Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 7 cited by

AnimateAnything: Consistent and Controllable Animation for Video Generation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AnimateAnything turns camera trajectories, drags, and reference-video motion into one optical-flow representation that drives consistent video generation.

desk verdict A genuinely unified flow-based controller, but the central large-motion premise is untested; worth serious review with requested revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10836 v1 pith:FM4PTYWL submitted 2024-11-16 cs.CV

Guojun Lei , Chi Wang , Hong Li , Rong Zhang , Yikai Wang , Weiwei Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords controllablevideogenerationimage-to-videoopticalflowcameratrajectorycontroldrag-basedanimationfrequencystabilizationdiffusionmodelmotiontransfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a video generator does not need separate controllers for each user input. Instead, it claims, every visual control—camera path, arrow-based drags, reference-video motion—can be converted into frame-by-frame optical flow, and that flow can then be the single motion condition for synthesis. A two-stage pipeline first produces the unified dense flow and then feeds it to a diffusion video generator, with a frequency-domain stabilization module to suppress flicker under large motion. If the claim holds, one framework can combine camera and object control in the same shot without conflict or careful tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is optical flow as a common motion 'language' for all control signals. Explicit signals (arrows, reference videos) become sparse or dense flows directly; camera trajectories, which cannot be written as pixel flows by hand, enter through the Camera Reference Model using Plücker embeddings, so the Flow Generation Model can synthesize a dense flow consistent with both signal types. Stage two then uses a flow VAE/encoder to supply key–value features to the generation transformer, and the frequency stabilization module applies adaptive FFT-based filtering inside attention to align features in time.

What would settle it

Run the model on shots where the camera moves sideways past objects at different depths while a foreground object moves in the opposite direction, and inspect the edges where background becomes newly visible. If the flat flow map cannot represent those newly revealed regions, the generated video should show ghosting, flicker, or wrong motion at those boundaries; that would refute the claim that a single frame-by-frame flow field is enough.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AnimateAnything's central claim is that local object motion and global camera motion can be unified into a single frame-by-frame optical-flow representation, and that this representation—not the raw control signal—should condition video synthesis. Stage one explicitly converts drag annotations into sparse flows and camera trajectories into Plücker embeddings, which a reference network uses to guide the Flow Generation Model in synthesizing a dense unified flow. Stage two encodes that flow and injects it as key–value features into a transformer-based video diffusion model, while an FFT-based attention adaptor stabilizes large motions by modifying spectral features. The paper reports that this design yields better camera-trajectory alignment and video quality than camera-only, drag-only, and flow-based baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline stands on the premise that a flat, frame-by-frame map of where each pixel moves can capture both camera motion and object motion without separately modeling occlusions, newly revealed background, parallax, or three-dimensional scene structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can combine camera motion and object drags in one shot without the two signals fighting, because both share the same flow space.
  • The same second stage can transfer motion from a reference video, including face and lip motion, without skeleton or keypoint extraction.
  • Any new control modality that can be converted to sparse optical flow—audio, object landmarks, extracted video—can be plugged into the flow-generation stage.
  • Large camera or object motion is less likely to produce flicker because the frequency stabilization module enforces temporal consistency in the spectral domain.
  • The two stages can be trained on different datasets (static-scene pose data for flow, dynamic video for generation), reducing the need for large pose-annotated dynamic video.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If 2D optical flow is genuinely sufficient, new control types need only a converter into flow, making the framework extensible; but the paper's training data limitation (pose-rich datasets are mostly indoor or static) leaves dynamic outdoor scenes with strong parallax largely untested.
  • The frequency-stabilized attention could likely be reused in other transformer-based video generators as a drop-in module, independent of this pipeline's flow conditioning.
  • A natural stress test: generate flows for conflicting signals—object moving opposite to the camera—and check whether the learned model resolves the conflict or requires explicit occlusion reasoning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents AnimateAnything, a two-stage image-to-video generation framework that unifies multiple control signals (camera trajectories, user drag annotations, reference videos) into a common frame-by-frame optical flow representation. In Stage 1, a Flow Generation Model (FGM) converts explicit signals (e.g., arrow-based sparse flows) into dense optical flow, while a Camera Reference Model (CRM) implicitly injects camera trajectory information via Plücker embeddings and reference attention. In Stage 2, the generated optical flow is compressed by a 3D VAE and injected into a CogVideoX-based diffusion transformer through a ViT cross-attention block. A frequency stabilization (FS) module modifies attention weights via FFT/IFFT to reduce flicker. The authors report quantitative gains over prior methods on camera trajectory alignment (Table 1), video quality (Table 2), and consistency (Table 3), with qualitative results for drag and reference-video controls, plus an ablation study (Table 4).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a genuinely unified control interface for I2V generation, which would be practically useful for film and VR applications. The main strengths are the architectural idea of converting heterogeneous control signals into a single optical-flow prior, the two-stage independent training scheme that decouples flow generation from video generation, and the explicit attempt to address large-motion flicker through frequency-domain feature modulation. The paper also provides fairly extensive comparisons with recent baselines on camera trajectory metrics and standard video-quality metrics. However, the evaluation is uneven across the three claimed control modalities, the training data for camera control do not cover the dynamic-camera-plus-dynamic-object regime promised in the abstract, and the FS module is described too imprecisely to be reproduced. The quantitative claims also lack error bars or significance tests, and the Stage 2 evaluation appears to use the same datasets that were used for training. These issues make the current evidence conditional rather than conclusive.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.5 / Table 1] The training/evaluation gap undermines the large-scale-motion claim. The paper itself states (Sec. 3.5) that the camera-pose datasets Real10K and DL3DV10K are 'primarily indoor or static scene datasets' and that dynamic OpenVid videos are selected only when the camera is roughly fixed. Table 1 evaluates camera trajectory accuracy only on Real10K. Therefore, the FGM has never been trained on the combination of substantial camera motion and independent object motion, which is precisely the setting the abstract promises ('large-scale motion'). Please add an evaluation on dynamic scenes with known camera poses (e.g., synthetic benchmarks with ground-truth pose and object motion, or real datasets with SfM on rigid background plus moving foreground), or at a minimum a set of qualitative large-parallax examples with quantitative flow accuracy, and state the failure modes explicitly.
  2. [§4.2 / Figs. 6–8] The user-drag and reference-video control modalities, which are half of the claimed control types, are supported only by qualitative figures. No quantitative metric is reported for arrow annotations (e.g., point-trajectory accuracy, endpoint error, drag success rate) or for reference-video motion transfer (e.g., temporal flow alignment, identity preservation, motion fidelity). Since the paper's headline claim is 'precise and consistent' control across all conditions, these load-bearing modalities need quantitative evaluation against the same baselines that are used in the qualitative comparisons.
  3. [§3.4 / Fig. 4] The frequency stabilization module is underspecified. The text says an FFT is applied to 'each weight matrix' and that the spectral features are multiplied by a learnable weight before inverse FFT, but it does not specify along which axis the FFT is taken (e.g., the temporal dimension of the feature map, the embedding dimension, or the weight-matrix rows). Without this information, the method cannot be reproduced, and the claimed connection between modifying attention weight spectra and temporal coherence is not evident. Please provide the exact tensor shapes and operations, and add an ablation that isolates the effect of FS on flicker-specific metrics (e.g., temporal consistency, frame-wise LPIPS variance) rather than only on FVD.
  4. [§3.5 / §4.1] The Stage 2 evaluation appears to use the training distribution. The paper trains on WebVid10M and OpenVid (Sec. 3.5) and then reports video-quality and consistency metrics on WebVid and OpenVid (Tables 2 and 3). If the train and test splits are not explicitly separated, the FID/FVD gains may largely reflect overfitting to the training set rather than genuine generation quality. Please clarify the exact split procedure, or evaluate on a held-out set of videos not used in training, and report the overlap between training and evaluation data.
  5. [Tables 1–4] The quantitative tables report single-run results without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Given the variability of video generation models across seeds and the small margins in some metrics (e.g., Table 2 LPIPS 0.135 vs 0.152 for Pyramid-Flow on WebVid, and Table 3 MoS values all near 0.99), the claimed improvements could be within run-to-run noise. Please report results over at least three random seeds with mean and standard deviation, or perform a paired significance test where appropriate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] The text refers to 'Tab. 5' for the camera trajectory results, but the table is numbered Table 1 in the manuscript; please fix all cross-references.
  2. [§3.2] Equation (4) uses a hat symbol over d without defining it; the following line defines it only implicitly. Please clarify the notation for the normalized direction vector, and fix the typo 'image latens' in the same section.
  3. [§3.3] Equation (6) omits the standard softmax scaling factor 1/sqrt(d) for dot-product attention; if the implementation uses scaling, indicate it explicitly.
  4. [§4.3 / Table 4] The first two rows of the ablation are labeled 'Camera embedding' and 'ControlNet-Like' but these are alternative camera-conditioning architectures, not ablations of the optical-flow unification itself. Clarify that they are alternative designs and specify that the training data and schedule are identical across all rows.
  5. [References] References [62] and [63] are duplicates of the same paper (Stereo Magnification); merge them and update the citation numbering.
  6. [Figure 3] The pipeline figure is very dense; enlarge the subfigure labels and consider separating Stage 1 and Stage 2 into two panels for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline converts control signals into optical flow and evaluates against external baselines and independently estimated camera trajectories; the admitted data limitations do not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

No circular step can be exhibited. The central pipeline is an empirical two-stage system: Stage 1 converts explicit signals such as drag annotations into sparse flow via Eq. (3) and implicit signals such as camera trajectories into Plücker embeddings via Eqs. (4)-(5), then trains a Flow Generation Model against ground-truth optical flow extracted with Unimatch from training videos. Stage 2 uses the generated dense flow as keys and values in a ViT attention block (Eq. (6)) to guide a frozen CogVideoX-based generator. Each of these steps is a learned input-output mapping trained on external data and validated against external baselines (Motion-I2V, MOFA-Video, CameraCtrl, MotionCtrl) and independently estimated camera trajectories (DUSt3R, VggSfM, ParticleSfM). The claims do not redefine success in terms of the training target: camera alignment is measured by SfM on the final output video, not by the input flow. The one self-reference is to [55], which includes co-author Hong Li, in a list of possible control-signal sources ('object landmarks [55]'), and it is not load-bearing. The paper itself flags a genuine limitation in Sec. 3.5: camera-pose datasets are 'primarily indoor or static scene datasets' and dynamic videos 'rarely contain pose information', so a fixed-camera OpenVid subset is used for dynamic training. This is an admitted generalization limitation, not a circular reduction. The speculative framing in Sec. 1 ('we speculate that if ... can be unified into ... optical flow') is an architectural assumption, not a derivation from the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the optical-flow unification assumption, the power of pretrained backbones, and the effectiveness of a new frequency-stabilization heuristic. No free parameters are fitted to a closed-form target; the listed hyperparameters are design choices that are not fully specified. The invented entities are internal network components without external falsifiable handles.

free parameters (3)
  • Optical flow latent compression ratios = 4x temporal, 8x8 spatial
    Architectural hyperparameters chosen by design for the Flow VAE encoder; they are not learned from data but affect the representation capacity.
  • Noise level applied to optical flow in Stage 2 training = unspecified
    The paper states that noise is applied to optical flow during training to improve robustness, but the level is not reported; it is a hand-chosen value.
  • Motion magnitude threshold for selecting fixed-camera OpenVid videos = unspecified
    The paper selects about 10,000 videos with roughly fixed camera positions by evaluating global optical flow magnitude, but the exact threshold is not specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Optical flow is a sufficient unified representation for both local object motion and global camera motion.
    Stated as a speculation in Section 1 and the entire two-stage design depends on it; the paper does not prove that optical flow captures all needed information, especially with occlusions and 3D parallax.
  • domain assumption Pre-trained backbones SD1.5 and CogVideoX provide adequate priors for optical flow generation and video synthesis.
    The CRM is initialized from SD1.5, and the video generation stage inherits CogVideoX; the method relies on these models' generalization and does not train them from scratch.
  • standard math Plücker embeddings correctly encode camera trajectory for learning.
    Plücker coordinates are a standard geometric representation, but the assumption that a neural network can effectively extract camera motion from them is domain-specific and empirically validated only through results.
  • ad hoc to paper FFT-based feature modification in attention preserves temporal coherence and reduces flickering.
    The frequency stabilization module is a proposed heuristic with no theoretical justification; its only support is an ablation study on a single dataset.
invented entities (2)
  • Frequency Stabilization (FS) module
    purpose: To reduce flickering by modifying features in the frequency domain during attention computation.
    The module is validated only by the paper's own ablation (Table 4) and a few qualitative videos; there is no external benchmark, theory, or fixed prediction to test it independently.
  • Camera Reference Model (CRM)
    purpose: To inject camera trajectory and reference image features into the optical flow generation stage.
    The CRM is an architectural component; its effectiveness is shown through the paper's quantitative camera-control experiments, but those are internal to the same system and not an independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AnimateAnything: Consistent and Controllable Animation for Video Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FM4PTYWL

@misc{pith2026241110836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AnimateAnything: Consistent and Controllable Animation for Video Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FM4PTYWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10836}
}
read the original abstract

We present a unified controllable video generation approach AnimateAnything that facilitates precise and consistent video manipulation across various conditions, including camera trajectories, text prompts, and user motion annotations. Specifically, we carefully design a multi-scale control feature fusion network to construct a common motion representation for different conditions. It explicitly converts all control information into frame-by-frame optical flows. Then we incorporate the optical flows as motion priors to guide final video generation. In addition, to reduce the flickering issues caused by large-scale motion, we propose a frequency-based stabilization module. It can enhance temporal coherence by ensuring the video's frequency domain consistency. Experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches. For more details and videos, please refer to the webpage: https://yu-shaonian.github.io/Animate_Anything/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Animate anything. Consistent and controllable animation for different kinds of control signals. Given a reference image and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The generated optical flow by our method with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AnimateAnything Pipeline. The pipeline consists of two stages: 1) Unified Flow Generation, which creates a unified optical flow representation by leveraging visual control signals through two synchronized latent diffusion models, namely the Flow Generation Model (FGM) and the Camera Reference Model (CRM). The FGM accepts sparse or coarse optical flow derived from visual signals other than camera trajectory. The CRM … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Video stabilization Module stages achieving a 4× compression in the temporal dimen￾sion and an 8×8 compression in the spatial dimension simi￾lar to the 3D VAE encoder [51]. Then we use a single basic Vision Transformer (ViT) block[12] to query video latents zv from the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Camera trajectory comparison with other trajectory-based methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Motion Transfer comparison with state-of-the-art methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Users drag animation comparison with other animation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Image to video generation comparison with current state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Perception-as-Control: Fine-grained Controllable Image Animation with 3D-aware Motion Representation

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A diffusion-based image animation method that uses rendered colored spheres and a checkerboard world envelope as 3D-aware motion control signals, enabling joint camera and object motion control with fine granularity.

  2. FlexComposer: Unified Video Compositing from Images to Dynamic Footage with Flexible Trajectory Control

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single video-diffusion framework composites both static images and dynamic footage along user-defined trajectories by transporting canonical foreground latents directly into the background latent sequence.

  3. MotionShot: Adaptive Motion Transfer across Arbitrary Objects for Text-to-Video Generation

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MotionShot transfers motion from a reference video to an unseen target object in text-to-video generation by combining semantic and morphological alignment in a training-free pipeline.

  4. AniCrafter: Customizing Realistic Human-Centric Animation via Avatar-Background Conditioning in Video Diffusion Models

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A diffusion model animates a character into arbitrary dynamic backgrounds by conditioning on a rendered 3D-avatar video, reframing open-domain animation as a restoration problem.

  5. EchoVideo: Identity-Preserving Human Video Generation by Multimodal Feature Fusion

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    EchoVideo preserves identity in generated human videos by pre-fusing face, image, and text features, then training with stochastic shallow-feature dropout to reduce copy-paste artifacts.

  6. AC3D: Analyzing and Improving 3D Camera Control in Video Diffusion Transformers

    cs.CV 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AC3D improves camera control in video diffusion transformers by conditioning only early denoising steps and the first 8 of 32 blocks, and by adding 20K static-camera dynamic videos to training.

  7. VFX Creator: Animated Visual Effect Generation with Controllable Diffusion Transformer

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A controllable diffusion transformer generates VFX videos from a reference image, text, and mask and timestamp conditions, with a new 675-video dataset and a temporal accuracy metric.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ah- mad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Vd3d: Taming large video diffusion transformers for 3d camera control

    Sherwin Bahmani, Ivan Skorokhodov, Aliaksandr Siaro- hin, Willi Menapace, Guocheng Qian, Michael Vasilkovsky, Hsin-Ying Lee, Chaoyang Wang, Jiaxu Zou, Andrea Tagliasacchi, DavidB Lindell, and Sergey Tulyakov. Vd3d: Taming large video diffusion transformers for 3d camera control. arXiv:2407.12781, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval

    Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, G ¨ul Varol, and Andrew Zisser- man. Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval. In ICCV, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval

    Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Gul Varol, and Andrew Zisser- man. Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval. In ICCV, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Video generation models as world simulators

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, Connor Holmes, Will DePue, Yufei Guo, Li Jing, David Schnurr, Joe Taylor, Troy Luh- man, Eric Luhman, Clarence Ng, Ricky Wang, and Aditya Ramesh. Video generation models as world simulators

  6. [6]

    Generative rendering: Controllable 4d-guided video generation with 2d diffusion models

    Shengqu Cai, Duygu Ceylan, Matheus Gadelha, Chun- HaoPaul Huang, TuanfengYang Wang, and Gordon Wet- zstein. Generative rendering: Controllable 4d-guided video generation with 2d diffusion models. In CVPR, 2023. 6

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Diffdreamer: Towards consistent unsupervised single-view scene extrapolation with conditional diffusion models

    Shengqu Cai, EricRyan Chan, Songyou Peng, Mohamad Shahbazi, Anton Obukhov, LucVan Gool, and Gordon Wet- zstein. Diffdreamer: Towards consistent unsupervised single-view scene extrapolation with conditional diffusion models. In ICCV, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Pix2video: Video editing using image diffusion

    Duygu Ceylan, Chun-HaoP Huang, and NiloyJ Mitra. Pix2video: Video editing using image diffusion. In ICCV,

    work page

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Sound2sight: Gen- erating visual dynamics from sound and context

    Moitreya Chatterjee and Anoop Cherian. Sound2sight: Gen- erating visual dynamics from sound and context. In ECCV,

  2. [10]

    Seine: Short-to-long video diffusion model for generative transition and prediction

    Xinyuan Chen, Yaohui Wang, Lingjun Zhang, Shaobin Zhuang, Xin Ma, Jiashuo Yu, Yali Wang, Dahua Lin, Yu Qiao, and Ziwei Liu. Seine: Short-to-long video diffusion model for generative transition and prediction. In ICLR,

  3. [11]

    His- torical notes on the fast fourier transform.Proceedings of the IEEE, 55(10):1675–1677, 1967

    James W Cooley, Peter AW Lewis, and Peter D Welch. His- torical notes on the fast fourier transform.Proceedings of the IEEE, 55(10):1675–1677, 1967. 6

    1967

  4. [12]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Structure and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models

    Patrick Esser, Johnathan Chiu, Parmida Atighehchian, Jonathan Granskog, and Anastasis Germanidis. Structure and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  6. [14]

    Opflowtalker: Realistic and natural talking face generation via optical flow guidance

    Shuheng Ge, Haoyu Xing, Li Zhang, and Xiangqian Wu. Opflowtalker: Realistic and natural talking face generation via optical flow guidance. arXiv:2405.14709, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. In ICLR, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  8. [16]

    Controllable video generation with sparse trajectories

    Zekun Hao, Xun Huang, and Serge Belongie. Controllable video generation with sparse trajectories. In CVPR, 2018. 3

    2018

  9. [17]

    Camerac- trl: Enabling camera control for text-to-video generation

    Hao He, Yinghao Xu, Yuwei Guo, Gordon Wetzstein, Bo Dai, Hongsheng Li, and Ceyuan Yang. Camerac- trl: Enabling camera control for text-to-video generation. arXiv:2404.02101, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. In NeurIPS, 2017. 6

    2017

  11. [19]

    Cogvideo: Large-scale pretraining for text-to-video generation via transformers

    Wenyi Hong, Ming Ding, Wendi Zheng, Xinghan Liu, and Jie Tang. Cogvideo: Large-scale pretraining for text-to-video generation via transformers. arXiv:2205.15868, 2022. 5

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Image quality metrics: Psnr vs

    Alain Hore and Djemel Ziou. Image quality metrics: Psnr vs. ssim. In ICPR, 2010. 6

    2010

  13. [21]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language mod- els

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language mod- els. arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Animate anyone: Consistent and con- trollable image-to-video synthesis for character animation

    Li Hu, Xin Gao, Peng Zhang, Ke Sun, Bang Zhang, and Liefeng Bo. Animate anyone: Consistent and con- trollable image-to-video synthesis for character animation. arXiv:2311.17117, 2023. 1, 4

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    VBench: Com- prehensive benchmark suite for video generative models

    Ziqi Huang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Fan Zhang, Chenyang Si, Yuming Jiang, Yuanhan Zhang, Tianxing Wu, Qingyang Jin, Nattapol Chanpaisit, Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, Yu Qiao, and Ziwei Liu. VBench: Com- prehensive benchmark suite for video generative models....

    2024

  16. [24]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    HuEdward J., Yulong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In ICLR,

  17. [25]

    Peekaboo: Interactive video generation via masked- diffusion

    Yash Jain, Anshul Nasery, Vibhav Vineet, and Harkirat Behl. Peekaboo: Interactive video generation via masked- diffusion. In CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pyramidal flow matching for effi- cient video generative modeling

    Yang Jin, Zhicheng Sun, Ningyuan Li, Kun Xu, Kun Xu, Hao Jiang, Nan Zhuang, Quzhe Huang, Yang Song, Yadong Mu, and Zhouchen Lin. Pyramidal flow matching for effi- cient video generative modeling. arXiv:2410.05954, 2024. 6

    2024

  19. [27]

    Text2video-zero: Text- to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators

    Levon Khachatryan, Andranik Movsisyan, Vahram Tade- vosyan, Roberto Henschel, Zhangyang Wang, Shant Navasardyan, and Humphrey Shi. Text2video-zero: Text- to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators. In ICCV, 2023. 6

    2023

  20. [28]

    Dl3dv-10k: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision

    Lu Ling, Yichen Sheng, Zhi Tu, Wentian Zhao, Cheng Xin, Kun Wan, Lantao Yu, Qianyu Guo, Zixun Yu, Yawen Lu, et al. Dl3dv-10k: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning-based 3d vision. In CVPR, 2024. 6

    2024

  21. [29]

    Motionclone: Training-free motion cloning for controllable video generation

    Pengyang Ling, Jiazi Bu, Pan Zhang, Xiaoyi Dong, Yuhang Zang, Tong Wu, Huaian Chen, Jiaqi Wang, and Yi Jin. Motionclone: Training-free motion cloning for controllable video generation. arXiv:2406.05338, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Openvid-1m: A large-scale high-quality dataset for text-to- video generation

    Kepan Nan, Rui Xie, Penghao Zhou, Tiehan Fan, Zhen- heng Yang, Zhijie Chen, Xiang Li, Jian Yang, and Ying Tai. Openvid-1m: A large-scale high-quality dataset for text-to- video generation. arXiv:2407.02371, 2024. 6

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mofa-video: Controllable image animation via generative motion field adaptions in frozen image-to-video diffusion model

    Muyao Niu, Xiaodong Cun, Xintao Wang, Yong Zhang, Ying Shan, and Yinqiang Zheng. Mofa-video: Controllable image animation via generative motion field adaptions in frozen image-to-video diffusion model. arXiv:2405.20222,

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In ICCV, 2023. 6

    2023

  25. [33]

    Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Anselm Levskaya, Gaurav Mishra, James Bradbury, Daniel Andor, Sha- ran Narang, Brian Lester, Colin Gaffney, Afroz Mohi- uddin, Curtis Hawthorne, Aitor Lewkowycz, Alex Sal- cianu, Marc van Zee, Jacob Austin, Sebastian Goodman, Livio Baldini Soares...

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bjorn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 4

    2022

  27. [35]

    U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U- net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III

    2015

  28. [36]

    Semantic image inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differential equations

    L Rout, Y Chen, N Ruiz, C Caramanis, S Shakkottai, and W Chu. Semantic image inversion and editing using rectified stochastic differential equations. arXiv:2410.10792, 2024. 7

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm

    Johannes L. Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In CVPR, 2016. 6

    2016

  30. [38]

    Motion-i2v: Consistent and controllable image-to-video generation with explicit motion modeling

    Xiaoyu Shi, Zhaoyang Huang, Fu-Yun Wang, Weikang Bian, Dasong Li, Yi Zhang, Manyuan Zhang, Ka Chun Che- ung, Simon See, Hongwei Qin, Jifeng Dai, and Hongsheng Li. Motion-i2v: Consistent and controllable image-to-video generation with explicit motion modeling. In SIGGRAPH,

  31. [39]

    Light field networks: Neu- ral scene representations with single-evaluation rendering

    Vincent Sitzmann, Semon Rezchikov, Bill Freeman, Josh Tenenbaum, and Fr´edo Durand. Light field networks: Neu- ral scene representations with single-evaluation rendering. In NeurIPS, 2021. 5

    2021

  32. [40]

    To- wards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerdvan Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Rapha¨el Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. To- wards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges. arXiv:2303.14207, 2018. 6

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Vggsfm: Visual geometry grounded deep structure from motion

    Jianyuan Wang, Nikita Karaev, Christian Rupprecht, and David Novotny. Vggsfm: Visual geometry grounded deep structure from motion. In CVPR, 2024. 6

    2024

  34. [42]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy

    Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. Dust3r: Geometric 3d vi- sion made easy. In CVPR, 2024. 6

    2024

  35. [43]

    Videocomposer: Compositional video synthesis with motion controllability

    Xiang Wang, Hangjie Yuan, Shiwei Zhang, Dayou Chen, Ji- uniu Wang, Yingya Zhang, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Jin- gren Zhou. Videocomposer: Compositional video synthesis with motion controllability. NeurIPS, 2024. 3

    2024

  36. [44]

    Wang, A.C

    Z. Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Im- age quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. TIP, 2004. 6

    2004

  37. [45]

    Motionctrl: A unified and flexible motion controller for video generation

    Zhouxia Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xintao Wang, Yaowei Li, Tianshui Chen, Menghan Xia, Ping Luo, and Ying Shan. Motionctrl: A unified and flexible motion controller for video generation. In SIGGRAPH, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2024

  38. [46]

    Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of im- age diffusion models for text-to-video generation

    JayZhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Weixian Lei, Yuchao Gu, Wynne Hsu, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and MikeZheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of im- age diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In ICCV,

  39. [47]

    Draganything: Motion control for any- thing using entity representation

    Weijia Wu, Zhuang Li, Yuchao Gu, Rui Zhao, Yefei He, David Junhao Zhang, Mike Zheng Shou, Yan Li, Tingting Gao, and Di Zhang. Draganything: Motion control for any- thing using entity representation. In ECCV, 2024. 7

    2024

  40. [48]

    Dynamicrafter: Animating open-domain im- ages with video diffusion priors

    Jinbo Xing, Menghan Xia, Yong Zhang, Haoxin Chen, Wangbo Yu, Hanyuan Liu, Xintao Wang, Tien-Tsin Wong, and Ying Shan. Dynamicrafter: Animating open-domain im- ages with video diffusion priors. arXiv:2310.12190, 2023. 6

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Camco: Camera- controllable 3d-consistent image-to-video generation

    Dejia Xu, Weili Nie, Chao Liu, Sifei Liu, Jan Kautz, Zhangyang Wang, and Arash Vahdat. Camco: Camera- controllable 3d-consistent image-to-video generation. arXiv:2406.02509, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Unifying flow, stereo and depth estimation

    Haofei Xu, Jing Zhang, Jianfei Cai, Hamid Rezatofighi, Fisher Yu, Dacheng Tao, and Andreas Geiger. Unifying flow, stereo and depth estimation. IEEE TPAMI, 2023. 4, 5

    2023

  43. [51]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffu- sion models with an expert transformer

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffu- sion models with an expert transformer. arXiv:2408.06072,

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Focusflow: Boosting key-points optical flow estimation for autonomous driving

    Zhonghua Yi, Hao Shi, Kailun Yang, Qi Jiang, Yaozu Ye, Ze Wang, Huajian Ni, and Kaiwei Wang. Focusflow: Boosting key-points optical flow estimation for autonomous driving. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., 2023. 4

    2023

  45. [53]

    Dragnuwa: Fine-grained control in video generation by integrating text, image, and trajectory

    Shengming Yin, Chenfei Wu, Jian Liang, Jie Shi, Houqiang Li, Gong Ming, and Nan Duan. Dragnuwa: Fine-grained control in video generation by integrating text, image, and trajectory. arXiv:2308.08089, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Mag- ictime: Time-lapse video generation models as metamorphic simulators

    Shenghai Yuan, Jinfa Huang, Yujun Shi, Yongqi Xu, Ruijie Zhu, Bin Lin, Xinhua Cheng, Li Yuan, and Jiebo Luo. Mag- ictime: Time-lapse video generation models as metamorphic simulators. arXiv:2404.05014, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fnevr: neu- ral volume rendering for face animation

    Bohan Zeng, Boyu Liu, Hong Li, Xuhui Liu, Jianzhuang Liu, Dapeng Chen, Wei Peng, and Baochang Zhang. Fnevr: neu- ral volume rendering for face animation. In NeurIPS, 2024. 4

    2024

  48. [56]

    Self-supervised learning via conditional motion propagation

    Xiaohang Zhan, Xingang Pan, Ziwei Liu, Dahua Lin, and Chen Change Loy. Self-supervised learning via conditional motion propagation. In CVPR, 2019. 4

    2019

  49. [57]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In ICCV, 2023. 3

    2023

  50. [58]

    Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR, 2018. 6

    2018

  51. [59]

    Con- trolvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video genera- tion

    Yabo Zhang, Yuxiang Wei, Dongsheng Jiang, Xi- aopeng Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, and Qi Tian. Con- trolvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video genera- tion. arXiv:2305.13077, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Particlesfm: Exploiting dense point trajecto- ries for localizing moving cameras in the wild

    Wang Zhao, Shaohui Liu, Hengkai Guo, Wenping Wang, and Yong-Jin Liu. Particlesfm: Exploiting dense point trajecto- ries for localizing moving cameras in the wild. In ECCV,

  53. [61]

    Open-sora: Democratizing efficient video production for all, 2024

    Zangwei Zheng, Xiangyu Peng, Tianji Yang, Chenhui Shen, Shenggui Li, Hongxin Liu, Yukun Zhou, Tianyi Li, and Yang You. Open-sora: Democratizing efficient video production for all, 2024. 6

    2024

  54. [62]

    Stereo magnification

    Tinghui Zhou, Richard Tucker, John Flynn, Graham Fyffe, and Noah Snavely. Stereo magnification. ACM TOG, 2018. 6

    2018

  55. [63]

    Stereo magnification: learning view syn- thesis using multiplane images

    Tinghui Zhou, Richard Tucker, John Flynn, Graham Fyffe, and Noah Snavely. Stereo magnification: learning view syn- thesis using multiplane images. ACM TOG, 2018. 6, 8

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.