these severities. The corrupted pose query (Eq. (46)) and sampled noise are held fixed before and after each perturbation, ensuring that the observed difference is caused only by the joint-change direction.

Let $s_{i}$ , $u_{i}$ , and $r_{i}^{P}$ denote the PGS, reference-relative percentile, and reward multiplier of the original transition, respectively. Their perturbed counterparts are denoted by $\widetilde{s}_{i}$ , $\widetilde{u}_{i}$ , and $\widetilde{r}_{i}^{P}$ . We evaluate each perturbation using four metrics, averaged over $N$ transitions.

First, the normalized PGS measures the fraction of the original score retained after perturbation (with the stabilization constant $\eta_{\mathrm{num}}$ added to both scores to keep the ratio stable near zero):

R_{\mathrm{PGS}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\widetilde{s}_{i}+\eta_{\mathrm{num}}}{s_{i}+\eta_{\mathrm{num}}}.

(58)

A value close to one indicates that the PGS response is preserved, whereas a value below one indicates a reduced alignment with the geometry encoded by the pose prior.

Second, the percentile change measures the signed displacement in the reference-calibrated PGS distribution:

\Delta\mathrm{Percentile}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\widetilde{u}_{i}-u_{i}\right).

(59)

Negative values indicate that the perturbed joint-change patterns are assigned lower reference-relative percentiles.

Third, the reward change measures the corresponding effect on the PGS reward multiplier:

\Delta r^{P}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\widetilde{r}_{i}^{P}-r_{i}^{P}\right).

(60)

A negative value indicates that the perturbation leads to stronger downweighting of the tracking reward.

Fourth, the region agreement measures whether a transition remains in the same reward-calibration region after perturbation, using the binning $\mathcal{B}(\cdot)$ of Eq. (55):

A_{\mathrm{region}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathbf{1}\left[\mathcal{B}(\widetilde{u}_{i})=\mathcal{B}(u_{i})\right].

(61)

Magnitude scaling is expected to produce $R_{\mathrm{PGS}}\approx 1$ , small percentile and reward changes, and high region agreement. In contrast, perturbations that progressively disrupt the inter-joint coordination pattern are expected to reduce $R_{\mathrm{PGS}}$ , decrease the calibrated percentile and reward multiplier, and lower the region agreement.

TABLE IX: Rotational tracking error on the single-trajectory tracking tasks. We compare vanilla ADD, ADD with PDF-HR, and ADD with PFM-HR. Results are reported in radians as mean

\pm

one standard deviation across three independent random seeds. A method is marked as “Failed” when all three trials fail to converge within 6000 training iterations.

Skill	ADD	ADD w/ PDF-HR	ADD w/ PFM-HR
Walk	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.038\pm 0.001}}$	$0.042\pm 0.002$	$0.039\pm 0.000$
Run	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.063\pm 0.001}}$	$0.070\pm 0.001$	$0.069\pm 0.003$
Jump	$0.108\pm 0.004$	$0.103\pm 0.003$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.101\pm 0.005}}$
Spinkick	$0.150\pm 0.002$	$0.161\pm 0.004$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.147\pm 0.002}}$
Cartwheel	$0.129\pm 0.007$	$0.126\pm 0.010$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.125\pm 0.005}}$
Backflip	Failed	$0.205\pm 0.004$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.203\pm 0.003}}$
Sideflip	$0.241\pm 0.003$	$0.242\pm 0.005$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.238\pm 0.001}}$
SpeedVault	$0.118\pm 0.003$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.116\pm 0.001}}$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.116\pm 0.000}}$
DoubleKong	Failed	$0.157\pm 0.003$	$\pagecolor[HTML]{E6E6FD}{\mathbf{0.154\pm 0.002}}$

Results. Table VI shows that PGS is nearly invariant to the overall magnitude of a pose change. Across scaling factors from $0.25$ to $4$ , the normalized score remains within $1.6\%$ of the unperturbed value, and the calibration-region agreement remains above $99\%$ . In contrast, PGS decreases consistently as the joint-change pattern is perturbed. At an angular deviation of $90^{\circ}$ , only $26.8\%$ of the original score is retained, and fully permuting the joint changes reduces the normalized score to $0.372$ . Independently flipping the directions of a random subset of joints also lowers the score, to $0.878$ and $0.712$ at $25\%$ and $50\%$ of the joints, respectively, whereas a global sign flip of all joint directions leaves the score unchanged ( $1.000$ ), consistent with the sign-invariance of the quadratic PGS at a fixed query pose. These results suggest that PGS is robust to nuisance variations while remaining sensitive to the inter-joint coordination patterns.

Appendix C Implementation Details

C-A Pose Flow Matching Network Architecture

The pose prior is pretrained on the 60M-pose BONES-SEED corpus using the same normalized $N_{J}=29$ dimensional representation as in the main paper. We use the linear Flow Matching path $\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=t\boldsymbol{x}+(1-t)\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ and sample $t$ from the logit-normal distribution used in our implementation. The network is trained with the clean-pose parameterization and the induced velocity-space loss. The prior is pretrained independently of all downstream policies and is frozen before reinforcement learning.

PFM-HR follows the clean-data prediction formulation of JiT, adapted from image inputs to vector-valued humanoid poses. Since each pose is represented by an $N_{J}$ -dimensional joint-coordinate vector, we use a residual MLP instead of a patch-based Transformer. The network consists of an input projection, 10 residual MLP blocks with a hidden dimension of 1024, and a linear output projection. The Flow Matching timestep is encoded using sinusoidal features followed by a two-layer MLP and is injected into every residual block through adaLN-Zero conditioning. The output dimension is $N_{J}$ , allowing the network to directly predict the clean normalized pose. Following JiT, we use $\boldsymbol{x}$ -prediction with a velocity-space loss. Given a clean pose $\boldsymbol{x}$ , Gaussian noise $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\sim\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{0},\mathbf{I})$ , and timestep $t$ , the corrupted pose is

\boldsymbol{z}_{t}=t\boldsymbol{x}+(1-t)\boldsymbol{\epsilon}.

(62)

The network directly predicts the clean pose,

\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}=F_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t),

(63)

and the corresponding velocity prediction is

\boldsymbol{v}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)=\frac{\hat{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\phi}-\boldsymbol{z}_{t}}{\max(1-t,\delta)}.

(64)

Using the target velocity $\boldsymbol{}{v}=\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ , we optimize

\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{FM}}(\phi)=\mathbb{E}_{t,\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}\left[\left\|\boldsymbol{v}-\boldsymbol{v}_{\phi}(\boldsymbol{z}_{t},t)\right\|_{2}^{2}\right].

(65)

Thus, the model output remains a clean-pose prediction, while the training error is evaluated in the induced Flow Matching velocity space. The resulting clean-pose map is subsequently frozen and used to compute the Jacobian–vector products required by PGS.

C-B RL Training Details

We implement all policies based on the ADD framework in MimicKit and use the Isaac Gym backend with 4,096 parallel environments. Unless otherwise specified, the PPO hyperparameters and actor–critic architecture follow the official ADD configuration as shown in Table VIII. The pretrained prior in PFM-HR is kept frozen throughout policy learning. All discriminator-related hyperparameters, including the discriminator architecture, learning rate, replay-buffer size, replay-sampling count, gradient penalty, and discriminator reward scale, follow the official MimicKit ADD configuration without modification.

The actor and critic are two-layer fully connected networks with 1,024 hidden units per layer. MimicKit specifies the actor and critic minibatch sizes as multiples of the number of parallel environments. Therefore, the corresponding minibatch sizes are $4\times 4096=16{,}384$ and $2\times 4096=8{,}192$ , respectively. All compared methods use the same training budget and environment configuration. We evaluate each policy every 100 training iterations using 4,096 episodes and report the mean and standard deviation over three seeds.

Appendix D Additional Experimental Results

D-A Rotation Error on Single-Trajectory Tasks

Table IX reports the rotational tracking errors for all nine single-trajectory tracking tasks. These results complement the positional tracking errors reported in Table 2 of the main paper. We use the same evaluation protocol and report the mean and one standard deviation across three independent random seeds. PFM-HR obtains the lowest mean rotational error on six of the nine tasks and ties for the lowest error on SpeedVault. The vanilla ADD baseline performs best on the two basic locomotion tasks, Walk and Run. In contrast, PFM-HR performs best on the more dynamic tasks, including Jump, Spinkick, Cartwheel, Backflip, Sideflip, and Double Kong. In particular, PFM-HR maintains low rotational errors on Backflip and Double Kong, for which vanilla ADD fails.

D-B Training Curves on Single-motion Tracking

Figure 7 presents the complete training curves for the nine single-motion tracking tasks. Both pose-prior methods generally improve sample efficiency over vanilla ADD, yet the magnitude of the benefit depends strongly on the complexity of the reference motion. On dynamic and acrobatic skills such as Jump, Cartwheel, Backflip, Sideflip, SpeedVault, and Double Kong, PFM-HR converges particularly rapidly, reaching the full reference length well before vanilla ADD. Its advantage is most pronounced on Backflip and Double Kong, where vanilla ADD fails to reach the full reference length within the training budget, whereas PFM-HR consistently solves the motions across all three seeds. On the comparatively simpler Walk, Run, and Spinkick tasks, where joint trajectories are more predictable and rely less on tightly coordinated multi-joint timing, PDF-HR converges slightly faster than or comparably to PFM-HR, although both methods remain substantially more sample-efficient than ADD.

D-C Training Curves on General Motion Tracking

Figure 6 shows the success-rate curves for general-motion tracking under three episode horizons (10, 20, and 30 seconds). Longer horizons require the policy to track the reference over many more timesteps and to recover from error accumulation, making them a substantially harder test of reward quality. PFM-HR consistently shifts the learning curves to the left, reaching high success rates with fewer training samples than both vanilla ADD and ADD with PDF-HR. This advantage is observed across all three horizons and becomes more evident as the episode horizon increases, suggesting that the benefit of geometry-aware reward modulation grows with the amount of accumulated drift the policy must correct. PDF-HR also improves sample efficiency over vanilla ADD, but its gains are smaller than those of PFM-HR, indicating that the richer inter-joint geometry information used by PFM-HR translates into a clearer learning signal. In addition to faster convergence, PFM-HR achieves the highest final success rate across all three horizons, showing that PGS-based reward modulation improves both learning speed and long-horizon tracking reliability rather than trading one off against the other.