Let Your Video Listen to Your Music!

Anton van den Hengel; Dong Gong; Lingqiao Liu; Xinyu Zhang; Zicheng Duan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Let Your Video Listen to Your Music!

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that any user video can be automatically re-edited so its motion lands on the beats of any chosen music track, with content preserved and adaptation finished in about 10 minutes on one GPU.

desk verdict The task framing and arbitrary-frame conditioning are genuinely useful, but the main metric is self-contradictory and partly measures the method's own construction, so the quantitative claims don't hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18881 v1 pith:OKOMBCCC submitted 2025-06-23 cs.CV cs.MM

Xinyu Zhang , Dong Gong , Zicheng Duan , Anton van den Hengel , Lingqiao Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.MM

keywords music-drivenvideoeditingbeatalignmentkeyframeinsertioninpaintingdiffusionmodeltest-timeadaptationmotionpeakscontentpreservation

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 proposes MVAA, a system for music-driven video editing: given a user's video and an arbitrary music track, it re-times the video's motion so salient movements land on the music's beats while preserving the original scene content. The central reformulation is to split the task into sparse beat-to-motion alignment followed by rhythm-aware inpainting, rather than generating video and music jointly. To make this practical, the inpainting model is pretrained on a small set of videos for general motion priors and then fine-tuned on the target clip for one epoch, which the paper reports takes about ten minutes on a single consumer GPU. The experiments claim higher beat-alignment scores, stable temporal consistency, low content distortion, and preference over direct image-to-video interpolation in user studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the beat-to-motion alignment front-end and the auxiliary video completion model (AVM). The front-end extracts music beats with onset-based beat tracking, computes a motion-energy signal from frame-to-frame differences, detects its local maxima as motion peaks, and pairs beats to peaks with greedy monotonic matching, which minimizes the sum of absolute beat-peak time differences subject to one-to-one chronological order. The AVM is a diffusion-based image-to-video model adapted to arbitrary-frame conditioning: during training, random subsets of frames are masked, teaching the model to reconstruct a full sequence from any sparse set of visible frames. Low-rank fine-tuning keeps per-video adaptation light, which is what makes the claimed ten-minute test-time adaptation and the practical editing workflow possible.

What would settle it

Re-run the evaluation using independently annotated beat times or a second, unrelated synchronization measure, and compare MVAA's edited videos against the original footage; if the beat-alignment advantage largely disappears under that independent measurement, the claimed synchronization is an artifact of the paper's own matching-based metric.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that music-video alignment can be accomplished by treating editing as arbitrary-frame video completion: extract beat times from the audio, detect salient motion peaks in the footage, match each beat to a distinct chronologically ordered motion peak, move those peaked frames to the beat timestamps, and let a diffusion-based completion model synthesize every in-between frame. The auxiliary video completion model is trained by randomly masking a subset of frames in ordinary videos, so it learns to fill any missing interval from any sparse set of conditioning frames; this removes the usual fixed start/end-frame restriction of image-to-video models. Combined with pretraining on about a thousand diverse clips and optional one-epoch test-time fine-tuning, the paper reports that MVAA preserves the original video's semantics while producing smooth, beat-aligned motion, on a 50-pair benchmark and in pairwise user studies.

Load-bearing premise

The main automatic evidence of beat alignment is a metric computed by applying the same motion-peak extraction and greedy monotonic matching that the method itself uses to construct the edited video, so a high score can reflect the construction recipe rather than an independent, naturally perceived rhythmic quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A creator can feed any preferred footage and any chosen song into MVAA and receive an edited clip whose motion peaks coincide with beats, without manual cutting, speed ramping, or clip resequencing.
Because the inpainter is trained on randomly masked frames rather than fixed beat-video pairs, the same pretrained model transfers to unseen videos, and optional one-epoch fine-tuning adapts it to a new clip in around ten minutes on one GPU.
Scaling the pretraining set from 10 to 1,000 videos improves the reported beat-alignment and user-preference scores, supporting the paper's claim that general motion priors can be learned without paired music-video data.
Long videos can be assembled by concatenating short beat-aligned clips, with only the first segment requiring adaptation; the paper reports that this maintains long-term content consistency.
The task formulation is content-agnostic: the same pipeline is demonstrated on human walking, dancing, object motion, and animal locomotion across different music tracks.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the same arbitrary-frame inpainting machinery could be pointed at other sparse timing constraints—sound effects, lyrics, or manually marked story beats—because training never needs paired music-video data, only videos with randomly masked frames.
Beyond the paper: a clean decomposition experiment would hold the inpainter fixed and vary the matching rule (greedy monotonic, optimal assignment, or randomly chosen beats) to measure how much of the reported gain comes from keyframe placement rather than frame generation.
Beyond the paper: the paper's long-video strategy concatenates independently generated short clips; a testable extension is to carry keyframe anchors or latent conditions across segment boundaries to reduce drift in longer-form edits.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Steph, quick take on arXiv:2506.18881 (MVAA). The genuinely new part is the reformulation: editing an arbitrary video to match music by inserting a sparse set of beat-aligned keyframes at motion peaks and using an I2V diffusion model, trained with random-mask arbitrary-frame conditioning, to inpaint the rest. That's a clean, useful assembly, and the 10-minute test-time LoRA adaptation on a 4090 is a practical detail worth noting. The paper is well-written and the qualitative samples look plausible.

What I can't accept is the central quantitative evidence. Table 1's BeatAlign score is defined as a mean absolute error in timestamps, but the text says higher is better and ranks MVAA (0.312) above Original (0.204). That makes the direction ambiguous at best; if it's raw seconds, MVAA is worse. More important, the metric is computed by extracting motion peaks from the output and greedily matching them to beats 'as described in Section 3.2'—the same detector and matcher that constructed the edit by planting keyframes exactly on beat times. So the score is high by construction and tells you little about natural rhythmic motion. A baseline that simply jumps to the selected keyframes would likely score well. The ablation tables inherit this problem.

Other soft spots are smaller but real: the benchmark is 10 videos and 5 music tracks (50 pairs), the only baselines are the original video and unmodified CogVideoX I2V, and no earlier music-video alignment methods (VisBeat, Audeosynth, eventfulness) are compared. The user study gives 1000 pairwise judgments from 20 participants, which is something, but the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement or significance and the comparisons exclude the prior work most relevant to the task.

I should stress that the flaws are in the evaluation, not in the idea. The arbitrary-frame conditioning with random masking is a legitimate contribution that could transfer to other editing tasks, and I don't see an internal contradiction in the method itself. The paper just has not shown that MVAA beats a trivial keyframe splice, because the metric cannot distinguish the two.

Who should read it: researchers working on audio-visual alignment or video editing will get a useful formulation and a cautionary example of self-measured metrics. I wouldn't cite it for quantitative results yet. For peer review: if an editor sent it to a serious referee, I wouldn't object—the idea deserves scrutiny and the authors should be told to fix the metric and add real baselines. But as it stands, the quantitative claims are unsupported.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MVAA (Music-Video Auto-Alignment), a two-stage framework for editing an existing video so that its visual motion aligns with the beat structure of an arbitrary music track. The first stage extracts music beats with librosa and motion peaks from frame differences, then matches them with a greedy monotonic one-to-one matching algorithm (Section 3.2). The matched original frames are placed at beat timestamps as keyframes. The second stage uses a frame-conditioned diffusion model (CogVideoX-5B-I2V with LoRA) that has been trained on arbitrary-frame inpainting, optionally with test-time fine-tuning, to synthesize the remaining frames while preserving content. The paper reports experiments on 50 music-video pairs using a BeatAlign metric, temporal consistency (TC), LPIPS, and user-study win rates against the original video and a direct I2V completion baseline, claiming high-quality beat alignment in about 10 minutes on a single NVIDIA 4090.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were reliable, this would be a practically useful contribution: the task is well motivated, the modularization into beat-motion alignment plus rhythm-aware inpainting is clean, and the hybrid pretraining/test-time-adaptation strategy is a sensible way to keep compute manageable. The paper also addresses a real gap, since most prior work either generates music from video or generates video from music, rather than editing existing footage to match arbitrary music. However, the main quantitative evidence is not currently interpretable, and the primary metric is computed with the same machinery used to construct the edit, so the reported superiority over baselines does not support the central claim as it stands.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.2, Table 1] The definition of BeatAlign is internally contradictory. The text states that 'The score is defined as the mean absolute error between the timestamps of motion-aligned frames and their corresponding music beat positions. Higher scores mean higher music-video alignment.' A mean absolute error is an error measure, so higher values conventionally mean worse alignment, not better. Under the literal definition, MVAA's 0.312 is worse than Original's 0.204 and Direct's 0.273, which reverses the claimed ranking in Table 1. If the score is normalized or inverted, the paper never says so. This makes the main quantitative result uninterpretable.
[Section 4.2 vs. Section 3.2] BeatAlign is computed by re-extracting motion peaks and matching them to beats 'as described in Section 3.2'—the same frame-difference peak detector and greedy monotonic matching used by MVAA to select and place keyframes. Because the method moves original frames to beat timestamps, frame-to-frame changes at those timestamps will be detected as motion peaks and will match the beats by construction. The metric is therefore partly circular: it measures the method's own construction rather than an independent property of natural rhythmic motion. Tables 2–4 inherit this issue. An independent alignment measure, plus a trivial baseline that simply splices the matched original frames at beat timestamps, is needed before the quantitative claim can be assessed.
[Section 4.3 and Section 4.2 (User Study)] The baseline comparison is insufficient to support the paper's contribution. The only automatic baselines are the original video and 'Direct' application of CogVideoX-5B-I2V for arbitrary frame interpolation, which is not a music-video alignment method. There is no comparison with prior visual-beat alignment or music-driven editing methods (e.g., VisBeat, Audeosynth, or other montage approaches), nor with a beat-cut baseline. The user study, while a useful addition, reports only win rates from 20 participants over 50 pairs, with no inter-annotator agreement, confidence intervals, or significance tests; moreover, the win rates in Tables 2 and 3 are described as comparisons against the 1000-video model or test-time-tuned variants rather than against competing methods, so their interpretation is unclear.

minor comments (5)

[Table 2] The row '10000.304' appears to be a typo for '1000 0.304'; the table formatting needs correction.
[Tables 2 and 3] Several entries are empty or marked with '-', and the comparison reference for the win rates (MVA and All) is not stated clearly in the table captions; the captions should specify which model is the opponent.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The objective defines K = min(N, M), but if the number of beats exceeds the number of peaks (M > N), it is not specified how the subset of beats is selected; the objective as written appears to assume a fixed set of K beats.
[Section 4.1] The music segments are all described as 3 seconds long, which at 16 fps yields only 48 frames; the number of beats per clip should be reported so the sparsity of keyframe insertion is clear.
[Section 4.1] The track name 'Birds of a Father' is likely a typo for 'Birds of a Feather'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The headline quantitative claim is evaluated with a metric that re-runs the paper's own beat-peak matching on its own keyframe-inserted output, and the top-line numbers come from a model fine-tuned on the very videos being scored.

self definitional [Section 4.2 (Evaluation Metrics, BeatAlign) vs Section 3.2 (Salient Motion Extraction and Greedy Monotonic Matching)]
"Both motion peaks and music beats are extracted as described in Section 3.2. The score is defined as the mean absolute error between the timestamps of motion-aligned frames and their corresponding music beat positions. Higher scores mean higher music-video alignment."

The method's first stage minimizes exactly this error: Eq. (1) selects π* = argmin Σ |b_i - v_{π(i)}| and then relocates the matched frames onto beat timestamps. The metric re-extracts RGB frame-difference peaks from the finished video with the same detector and re-runs the same monotonic matching, so the output has a peak planted at every beat by construction. BeatAlign therefore measures the keyframe-insertion mechanism rather than natural rhythmic motion; a trivial baseline that splices original frames at beat times would score highly. The metric's definition is also self-contradictory as stated: a mean absolute error cannot be 'higher is better'.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4 (Test-Time Fine-Tuning) with Table 1 and Table 3]
"fine-tuning the model on the new targeted video for just 1 epoch (approximately 10 minutes with 50 iterations on a single NVIDIA 4090) is sufficient to significantly enhance visual fidelity and beat synchronization."

The headline MVAA row of Table 1 (BeatAlign 0.312, TC 0.949, LPIPS 0.000) is numerically identical to the '1000 Videos (+ test-time)' row of Table 3. That row is produced after fine-tuning the AVM on the exact targeted videos that are then edited and scored. LPIPS=0.000 is therefore in-sample evidence: the model has seen and memorized the original frames, while the elevated BeatAlign is at least partly a consequence of fitting to the same clips. The paper discloses the adaptation procedure, but using the adapted model to score the same videos makes the quantitative claim a fit-then-score loop rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The two-stage algorithm itself is a genuine pipeline: beat extraction, salient motion detection, greedy monotonic matching, and diffusion inpainting are not formally derived from each other. The circularity is concentrated in the evidence chain. First, BeatAlign is the sole quantitative alignment metric, yet it is computed with the same RGB frame-difference peak detector and greedy monotonic beat-to-peak matching that the method uses to select and place keyframes; any output built by placing matched frames at beat timestamps will score high by construction. The metric definition is also internally inconsistent, since a mean absolute error cannot be 'higher is better' without an unstated inversion or normalization, making Table 1's ranking uninterpretable as reported. Second, the main advertised numbers match the test-time-adapted row of Table 3, meaning the model was fine-tuned on the same videos that were then edited and scored, so the LPIPS=0.000 content-preservation result reflects memorization rather than independent preservation. The user study provides some independent perceptual evidence, but it compares only against the original clip and a single generic image-to-video model, with no inter-annotator agreement or significance testing, so it does not break the circular loop. Because the central quantitative claim reduces to the construction procedure, the circularity score is 8; the presence of real inpainting machinery and some independent qualitative judgments prevent a 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central pipeline depends on standard audio analysis (librosa), a heuristic motion-energy peak detector, greedy monotonic matching, and a large pretrained I2V diffusion model adapted by LoRA. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The main uncharged input is the assumption that the pretrained backbone can be cheaply adapted to arbitrary keyframe inpainting, and that the chosen metrics measure what they claim.

free parameters (5)

Number of pretraining videos = 1000 (with 10 and 100 also tested)
Chosen by hand in Section 4.2; Table 2 shows performance varies with this number, and the choice affects the generalization claims.
LoRA rank and learning rate = rank 64, lr 1e-5
Given in Model Details (Section 4.2) without ablation; these determine how much the pretrained backbone can adapt during fine-tuning.
Training iterations = 10,000 (single/10-video) or 70,000 (100/1,000-video)
Chosen by hand in Section 4.2; Table 2 notes that TC and LPIPS degrade when iterations do not scale with data, so this choice interacts with quality.
Motion peak detection parameters = not specified
Gaussian smoothing width and local-maximum threshold for motion energy in Section 3.2 are not reported; they determine which frames become keyframes and directly affect BeatAlign.
Test-time fine-tuning length = 1 epoch, ~50 iterations, ~10 min
Section 3.4 says one epoch suffices; this is a hand-chosen duration with no sweep.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption librosa beat tracking (spectral flux onset + tempo estimation + dynamic programming) produces beat times that correspond to the intended musical rhythm.
In Section 3.2, beats are extracted with librosa; if tracking is wrong, the whole alignment is wrong, and no ground-truth beat annotations are used.
domain assumption Frame-to-frame RGB pixel difference, Gaussian smoothed, gives a motion energy signal whose local maxima are salient motion events suitable as keyframe anchors.
Section 3.2 Salient Motion Extraction; this is a heuristic proxy for motion salience, with thresholds not fully specified.
domain assumption A pretrained I2V diffusion model (CogVideoX-5B-I2V) fine-tuned with LoRA can learn to complete arbitrary masked frame sequences and remain temporally coherent.
This is the core capability of the AVM in Sections 3.3-3.4; the paper provides no formal guarantee and no comparison against other backbones.
ad hoc to paper Greedy monotonic one-to-one matching of beats to motion peaks with objective (1) is a sufficient model of perceived music-video synchronization.
Equation (1) in Section 3.2 defines the alignment objective; it ignores rhythm structure beyond beat onsets and assumes each beat maps to exactly one peak.
domain assumption LPIPS and CLIP-based temporal consistency are valid proxies for content preservation and smoothness.
Used in Section 4.2 as evaluation metrics; LPIPS 0.000 for edited videos raises doubt about their sensitivity in this setting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Let Your Video Listen to Your Music!." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKOMBCCC

@misc{pith2026250618881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Let Your Video Listen to Your Music!},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKOMBCCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18881}
}

read the original abstract

Aligning the rhythm of visual motion in a video with a given music track is a practical need in multimedia production, yet remains an underexplored task in autonomous video editing. Effective alignment between motion and musical beats enhances viewer engagement and visual appeal, particularly in music videos, promotional content, and cinematic editing. Existing methods typically depend on labor-intensive manual cutting, speed adjustments, or heuristic-based editing techniques to achieve synchronization. While some generative models handle joint video and music generation, they often entangle the two modalities, limiting flexibility in aligning video to music beats while preserving the full visual content. In this paper, we propose a novel and efficient framework, termed MVAA (Music-Video Auto-Alignment), that automatically edits video to align with the rhythm of a given music track while preserving the original visual content. To enhance flexibility, we modularize the task into a two-step process in our MVAA: aligning motion keyframes with audio beats, followed by rhythm-aware video inpainting. Specifically, we first insert keyframes at timestamps aligned with musical beats, then use a frame-conditioned diffusion model to generate coherent intermediate frames, preserving the original video's semantic content. Since comprehensive test-time training can be time-consuming, we adopt a two-stage strategy: pretraining the inpainting module on a small video set to learn general motion priors, followed by rapid inference-time fine-tuning for video-specific adaptation. This hybrid approach enables adaptation within 10 minutes with one epoch on a single NVIDIA 4090 GPU using CogVideoX-5b-I2V as the backbone. Extensive experiments show that our approach can achieve high-quality beat alignment and visual smoothness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18881 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) Video-to-Music (V2M) models generate music [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overview of our Music-Video Auto-Alignment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overview of our auxiliary video completion model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of music-driven video editing. Our method (MVAA) exhibits stronger motion-beat synchro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Visualization of long-video, long-music alignment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Visualization of beat-aligned video generation. Top: input video; bottom: output edited by our MVAA. Please refer to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

ImagineArt

2024. ImagineArt. https://www.imagine.art/

2024
[2]

2025. Veo 3. https://deepmind.google/models/veo/

work page 2025
[3]

Hassan Akbari, Liangzhe Yuan, Rui Qian, Wei-Hong Chuang, Shih-Fu Chang, Yin Cui, and Boqing Gong. 2021. Vatt: Transformers for multimodal self-supervised Let Your Video Listen to Your Music! – Beat-Aligned, Content-Preserving Video Editing with Arbitrary Music Conference’25, 2025, xxx learning from raw video, audio and text.Advances in Neural Information ...

work page 2021
[4]

Simon Alexanderson, Rajmund Nagy, Jonas Beskow, and Gustav Eje Henter. 2023. Listen, denoise, action! audio-driven motion synthesis with diffusion models. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)42, 4 (2023), 1–20

work page 2023
[5]

Rachele Bellini, Yanir Kleiman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2018. Dance to the beat: Synchronizing motion to audio.Computational Visual Media4 (2018), 197–208

work page 2018
[6]

James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al . 2023. Improving im- age generation with better captions.Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf2, 3 (2023), 8

2023
[7]

Rui Cai, Lei Zhang, Feng Jing, Wei Lai, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2007. Automated Music Video Generation using WEB Image Resource.2007 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing - ICASSP ’072 (2007), II–737–II–740. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12085909

work page 2007
[8]

Moitreya Chatterjee and Anoop Cherian. 2020. Sound2sight: Generating visual dynamics from sound and context. InECCV 2020. Springer, 701–719

work page 2020

Show all 81 references

[9]

Trista P Chen, Ching-Wei Chen, Phillip Popp, and Bob Coover. 2011. Visual rhythm detection and its applications in interactive multimedia.IEEE MultiMedia 18, 1 (2011), 88–95

2011
[10]

Haoyue Cheng, Zhaoyang Liu, Hang Zhou, Chen Qian, Wayne Wu, and Limin Wang. 2022. Joint-modal label denoising for weakly-supervised audio-visual video parsing. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 431–448

2022
[11]

Sanjoy Chowdhury, Sayan Nag, KJ Joseph, Balaji Vasan Srinivasan, and Dinesh Manocha. 2024. MeLFusion: Synthesizing Music from Image and Language Cues using Diffusion Models. InCVPR. 26826–26835

2024
[12]

Joon Son Chung and Andrew Zisserman. 2017. Out of time: automated lip sync in the wild. InACCV Workshops. 251–263

2017
[13]

Abe Davis and Maneesh Agrawala. 2018. Visual rhythm and beat.ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG)37, 4 (2018), 1–11

2018
[14]

Qixin Deng, Qikai Yang, Ruibin Yuan, Yipeng Huang, Yi Wang, Xubo Liu, Zeyue Tian, Jiahao Pan, Ge Zhang, Hanfeng Lin, et al. 2024. ComposerX: Multi-Agent Symbolic Music Composition with LLMs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18081(2024)

2024 arXiv
[15]

Daniel PW Ellis. 2007. Beat tracking by dynamic programming.Journal of New Music Research36, 1 (2007), 51–60

2007
[16]

Jianyu Fan, William Li, Jim Bizzocchi, Justine Bizzocchi, and Philippe Pasquier
[17]

Chuang Gan, Deng Huang, Peihao Chen, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Antonio Torralba. 2020. Foley music: Learning to generate music from videos. InECCV. 758–775

2020
[18]

Songwei Ge, Thomas Hayes, Harry Yang, Xi Yin, Guan Pang, David Jacobs, Jia- Bin Huang, and Devi Parikh. 2022. Long video generation with time-agnostic vqgan and time-sensitive transformer. InECCV. Springer, 102–118

2022
[19]

Rohit Girdhar, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Zhuang Liu, Mannat Singh, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Armand Joulin, and Ishan Misra. 2023. Imagebind: One embedding space to bind them all. InCVPR. 15180–15190

2023
[20]

Yuan Gong, Andrew Rouditchenko, Alexander H Liu, David Harwath, Leonid Karlinsky, Hilde Kuehne, and James Glass. 2022. Contrastive audio-visual masked autoencoder.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07839(2022)

2022 arXiv
[21]

Tavi Halperin, Ariel Ephrat, and Shmuel Peleg. 2019. Dynamic temporal align- ment of speech to lips. InICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 3980–3984

2019
[22]

Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.NeurIPS33 (2020), 6840–6851

2020
[23]

Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance. arXiv:arXiv:2207.12598

2022 arXiv
[24]

Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. 2022. Video diffusion models.NeurIPS35 (2022), 8633–8646

2022
[25]

Wenyi Hong, Ming Ding, Wendi Zheng, Xinghan Liu, and Jie Tang. 2023. CogVideo: Large-scale Pretraining for Text-to-Video Generation via Transform- ers. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

2023
[26]

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

2021 arXiv
[27]

Xiansheng Hua, Lie Lu, and HongJiang Zhang. 2004. Automatic music video generation based on temporal pattern analysis. InMULTIMEDIA ’04. https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7078739

2004
[28]

Atin Sakkeer Hussain, Shansong Liu, Chenshuo Sun, and Ying Shan. 2023. M2UGen: Multi-modal Music Understanding and Generation with the Power of Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11255(2023)

2023 arXiv
[29]

Jaeyong Kang, Soujanya Poria, and Dorien Herremans. 2023. Video2Music: Suit- able Music Generation from Videos using an Affective Multimodal Transformer model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00968(2023)

2023 arXiv
[30]

Ruilong Li, Shan Yang, David A Ross, and Angjoo Kanazawa. [n. d.]. Ai choreogra- pher: Music conditioned 3d dance generation with aist++. InICCV, pages=13401– 13412, year=2021

2021
[31]

Sifei Li, Binxin Yang, Chunji Yin, Chong Sun, Yuxin Zhang, Weiming Dong, and Chen Li. 2024. VidMusician: Video-to-Music Generation with Semantic-Rhythmic Alignment via Hierarchical Visual Features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06296 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[32]

Zicheng Liao, Yizhou Yu, Bingchen Gong, and Lechao Cheng. 2015. Audeosynth: music-driven video montage.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)34, 4 (2015), 1–10

2015
[33]

Jen-Chun Lin, Wen-Li Wei, and Hsin-Min Wang. 2015. EMV-matchmaker: Emo- tional Temporal Course Modeling and Matching for Automatic Music Video Generation. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Multime- dia(Brisbane, Australia)(MM ’15). Association for Compu...

2015
[34]

Jen-Chun Lin, Wen-Li Wei, James Yang, Hsin-Min Wang, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. 2017. Automatic Music Video Generation Based on Simultaneous Sound- track Recommendation and Video Editing. InACMMM(Mountain View, Califor- nia, USA)(MM ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New...

2017
[35]

Jen-Yu Liu, Yu-Hua Chen, Yin-Cheng Yeh, and Yi-Hsuan Yang. 2020. Uncondi- tional audio generation with generative adversarial networks and cycle regular- ization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08526(2020)

2020 arXiv
[36]

Wu-Qin Liu, Min-Xuan Lin, Hai-Bin Huang, Chong-Yang Ma, Yu Song, Wei-Ming Dong, and Chang-Sheng Xu. 2023. Emotion-Aware Music Driven Movie Montage. 38, 3 (may 2023), 540–553. doi:10.1007/s11390-023-3064-6

2023 doi
[37]

Yu Lu, Yuanzhi Liang, Linchao Zhu, and Yi Yang. [n. d.]. FreeLong: Training-Free Long Video Generation with SpectralBlend Temporal Attention. InNeurIPS
[38]

Kinyugo Maina. 2023. Msanii: High Fidelity Music Synthesis on a Shoestring Budget.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.06468(2023)

2023 arXiv
[39]

Gautam Mittal, Jesse Engel, Curtis Hawthorne, and Ian Simon. 2021. Symbolic music generation with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.16091(2021)

2021 arXiv
[40]

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

2024 arXiv
[41]

Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. 2021. GLIDE: Towards Photo- realistic Image Generation and Editing with Text-Guided Diffusion Models. arXiv:arXiv:2112.10741

2021 arXiv
[42]

Ferda Ofli, Engin Erzin, Yücel Yemez, and A Murat Tekalp. 2011. Learn2dance: Learning statistical music-to-dance mappings for choreography synthesis.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia14, 3 (2011), 747–759

2011
[43]

2024.Video generation models as world simulators

OpenAI. 2024.Video generation models as world simulators. Technical Re- port. OpenAI. https://openai.com/research/video-generation-models-as-world- simulators

2024
[44]

Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InICML. PMLR, 8748–8763

2021
[45]

Andrew Rouditchenko, Angie Boggust, David Harwath, Brian Chen, Dhiraj Joshi, Samuel Thomas, Kartik Audhkhasi, Hilde Kuehne, Rameswar Panda, Rogerio Feris, et al. 2020. Avlnet: Learning audio-visual language representations from instructional videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.09...

2020 arXiv
[46]

Ludan Ruan, Yiyang Ma, Huan Yang, Huiguo He, Bei Liu, Jianlong Fu, Nicholas Jing Yuan, Qin Jin, and Baining Guo. 2023. Mm-diffusion: Learning multi-modal diffusion models for joint audio and video generation. InCVPR. 10219–10228

2023
[47]

Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. 2022. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding.NeurIPS35 (2022), 36479–36494

2022
[48]

Flavio Schneider, Ojasv Kamal, Zhijing Jin, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2023. Mo\ˆ usai: Text-to-music generation with long-context latent diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11757(2023)

2023 arXiv
[49]

Shamma, Bryan Pardo, and Kristian J

David A. Shamma, Bryan Pardo, and Kristian J. Hammond. 2005. MusicStory: a personalized music video creator. InACMMM

2005
[50]

Bowen Shi, Wei-Ning Hsu, Kushal Lakhotia, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2022. Learning audio-visual speech representation by masked multimodal cluster pre- diction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02184(2022)

2022 arXiv
[51]

Ki Ho Shin, Hye-Rin Kim, and In-Kwon Lee. 2016. Automated music video generation using emotion synchronization.2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)(2016), 002594–002597. https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1172121

2016
[52]

Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, et al. 2023. Make-A-Video: Text-to-Video Generation without Text-Video Data. InICLR

2023
[53]

Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models.arXiv:2010.02502(October 2020). Conference’25, 2025, xxx Xinyu Zhang 1, Dong Gong2, Zicheng Duan1, Anton van den Hengel1, Lingqiao Liu1

2020 arXiv
[54]

Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Ste- fano Ermon, and Ben Poole. 2021. Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations. InICLR

2021
[55]

Kun Su, Judith Yue Li, Qingqing Huang, Dima Kuzmin, Joonseok Lee, Chris Donahue, Fei Sha, Aren Jansen, Yu Wang, Mauro Verzetti, et al. 2023. V2Meow: Meowing to the Visual Beat via Music Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06594 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[56]

Jiatian Sun, Longxiulin Deng, Triantafyllos Afouras, Andrew Owens, and Abe Davis. 2023. Eventfulness for Interactive Video Alignment.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)42, 4 (2023), 1–10

2023
[57]

Kim Sung-Bin, Arda Senocak, Hyunwoo Ha, Andrew Owens, and Tae-Hyun Oh
[58]

Zeyue Tian, Zhaoyang Liu, Ruibin Yuan, Jiahao Pan, Qifeng Liu, Xu Tan, Qifeng Chen, Wei Xue, and Yike Guo. 2024. Vidmuse: A simple video-to-music generation framework with long-short-term modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04321 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[59]

Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, et al . 2020. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python.Nature methods17, 3 (2020), 261–272

2020
[60]

Team Wan, Ang Wang, Baole Ai, Bin Wen, Chaojie Mao, Chen-Wei Xie, Di Chen, Feiwu Yu, Haiming Zhao, Jianxiao Yang, Jianyuan Zeng, Jiayu Wang, Jingfeng Zhang, Jingren Zhou, Jinkai Wang, Jixuan Chen, Kai Zhu, Kang Zhao, Keyu Yan, Lianghua Huang, Mengyang Feng, Ningyi Zhang, Pande...

2025 arXiv
[61]

Jianren Wang, Zhaoyuan Fang, and Hang Zhao. 2020. AlignNet: A Unifying Approach to Audio-Visual Alignment. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV)

2020
[62]

Kai Wang, Shijian Deng, Jing Shi, Dimitrios Hatzinakos, and Yapeng Tian. 2024. AV-DiT: Efficient Audio-Visual Diffusion Transformer for Joint Audio and Video Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07686(2024)

2024 arXiv
[63]

Wen Wang, Qiuyu Wang, Kecheng Zheng, Hao Ouyang, Zhekai Chen, Biao Gong, Hao Chen, Yujun Shen, and Chunhua Shen. 2024. Framer: Interactive frame interpolation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18978(2024)

2024 arXiv
[64]

Wenhao Wang and Yi Yang. 2025. VideoUFO: A Million-Scale User-Focused Dataset for Text-to-Video Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01739(2025)

2025 arXiv
[65]

Shengqiong Wu, Hao Fei, Leigang Qu, Wei Ji, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. Next-gpt: Any-to-any multimodal llm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05519(2023)

2023 arXiv
[66]

Weijia Wu, Mingyu Liu, Zeyu Zhu, Xi Xia, Haoen Feng, Wen Wang, Kevin Qinghong Lin, Chunhua Shen, and Mike Zheng Shou. 2024. MovieBench: A Hierarchical Movie Level Dataset for Long Video Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15262(2024)

2024 arXiv
[67]

Xin Xie and Dong Gong. 2025. DyMO: Training-Free Diffusion Model Alignment with Dynamic Multi-Objective Scheduling. InCVPR. 13220–13230

2025
[68]

Yazhou Xing, Yingqing He, Zeyue Tian, Xintao Wang, and Qifeng Chen. 2024. See- ing and Hearing: Open-domain Visual-Audio Generation with Diffusion Latent Aligners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17723(2024)

2024 arXiv
[69]

Dongchao Yang, Jianwei Yu, Helin Wang, Wen Wang, Chao Weng, Yuexian Zou, and Dong Yu. 2023. Diffsound: Discrete diffusion model for text-to-sound generation.IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing (2023)

2023
[70]

Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al . 2024. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072(2024)

2024 arXiv
[71]

Jiashuo Yu, Junfu Pu, Ying Cheng, Rui Feng, and Ying Shan. 2022. Self-supervised learning of music-dance representation through explicit-implicit rhythm syn- chronization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.03190(2022)

2022 arXiv
[72]

Mingao Zhang, Changhong Liu, Yong Chen, Zhenchun Lei, and Mingwen Wang
[73]

Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang
[74]

Min Zhao, Guande He, Yixiao Chen, Hongzhou Zhu, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu
[75]

Qiu Zhou, Manyi Li, Qiong Zeng, Andreas Aristidou, Xiaojing Zhang, Lin Chen, and Changhe Tu. 2023. Let’s all dance: Enhancing amateur dance motions. Computational Visual Media9, 3 (2023), 531–550

2023
[76]

Wenlin Zhuang, Congyi Wang, Jinxiang Chai, Yangang Wang, Ming Shao, and Siyu Xia. 2022. Music2dance: Dancenet for music-driven dance generation. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM)18, 2 (2022), 1–21

2022
[2016]

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6869901

DJ-MVP: An Automatic Music Video Producer.Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (2016). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6869901

2016
[2018]

The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR. 586–595
[2022]

InProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval

Music-to-dance generation with multiple conformer. InProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval. 34–38

2022
[2023]

In sung2023sound

Sound to visual scene generation by audio-to-visual latent alignment. In sung2023sound. 6430–6440
[2025]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15894(2025)

Riflex: A free lunch for length extrapolation in video diffusion transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15894(2025)

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

ImagineArt

2024. ImagineArt. https://www.imagine.art/

2024

[2] [2]

2025. Veo 3. https://deepmind.google/models/veo/

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Hassan Akbari, Liangzhe Yuan, Rui Qian, Wei-Hong Chuang, Shih-Fu Chang, Yin Cui, and Boqing Gong. 2021. Vatt: Transformers for multimodal self-supervised Let Your Video Listen to Your Music! – Beat-Aligned, Content-Preserving Video Editing with Arbitrary Music Conference’25, 2025, xxx learning from raw video, audio and text.Advances in Neural Information ...

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Simon Alexanderson, Rajmund Nagy, Jonas Beskow, and Gustav Eje Henter. 2023. Listen, denoise, action! audio-driven motion synthesis with diffusion models. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)42, 4 (2023), 1–20

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Rachele Bellini, Yanir Kleiman, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2018. Dance to the beat: Synchronizing motion to audio.Computational Visual Media4 (2018), 197–208

work page 2018

[6] [6]

James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al . 2023. Improving im- age generation with better captions.Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf2, 3 (2023), 8

2023

[7] [7]

Rui Cai, Lei Zhang, Feng Jing, Wei Lai, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2007. Automated Music Video Generation using WEB Image Resource.2007 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing - ICASSP ’072 (2007), II–737–II–740. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12085909

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Moitreya Chatterjee and Anoop Cherian. 2020. Sound2sight: Generating visual dynamics from sound and context. InECCV 2020. Springer, 701–719

work page 2020