Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 48 references

Encapsulated Composition of Text-to-Image and Text-to-Video Models for High-Quality Video Synthesis

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read EVS composes a pre-trained text-to-image model with a text-to-video model into a training-free post-processor that sharpens frames and stabilizes motion in generated videos, cutting inference time by 1.6$\times$--4.5$\times$.

desk verdict EVS is a genuinely new, training-free composition trick that improves T2V imaging quality at a real speedup, but the evaluation is thin and the clean-latent bridge is plausible yet untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13753 v1 pith:ZRCIDZ7N submitted 2025-07-18 cs.CV

Tongtong Su , Chengyu Wang , Bingyan Liu , Jun Huang , Dongming Lu This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-videosynthesistext-to-imagediffusiontraining-freecompositiontemporalconsistencyselectivefeatureinjectionDDIMinversionlatentvideoqualityenhancement
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

This paper introduces EVS, a training-free way to combine a high-quality text-to-image model with a text-to-video model so that generated videos are sharper and more temporally stable than what either model produces alone. The authors treat low-quality video frames as out-of-distribution inputs for the image model, noisify and denoise them to restore detail, and insert one short video-model block at an intermediate timestep to smooth motion. They report that this improves both imaging and motion-quality scores on VBench videos from VideoCrafter-2.0 and AnimateDiff-V2, and that the pipeline runs 1.6$\times$--4.5$\times$ faster than prior composition or frame-refinement baselines. If the claim is right, EVS is a drop-in, no-training upgrade for existing text-to-video pipelines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the encapsulated block $[\mathrm{T2V}]$ inside a $\mathrm{T2I} \to [\mathrm{T2V}] \to \mathrm{T2I}$ denoising pipeline. The T2I phase treats input frames as out-of-distribution samples and applies a noising-denoising repair, and at timestep $t_{\mathrm{T2V}}$ the predicted clean latent serves as a bridge into a short T2V noising-denoising pass (Eqs. 8--9), after which the result is re-noised and the T2I process finishes. Selective Feature Injection, with blending rate $\gamma$, replaces the denoising queries with a mix of inversion and current queries while injecting inversion keys and values in chosen U-Net layers, so the pipeline keeps spatial style and detail while gaining temporal consistency.

What would settle it

Take a set of generated videos, run only the T2I part of EVS to an intermediate timestep, and feed the resulting predicted clean latent into the T2V denoising block with varying noising strengths. If no setting improves both a per-frame fidelity score (e.g., PSNR against the best T2I frame) and a motion-smoothness score (e.g., VBench Motion Smoothness), then the claimed clean-latent bridge does not actually align the two model distributions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a well-trained T2I diffusion model and a T2V diffusion model can be composed in a single denoising run without retraining, with each doing what it is good at. The T2I phase restores imaging quality by SDEdit-style noising and denoising of the video latents; the T2V model is reduced to a temporal-only prior, inserted once at an intermediate timestep through the predicted clean latent, so it stabilizes motion without dragging the final appearance back down to the T2V model's imaging level. Selective feature injection from DDIM inversion preserves the spatial details the T2I model just added while letting the shared autoencoder bridge the two latent distributions. The authors validate the composition on videos from VideoCrafter-2.0 and AnimateDiff-V2, reporting higher overall quality scores on imaging and consistency metrics and a 1.6$\times$--4.5$\times$ inference speedup.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the image model's cleaned snapshot of the video frames, taken at an intermediate step, is close enough to what the video model normally expects that a short video-model denoising pass can remove flicker without erasing the detail the image model just added.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing text-to-video outputs can be post-processed with EVS with no retraining or fine-tuning, using the same prompt and a compatible pair of public T2I and T2V models.
  • Flicker and artifacts from frame-wise T2I refinement are suppressed by one short T2V denoising pass, avoiding the optical-flow or nearest-neighbour correspondence estimates that earlier refiners depend on.
  • Final imaging quality tracks the T2I model rather than reverting to the T2V level, because the T2V block is applied once at an intermediate timestep instead of at the end of the pipeline.
  • The same procedure improves both local inconsistency (VideoCrafter-2.0-style flicker in details) and global inconsistency (AnimateDiff-V2-style color shifting), according to the paper's VBench-based measurements.
  • Using DDIM inversion with selective feature injection, out-of-domain styles survive the temporal smoothing better than with SDEdit at matched motion smoothness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper tests one T2I model and two T2V backbones; in our reading, whether EVS generalizes to other model pairs is an extrapolation, and the clean-latent compatibility between the two autoencoders is the deciding factor.
  • A natural stress test is to measure the distribution gap between the T2I predicted clean latents and the T2V native clean latents; if that gap predicts quality loss, the insertion timestep could be chosen adaptively rather than fixed.
  • We see the selective feature injection as a continuous temporal-consistency dial (blending rate and injected layer depth) that could be reused in video editing beyond generation, since it separates spatial style from motion prior.
  • Because the paper inserts the T2V block only once, longer or more dynamic videos may need later or repeated insertions; we would test whether a single block still holds as clip length and motion amplitude grow.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes EVS, a training-free pipeline that composes a pre-trained T2I diffusion model and a T2V model to refine videos produced by base generators such as VideoCrafter-2.0 and AnimateDiff-V2. The method (Algorithm 1) runs T2I noising/denoising, pauses at an intermediate timestep t_T2V, treats the predicted clean latent z^I_0 as a bridge into a T2V block (DDIM inversion followed by n_V denoising steps), and then returns to T2I for the remaining steps. Selective Feature Injection (SFI, Eq. (11)) injects DDIM-inversion attention features to preserve spatial detail while exposing the latent to the T2V temporal prior. Experiments on a 186-video VBench subset compare against Rerender-A-Video, FRESCO, TokenFlow, BIVDiff, and AnyV2V, reporting improved aggregated imaging/consistency scores and 1.6x-4.5x speedups. The paper includes the algorithm, ablations, hyperparameter discussion, and a link to source code.

Significance. EVS is a practically appealing instantiation of a useful idea: rather than choosing between frame-wise T2I refinement and T2V temporal smoothing, it alternates the two within one denoising trajectory and uses DDIM-inversion features to limit spatial drift. If the reported numbers hold with proper statistical support, the method would be a strong training-free baseline for video post-processing, with the additional merit of releasing code and avoiding optical-flow/NNF dependencies. The central limitation is that the current evidence is a single-run, single-subset evaluation whose key distributional bridge is asserted rather than quantified; the contribution is therefore plausible but not yet fully established. The paper does not claim formal proofs, but the pseudocode and ablation structure make the method easy to reproduce and extend.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (8)-(9), Algorithm 1] Equations (8)-(9) hinge on the claim that the T2I-predicted clean latent z^I_0 = z_{t_T2V->0} is a valid starting point for T2V noising/denoising because both models share a frame-wise autoencoder. Shared VAE only places both clean-latent spaces in the same coordinate frame; it does not make the set of T2I denoising estimates coincide with the T2V clean-latent distribution. z^I_0 is an estimate, and for out-of-distribution inputs it can be blurry or contain artifacts, as the paper itself shows for limited-step reconstruction in Figure 4. The paper does not quantify how far z^I_0 is from the T2V clean-latent manifold, nor does it report content-preservation or reconstruction error as a function of t_V, n_V, or t_T2V. Without such a failure boundary, the central claim that EVS leverages the strengths of both models is not established: if the bridge is lossy for a substantial fraction of inputs, the downstream T2V block can erase or distort content and the quality improvement collapses. A concrete addition would be measuring the distance (or downstream FID/CLIP/PSNR) between z^I_0 and native T2V clean latents, plus an ablation with deliberately degraded z^I_0.
  2. [Table 1, Section 4.2] All metrics in Table 1 are point estimates from a single evaluation; no seeds, no number of runs, and no error bars are reported. Several differences that the text interprets as improvements are within the rounding granularity of the table (e.g., VC2 MS: Ours 0.9881 vs. BIVDiff 0.9885; VC2 SC: Ours 0.9808 vs. BIVDiff 0.9800; AD2 MS: BIVDiff 0.9758 vs. Ours 0.9825 but no variance). Without variance estimates or at least multiple seeds, the significance of the headline highest overall score cannot be assessed. The authors should report mean plus/minus standard deviation over at least three runs and state whether the differences are statistically meaningful.
  3. [Section 4.1, Dataset] The evaluation is restricted to the VBench Overall Consistency subset: 93 prompts, one video id per model, 186 videos total. This is a narrow slice of the VBench suite and does not cover many dimensions shown in Figure 2 (appearance style, dynamic degree, multiple-object scenes, etc.). The abstract and conclusion claim improved imaging and motion quality generally, but the evidence supports only this subset. The authors should either broaden the evaluation to additional VBench subsets or substantially soften the generality claim. At minimum, the captions and conclusion should state the subset restriction.
  4. [Section 4.3, Hyperparameter Analysis] Algorithm 1 has four user-set hyperparameters (t_I, t_V, t_T2V, n_V) in addition to SFIs injected layers and gamma. The main text gives only qualitative trends in Figures 7 and 8, and the claimed full combination is deferred to the supplementary material. If these values were selected on the same 186 test videos, the reported scores are upper bounds rather than expected performance. The paper should report the hyperparameter grid, the selection criterion, and a sensitivity table (or at least a validation split) so readers can judge how robust the method is to the manual choices.
  5. [Section 3.2, Eq. (11), SFI] The paper describes SFI as leveraging the temporal-only prior of the T2V model. The mechanism of injecting K_inv and V_inv and blending Q_inv with gamma is plausible, but the evidence in Figure 8 is only a PSNR-versus-MotionSmoothness tradeoff curve. That does not establish that the injected features carry zero spatial prior; it only shows that some balance point has higher PSNR than SDEdit at comparable smoothness. An ablation that separates spatial leakage from temporal smoothing (e.g., measuring appearance change with a style/color metric, or comparing SFI against full-feature injection at matched PSNR) would be needed to support the temporal-only claim, which is load-bearing for the method's stated advantage over BIVDiff or SDEdit-style composition.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in 'to obainztI'; it should read 'to obtain z_t_I'.
  2. [Section 4.1] The text says 'AnyV2V applys T2I model'; change 'applys' to 'applies'.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says 'are two optical points'; this should be 'are two optimal points'.
  4. [Equations (1)-(3)] Equation (1) uses \bar{\alpha}_t while Eq. (2) uses \alpha_{t-1} without defining the relationship between the two; please clarify the noise schedule notation.
  5. [Algorithm 1] The algorithm overwrites the input variable z0 and then returns 'zIVI_0 := z0', which is confusing; also, the DDIM-inv operation is not defined in the pseudocode, and the text should specify that it collects {f, QKV}_inv for SFI.
  6. [Figure 4] The first-row caption appears to contain 'T=500' while the text says T=50; please correct the inconsistency.
  7. [Table 1] Please report the hardware and timing setup, and state explicitly which baseline each speedup factor in the 1.6x-4.5x range is measured against.
  8. [Figure 2] The min-max normalization used for the radar-style scores is not specified; include the formula and normalization range so readers can reproduce the visualization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EVS is an empirical composition system, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claims of EVS are empirical: improved imaging and motion quality and 1.6x-4.5x speedup are measured on VBench, DOVER, and AP against external baselines (Rerender-A-Video, FRESCO, TokenFlow, BIVDiff, AnyV2V). Equations (1)-(11) and Algorithm 1 define the composition procedure rather than deriving a result from its conclusion; hyperparameters such as tT2V, tV, and nV are explored in Section 4.3, not fitted to a target and then renamed as predictions. The clean-latent bridge in Eqs. (8)-(9) relies on the assumption that predicted T2I clean latents are compatible with the T2V model because both share a frame-wise autoencoder; the paper says zI0 'aligns well with the distribution of clean latent representations in both T2I and T2V models' (Sec. 3.2), but no failure boundary is quantified. This is a genuine correctness and robustness risk, but it is not circularity, because the paper does not use that assumption to deduce the quality improvement; if the bridge fails on a significant fraction of inputs, the empirical claim simply fails. The self-citations [5], [20], and [21] are minor. [20] and [21] support the layer-role hypotheses behind Selective Feature Injection, but those hypotheses are also supported by external references [4] and [38] and by the paper's own probing experiments (Figure 8), so the method does not reduce to a self-citation chain. No renamed known result, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no equation-level equivalence between input and output were found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on six empirically tuned hyperparameters and four domain assumptions about diffusion model internals (shared autoencoder, attention semantics, DDIM inversion properties, SFI temporal-only isolation). No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • t_I (T2I noising timestep) = 20 (s_I=0.4, T_I=50)
    Set for all baselines and EVS to ensure fair comparison; controls how much of the original video is retained.
  • t_T2V (insertion timestep of T2V block) = not stated; ablated over {3,6,12} in Fig. 7
    Controls how many T2I steps remain after the T2V block; selected empirically.
  • t_V (T2V noising timestep) = likely 8 (AnimateDiff-Lightning default T_V=8)
    Larger values smooth more but degrade imaging; selected empirically.
  • n_V (number of T2V denoising steps) = not stated
    Determines how strongly temporal consistency is applied; part of the four tuned hyperparameters.
  • gamma (Q blending rate in SFI) = 0.5 (shallow layers) or 0.8 (deep layers)
    Two optimal points found empirically in Fig. 8; lower gamma increases temporal prior.
  • injected_layers (U-Net layers for K/V injection and Q blending) = shallow vs deep layers, empirically chosen per case
    The paper probes layer choice from deep to shallow and selects a balancing point.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption T2I and T2V models share a frame-wise autoencoder, so clean latents z0 live in the same distributional space.
    Sec. 3.1, stated explicitly: 'z0 (T2I and T2V models share a common autoencoder)'. Essential for the clean-latent bridge in Eqs. (8)-(9).
  • domain assumption Self-attention QK^T at deep layers encodes structure, V encodes style/color, and shallower layers encode texture, so injecting selected K/V preserves imaging information.
    Sec. 3.2, citing refs [20,21,4,38]. Basis for Selective Feature Injection.
  • domain assumption DDIM inversion with enough steps reconstructs out-of-distribution images; with limited steps, the diffusion prior can self-rectify low-quality images.
    Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4 observation, used to justify partial reconstruction in SFI.
  • ad hoc to paper SFI can isolate the temporal prior of the T2V model without spatial degradation.
    Sec. 3.2, the core heuristic of EVS, supported only by qualitative and small-scale quantitative probing (Fig. 4, Fig. 8), not by a derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Encapsulated Composition of Text-to-Image and Text-to-Video Models for High-Quality Video Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRCIDZ7N

@misc{pith2026250713753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Encapsulated Composition of Text-to-Image and Text-to-Video Models for High-Quality Video Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRCIDZ7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13753}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, large text-to-video (T2V) synthesis models have garnered considerable attention for their abilities to generate videos from textual descriptions. However, achieving both high imaging quality and effective motion representation remains a significant challenge for these T2V models. Existing approaches often adapt pre-trained text-to-image (T2I) models to refine video frames, leading to issues such as flickering and artifacts due to inconsistencies across frames. In this paper, we introduce EVS, a training-free Encapsulated Video Synthesizer that composes T2I and T2V models to enhance both visual fidelity and motion smoothness of generated videos. Our approach utilizes a well-trained diffusion-based T2I model to refine low-quality video frames by treating them as out-of-distribution samples, effectively optimizing them with noising and denoising steps. Meanwhile, we employ T2V backbones to ensure consistent motion dynamics. By encapsulating the T2V temporal-only prior into the T2I generation process, EVS successfully leverages the strengths of both types of models, resulting in videos of improved imaging and motion quality. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of our approach compared to previous approaches. Our composition process also leads to a significant improvement of 1.6x-4.5x speedup in inference time. Source codes: https://github.com/Tonniia/EVS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of videos generated by T2V models w/ and w/o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evaluation results of T2I/T2V models on VBench [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a/b: Two basic compositions of T2I and T2V. c: T2I denoising process encapsulated with the [T2V] block. z0 (T2I and T2V models share a common autoencoder), the intermediate timestep latents zt are drawn from different distributions for T2I and T2V models. Therefore, a latent zt from one model cannot be directly fed into the other model. DDIM Inversion. SDEdit [24] is typically employed for conditional image generati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Row 1: T2I-based DDIM inversion with different steps. With limited (T = 5), T2I prior helps self-rectify images. Row 2: T2V-based DDIM inversion with limited steps (T = 8) si￾multaneously introduces temporal and spatial prior, but the latter fails to fully capture the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison with baselines. Our method enhances both imaging quality and temporal consistency. Rerender-A-Video and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hyperparameter analysis of the T2V block. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: T2V SDEdit v.s. DDIM. It is challenging for SDEdit to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Pro- ceedings of IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Huang, and Niloy J

    Duygu Ceylan, Chun-Hao P. Huang, and Niloy J. Mitra. Pix2video: Video editing using image diffusion. In Proceed- ings of IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ICCV), pages 23206–23217, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffusion models

    Haoxin Chen, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Menghan Xia, Xintao Wang, Chao Weng, and Ying Shan. Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffusion models. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7310–7320,

    work page

  4. [4]

    Style in- jection in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large-scale diffusion models for style transfer

    Jiwoo Chung, Sangeek Hyun, and Jae-Pil Heo. Style in- jection in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large-scale diffusion models for style transfer. In Proceed- ings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition, pages 8795–8805, 2024. 4, 5

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Diffsynth: La- tent in-iteration deflickering for realistic video synthesis

    Zhongjie Duan, Lizhou You, Chengyu Wang, Cen Chen, Zi- heng Wu, Weining Qian, and Jun Huang. Diffsynth: La- tent in-iteration deflickering for realistic video synthesis. In Proceedings of European Conference on Machine Learn- ing and Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases 2024, pages 332–347. Springer, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Vchitect-2.0: Parallel trans- former for scaling up video diffusion models

    Weichen Fan, Chenyang Si, Junhao Song, Zhenyu Yang, Yinan He, Long Zhuo, Ziqi Huang, Ziyue Dong, Jing- wen He, Dongwei Pan, et al. Vchitect-2.0: Parallel trans- former for scaling up video diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08453, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion features for consistent video editing

    Michal Geyer, Omer Bar-Tal, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion features for consistent video editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10373, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

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

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text- to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023. 2, 3, 6

    arXiv 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 4

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Video dif- fusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video dif- fusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:8633–8646, 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [11]

    Videocontrolnet: A motion-guided video-to-video translation framework by using diffusion model with controlnet

    Zhihao Hu and Dong Xu. Videocontrolnet: A motion-guided video-to-video translation framework by using diffusion model with controlnet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14073 ,

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Vbench: Comprehensive 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, et al. Vbench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models. In Proceed- ings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- ...

    2024

  5. [13]

    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 Proceedings of IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer V...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models

    Weijie Kong, Qi Tian, Zijian Zhang, Rox Min, Zuozhuo Dai, Jin Zhou, Jiangfeng Xiong, Xin Li, Bo Wu, Jianwei Zhang, et al. Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03603, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Anyv2v: A plug-and-play framework for any video- to-video editing tasks

    Max Ku, Cong Wei, Weiming Ren, Huan Yang, and Wenhu Chen. Anyv2v: A plug-and-play framework for any video- to-video editing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14468 ,

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Amt: All-pairs multi-field transforms for efficient frame interpolation

    Zhen Li, Zuo-Liang Zhu, Ling-Hao Han, Qibin Hou, Chun- Le Guo, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Amt: All-pairs multi-field transforms for efficient frame interpolation. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9801–9810, 2023. 6

    2023

  9. [17]

    Flowvid: Taming imperfect op- tical flows for consistent video-to-video synthesis

    Feng Liang, Bichen Wu, Jialiang Wang, Licheng Yu, Kun- peng Li, Yinan Zhao, Ishan Misra, Jia-Bin Huang, Peizhao Zhang, Peter Vajda, et al. Flowvid: Taming imperfect op- tical flows for consistent video-to-video synthesis. In Pro- ceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vis...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Open-sora plan: Open-source large video generation model

    Bin Lin, Yunyang Ge, Xinhua Cheng, Zongjian Li, Bin Zhu, Shaodong Wang, Xianyi He, Yang Ye, Shenghai Yuan, Li- uhan Chen, et al. Open-sora plan: Open-source large video generation model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00131, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Animatediff-lightning: Cross-model diffusion distillation

    Shanchuan Lin and Xiao Yang. Animatediff-lightning: Cross-model diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12706, 2024. 3, 6

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing

    Bingyan Liu, Chengyu Wang, Tingfeng Cao, Kui Jia, and Jun Huang. Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing. In Pro- ceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7817–7826, 2024. 5

    2024

  13. [21]

    At- tentive linguistic tracking in diffusion models for training- free text-guided image editing

    Bingyan Liu, Chengyu Wang, Jun Huang, and Kui Jia. At- tentive linguistic tracking in diffusion models for training- free text-guided image editing. In Proceedings of 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 4158–4166. ACM, 2024. 5

    2024

  14. [22]

    Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control

    Shaoteng Liu, Yuechen Zhang, Wenbo Li, Zhe Lin, and Jiaya Jia. Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8599–8608, 2024. 3, 4

    2024

  15. [23]

    Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and evaluating large video generation models

    Yaofang Liu, Xiaodong Cun, Xuebo Liu, Xintao Wang, Yong Zhang, Haoxin Chen, Yang Liu, Tieyong Zeng, Ray- mond Chan, and Ying Shan. Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and evaluating large video generation models. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 2, 3, 4, 5

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6038–6047, 2023. 4

    2023

  18. [26]

    Diffusion models for adversarial purification

    Weili Nie, Brandon Guo, Yujia Huang, Chaowei Xiao, Arash Vahdat, and Anima Anandkumar. Diffusion models for adversarial purification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.07460 ,

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    OpenAI. Sora. [Online] https : / / openai . com / index/video- generation- models- as- world- simulators/, 2024. 1

    2024

  20. [28]

    Pika 1.0

    PikaLabs. Pika 1.0. [Online] https://www.pika. art/, 2023. 1

    2023

  21. [29]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Fatezero: Fus- ing attentions for zero-shot text-based video editing

    Chenyang Qi, Xiaodong Cun, Yong Zhang, Chenyang Lei, Xintao Wang, Ying Shan, and Qifeng Chen. Fatezero: Fus- ing attentions for zero-shot text-based video editing. In Pro- ceedings of IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 15932–15942, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  23. [31]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    Runway. Gen-2. [Online] https : / / research . runwayml.com/gen2, 2023. 1

    2023

  25. [33]

    Runway. Gen-3. [Online] https://runwayml.com/ research/introducing-gen-3-alpha , 2024. 1

    2024

  26. [34]

    Bivdiff: A training-free framework for general-purpose video synthesis via bridging image and video diffusion models

    Fengyuan Shi, Jiaxi Gu, Hang Xu, Songcen Xu, Wei Zhang, and Limin Wang. Bivdiff: A training-free framework for general-purpose video synthesis via bridging image and video diffusion models. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pag...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Edit-a-video: Single video editing with object-aware consistency

    Chaehun Shin, Heeseung Kim, Che Hyun Lee, Sang-gil Lee, and Sungroh Yoon. Edit-a-video: Single video editing with object-aware consistency. In Asian Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1215–1230, 2024. 2

    2024

  28. [36]

    Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data

    Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, et al. Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14792 ,

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 3, 4, 5

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. In Proceedings of the/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1921–1930, 2023. 5

    1921

  31. [39]

    Modelscope text-to-video technical report

    Jiuniu Wang, Hangjie Yuan, Dayou Chen, Yingya Zhang, Xiang Wang, and Shiwei Zhang. Modelscope text-to-video technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06571, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lavie: High-quality video gener- ation with cascaded latent diffusion models

    Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Xin Ma, Shangchen Zhou, Ziqi Huang, Yi Wang, Ceyuan Yang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Peiqing Yang, et al. Lavie: High-quality video gener- ation with cascaded latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15103, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Exploring video quality assessment on user generated contents from aesthetic and technical perspectives

    Haoning Wu, Erli Zhang, Liang Liao, Chaofeng Chen, Jing- wen Hou, Annan Wang, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, and Weisi Lin. Exploring video quality assessment on user generated contents from aesthetic and technical perspectives. In Pro- ceedings of IEEE/CVF International Conference on...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Tune-a-video: One-shot tun- ing of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation

    Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Stan Weixian Lei, Yuchao Gu, Yufei Shi, Wynne Hsu, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tun- ing of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF International Conference o...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Rerender a video: Zero-shot text-guided video-to-video translation

    Shuai Yang, Yifan Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Chen Change Loy. Rerender a video: Zero-shot text-guided video-to-video translation. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2023, pages 1–11, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6

    2023

  36. [44]

    Fresco: Spatial-temporal correspondence for zero-shot video translation

    Shuai Yang, Yifan Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Chen Change Loy. Fresco: Spatial-temporal correspondence for zero-shot video translation. In Proceedings of IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8703– 8712, 2024. 3, 6

    2024

  37. [45]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiao- han Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    I2vgen-xl: High-quality image-to-video synthesis via cascaded diffusion models

    Shiwei Zhang, Jiayu Wang, Yingya Zhang, Kang Zhao, Hangjie Yuan, Zhiwu Qin, Xiang Wang, Deli Zhao, and Jingren Zhou. I2vgen-xl: High-quality image-to-video synthesis via cascaded diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04145, 2023. 2, 3, 6

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation

    Yabo Zhang, Yuxiang Wei, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, and Qi Tian. Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13077, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Videoelevator: Elevating video generation quality with versatile text-to-image diffusion models

    Yabo Zhang, Yuxiang Wei, Xianhui Lin, Zheng Hui, Peiran Ren, Xuansong Xie, Xiangyang Ji, and Wangmeng Zuo. Videoelevator: Elevating video generation quality with versatile text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05438, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.