Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Aether Weaver: Multimodal Affective Narrative Co-Generation with Dynamic Scene Graphs

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 The paper claims that maintaining a dynamic scene graph as a story unfolds—rather than generating text, images, and sound in sequence—is what keeps multimodal AI narratives coherent and emotionally aligned.

desk verdict The dynamic-scene-graph co-generation template is a real contribution, but the headline 'significant' gains rest on a small, unblinded evaluation and the Director's accuracy is never measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21893 v2 pith:W4ZMIKBA submitted 2025-07-29 cs.CV

Saeed Ghorbani This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords multimodalnarrativegenerationdynamicscenegraphaffectivestorytellingco-generationmanagementcoherenceLLMsoundscapesynthesis
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 argues that multimodal storytelling fails when text, images, and sound are generated one after another, because later stages cannot track how entities, relations, and emotions change. It introduces Aether Weaver, an integrated pipeline in which a Narrator writes each story segment while a Director maintains a dynamic scene graph—characters, objects, locations, spatial relations, and attributes—updated after every segment and fed back into the text, image, and sound generators. A Narrative Arc Controller and an Affective Tone Mapper impose a story structure and an emotional trajectory across all modalities. The claim, backed by expert human ratings on ten genre-diverse prompts, is that this co-generation loop yields measurably more coherent visuals, better affective alignment, and stronger structure than a sequential baseline. If true, the system offers a practical recipe for keeping AI-generated stories consistent across modalities without retraining the underlying generators.

What carries the argument

The dynamic scene graph $G=(V,E,A)$ is the central object: a directed graph whose nodes are entities such as characters, objects, and locations, whose edges are relations such as 'Elara holds datapad', and whose attributes modify nodes or edges, for instance 'Elara: weary'. The Director is a large-language-model-based manager that updates this graph after every narrative segment using named entity recognition, relation extraction, attribute updates, spatial reasoning, and consistency enforcement, and feeds the graph state back into the Narrator and the Visual Scene Generator. The Narrative Arc Controller is a state machine that uses ratio-based stage boundaries, such as the climax starting at 65 percent progress, to issue stage objectives and affective cues; the Affective Tone Mapper translates user-selected tones and intensity levels into directives, visual cues, and soundscape cues. Together these components convert an unstructured story into a structured, editable world model that carries consistency across modalities.

What would settle it

An ablation that keeps every Aether Weaver component identical but replaces the Director's scene-graph updates with a fixed entity list (no spatial reasoning or consistency enforcement) would settle the claim: if expert ratings of visual and auditory coherence do not fall, then the dynamic graph is not the cause of the reported gains. A complementary test is to compare the Director's extracted graphs against human-annotated scene graphs for the same narrative segments; near-chance extraction accuracy with high coherence ratings would show the reported benefits come from prompting, not from the graph.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of Aether Weaver is the claim that a continuously updated scene graph can serve as the shared world state for narrative generation. After each narrative segment, the Director parses the text with named entity recognition, relation extraction, attribute updates, spatial reasoning, and consistency enforcement, then modifies the graph before the next segment is written and before the visual and sound modules render the current one. The same graph state, together with the Narrative Arc Controller's stage directives and the Affective Tone Mapper's intensity-adjusted cues, is compiled into the prompt for every modality. The paper reports that this design outperforms a text-first baseline on narrative fluency, visual and auditory coherence, affective alignment, and narrative arc adherence, with the largest gains in visual coherence and affective alignment. The intended lesson is that structured, dynamic external state, not larger generators, is what keeps a multimodal story coherent as it unfolds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Director's language-model modules can reliably turn each new narrative segment into a correct and consistent scene-graph update, because every claimed coherence gain flows through that graph and the paper never measures the graph's accuracy directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A co-generation loop with a maintained scene graph should transfer to other multimodal pipelines: any narrator paired with image and sound generators can use the same graph state in its prompts to reduce forgotten objects and inconsistent character states.
  • The scene graph becomes an editable artifact: a user changing narrative text triggers a re-analysis and graph update, so story edits propagate automatically to visual and auditory cues.
  • The ratio-based arc controller provides a lightweight way to impose story structure without retraining, meaning a prespecified emotional trajectory can steer generation purely through stage boundaries and intensity-modulated cues.
  • If the reported gains hold, the system supports rapid creative prototyping: an author can explore plot twists and style variations from the same grounded story state without restarting the pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the Director's parse accuracy becomes the obvious thing to measure next: an automated scene-graph precision and recall benchmark against human annotations would tell whether the graph is genuinely tracking the story or mostly echoing the prompt.
  • Beyond the paper, the architecture suggests that long-form consistency in LLM storytelling can be treated as an external-state problem rather than a context-window problem; a compact, continuously updated graph could keep arbitrarily long stories coherent without enlarging the prompt.
  • Beyond the paper, a testable extension is to vary entity count and state-change density per segment; if coherence ratings drop sharply when many entities change at once, the bottleneck is the Director's extraction and the pipeline should target that first.
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 introduces Aether Weaver, an integrated framework for multimodal narrative co-generation that produces text, dynamic scene graphs, visual scenes, and affective soundscapes in a joint loop. The architecture couples a Narrator LLM with a Director that maintains a dynamic scene graph via NER, relation extraction, attribute updates, spatial reasoning, and consistency enforcement, plus a Narrative Arc Controller and Affective Tone Mapper for structural and emotional guidance. The central claim is that this integrated, scene-graph-driven co-generation significantly outperforms a cascaded text-then-image/audio baseline on qualitative expert evaluation. Evidence is a study with 10 author-curated prompts, 10 expert raters, and 5-point Likert scores reported as means in Table 1, showing large gaps on Multimodal Coherence (Visual) and Affective Alignment. The paper concludes with a list of limitations including de novo text-to-image consistency limits and the need for human oversight in long-form coherence.

Significance. If the reported gains were rigorously established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it demonstrates a concrete, modular architecture for maintaining entity and affective consistency across multimodal story generation, and it explicitly addresses a known weakness of cascaded pipelines. The system-level integration with a dynamic scene graph as a central state, combined with user-editable graph and plot-twist controls, is a sensible design direction. The paper ships a reasonably detailed description of the components and includes an example scene graph and character-grounding procedure. However, the significance of the comparative claim currently rests entirely on a small, non-blinded, qualitative evaluation with no variance reporting, no inter-rater reliability, and no measurement of the Director's scene-graph accuracy. As such, the contribution is better viewed as an architecture proposal with promising anecdotal results than as a validated system comparison.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2/Table 1] The headline claim of 'significantly enhances' is not supported by the reported statistics: means from 10 prompts and 10 raters are given without standard deviations, confidence intervals, significance tests, or inter-rater reliability (e.g., Krippendorff's alpha or ICC). The 1.38-point visual-coherence gap and other gaps in Table 1 cannot be separated from rater or prompt variance, and the word 'significantly' is used without any inferential backing. A minimum requirement is a per-prompt, per-rater breakdown with appropriate mixed-effects or bootstrap analysis, plus a blinded or at least randomized-order protocol.
  2. [Section 3.4/Figure 2] The load-bearing mechanism of the claimed gains, the Director's scene-graph updates, is never evaluated. No precision/recall of extracted entities or relations, no graph-edit accuracy against a reference graph, no human judgment of graph correctness, and no ablation disabling the Director are reported. Without such measurements, the Table 1 advantage cannot be attributed to the dynamic scene graph; it could plausibly come from richer prompt construction, the character-grounding pipeline of Section 3.5.1, or from raters' expectations when viewing a more elaborate system. The authors should add a Director accuracy audit and at least one ablation (e.g., Director text-only feedback vs. full graph updates) to make the mechanism-to-outcome link credible.
  3. [Section 4.1] The baseline is an author-built sequential pipeline and no independent or established baseline system is compared. The baseline description lacks critical details: which LLM, which image and audio generators, what prompt template, whether the same backbone model is used, and whether any hyperparameters were tuned for the baseline. Because the paper's central comparative claim depends on this baseline, the comparison is only meaningful if the baseline is specified precisely enough to be reproduced, and the evaluation should include at least one published cascaded system (e.g., SEED-Story or a similar approach) in addition to the internal baseline.
  4. [Section 5] The paper's own conclusion concedes that scene-to-scene visual consistency 'is limited by de novo text-to-image generation' and that long-form coherence 'benefits from human oversight.' These concessions directly qualify the strongest version of the central claim, since visual coherence and long-form consistency are exactly the metrics where the largest gains are reported. The conclusion should be reconciled with the abstract's unqualified claim of significant enhancement, and the evaluation discussion should state which aspects of the gains survive once these limitations are accounted for.
  5. [Section 4.2] The evaluation is non-blind and conducted by the authors on their own system and baseline, using author-defined metrics. This is a real risk for a subjective Likert-scale study, especially when the system output is visually more elaborate. A blinded protocol with external raters who do not know which system produced which output, or at least a pre-registered rubric with anchor examples, is necessary to rule out expectation effects as an explanation for the large reported gaps.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] The abstract and introduction claim 'qualitative evaluations' demonstrate 'significant' gains; the mismatch between 'qualitative' and 'significant' should be resolved, and the contribution list should state the evaluation's scale explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.2] The NAC ratio thresholds (5%, 25%, 65%, 80%, 90%) appear only in the supplementary material and are presented as fixed; the paper should state whether they are tunable parameters and how they were chosen.
  3. [Section 3.4] The phrase 'basic spatial reasoning' and 'basic logical checks' are vague; a more precise specification of what spatial and consistency operations are performed would help reproducibility.
  4. [Section 3.5.1] The character grounding step relies on a vision model and an LLM to extract and re-inject visual features, but no examples of extracted attributes or failure cases are shown; one illustrative example of the extracted feature list would clarify the mechanism.
  5. [Section 4.3/Table 1] The metric labels in Table 1 are abbreviations of the prose descriptions; the table should include a footnote listing the full metric definitions and the exact Likert scale anchors.
  6. [References] Several related-work citations are to arXiv preprints or blog posts without peer review; while acceptable for a fast-moving field, the authors should prioritize archival versions where available and clarify the provenance of any non-archival claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Aether Weaver makes no fitted-parameter or equation-level predictions; its claims rest on a qualitative human evaluation, and the unmeasured Director accuracy is an evaluation-validity concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper contains no mathematical derivation chain, no fitted constants, and no quantities that are defined in terms of one another. Its central claim is an empirical comparison: Table 1 reports mean Likert ratings for Aether Weaver versus an author-constructed cascaded baseline. The Director module (Section 3.4) is described qualitatively as performing NER, relation extraction, attribute updates, spatial reasoning, and consistency enforcement, but its accuracy is never measured; therefore the causal attribution of the visual-coherence gap to the Director is under-supported, and the small, non-blind, author-designed evaluation weakens the significance claim. These are methodological and validity limitations, not circularity: the evaluation metrics are not defined in terms of the module outputs, the baseline is not a fitted version of the proposed system, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by construction. The Narrative Arc Controller and Affective Tone Mapper inject narrative-stage names and affective cues directly into the prompts, so the corresponding ratings partly verify that the system follows its own directives, but the generated text, images, and soundscapes could still fail and the raters could still give low scores; there is no definitional equivalence between input and measured output. The paper cites no prior work by its author, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. Under the specified criteria, no specific circular step can be quoted and exhibited, and the honest finding is 'no significant circularity' with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical rather than derivational, so the ledger records hand-chosen parameters and design assumptions instead of fitted constants. The most load-bearing assumption is that the Director can accurately maintain a scene graph from LLM output; no evidence is provided for this, and the small evaluation cannot separate scene graph errors from image or sound model errors.

free parameters (1)
  • NAC stage ratio thresholds = Classic Arc: 5%, 25%, 65%, 80%, 90% story progress; analogous hand-chosen ratios for other arcs
    Hand-selected boundaries for narrative stages in the Narrative Arc Controller, detailed in the Supplementary Material. The narrative arc adherence score depends on these design choices rather than on data fitting.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The pre-trained LLM used as Narrator can follow compound prompt directives to write segments that respect arc stage, affective tone, and the current scene graph state.
    Invoked in Sections 3.1 and 3.2; no ablation or failure analysis shows how strongly these directives influence the output.
  • domain assumption The Director's LLM-based NER, relation extraction, attribute update, spatial reasoning, and consistency enforcement produce correct and consistent scene graph updates from generated narrative text.
    Invoked in Section 3.4 and Figure 2; the accuracy of these submodules is never evaluated independently.
  • domain assumption Image and sound generation models respond to the structured scene graph and affective cues in a way that improves visual and auditory coherence.
    Invoked in Sections 3.5 and 4.3; no controlled test isolates the contribution of each input to the final output quality.
  • ad hoc to paper Mean Likert scores from 10 expert evaluators, without reported variance or inter-rater agreement, are sufficient evidence for the comparative claims.
    Sections 4.2 and 4.3 treat the mean scores as demonstrating a significant advantage without statistical support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aether Weaver: Multimodal Affective Narrative Co-Generation with Dynamic Scene Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4ZMIKBA

@misc{pith2026250721893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aether Weaver: Multimodal Affective Narrative Co-Generation with Dynamic Scene Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4ZMIKBA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21893}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Aether Weaver, a novel, integrated framework for multimodal narrative co-generation that overcomes limitations of sequential text-to-visual pipelines. Our system concurrently synthesizes textual narratives, dynamic scene graph representations, visual scenes, and affective soundscapes, driven by a tightly integrated, co-generation mechanism. At its core, the Narrator, a large language model, generates narrative text and multimodal prompts, while the Director acts as a dynamic scene graph manager, and analyzes the text to build and maintain a structured representation of the story's world, ensuring spatio-temporal and relational consistency for visual rendering and subsequent narrative generation. Additionally, a Narrative Arc Controller guides the high-level story structure, influencing multimodal affective consistency, further complemented by an Affective Tone Mapper that ensures congruent emotional expression across all modalities. Through qualitative evaluations on a diverse set of narrative prompts encompassing various genres, we demonstrate that Aether Weaver significantly enhances narrative depth, visual fidelity, and emotional resonance compared to cascaded baseline approaches. This integrated framework provides a robust platform for rapid creative prototyping and immersive storytelling experiences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Aether Weaver System Architecture. This block diagram illustrates the comprehensive flow of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dynamics scene graph update by Director. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Character grounding in Aether Weaver. (a) Shows the generated character’s visual using available [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ExpressEdit: Fast Editing of Stylized Facial Expressions with Diffusion Models in Photoshop

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    ExpressEdit delivers fast, artifact-free stylized facial expression editing inside Photoshop via a diffusion model plugin and an accompanying expression database.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The art of sto- rytelling: Multi-agent generative ai for dy- namic multimodal narratives

    Samee Arif, Taimoor Arif, Muhammad Saad Haroon, Aamina Jamal Khan, Agha Ali Raza, and Awais Athar. The art of sto- rytelling: Multi-agent generative ai for dy- namic multimodal narratives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11261, 2024. 1, 8

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    AI’s Impact on Sto- rytelling: Can It Replicate Human Expe- riences? https : / / digitalcontentnext

    Digital Content Next. AI’s Impact on Sto- rytelling: Can It Replicate Human Expe- riences? https : / / digitalcontentnext . org / blog / 2024 / 11 / 20 / ais - impact - on - storytelling - can - it - replicate - human - experiences/, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    An Exploratory Study on Multi-modal Generative AI in AR Storytelling

    Hyungjun Doh, Jingyu Shi, Rahul Jain, Heesoo Kim, and Karthik Ramani. An exploratory study on multi-modal genera- tive ai in ar storytelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15973, 2025. 1

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image gener- ation using textual inversion

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image gener- ation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 9

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Control- lable logical hypothesis generation for abduc- tive reasoning in knowledge graphs

    Yisen Gao, Jiaxin Bai, Tianshi Zheng, Qingyun Sun, Ziwei Zhang, Jianxin Li, Yangqiu Song, and Xingcheng Fu. Control- lable logical hypothesis generation for abduc- tive reasoning in knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20948, 2025. 3

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Narrative-Centered Emotional Reflection: An Early Prototype for AI-Supported Emotional Self-Reflection

    Prerana Ghosh, Sherry Chen, Mohamed Al- ghabra, and Anthony Ho. Narrative-centered emotional reflection: Scaffolding autonomous emotional literacy with ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20342, 2025. 3

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Learn- ing to reason for long-form story generation,

    Alexander Gurung and Mirella Lapata. Learn- ing to reason for long-form story generation,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Story generation with commonsense knowl- edge graphs and axioms

    Filip Ilievski, Jay Pujara, and Hanzhi Zhang. Story generation with commonsense knowl- edge graphs and axioms. In Workshop on Commonsense Reasoning and Knowledge Bases, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Evaluating creative short story generation in humans and large language models

    Mete Ismayilzada, Claire Stevenson, and Lon- neke van der Plas. Evaluating creative short story generation in humans and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02316 ,

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    9 Image generation from scene graphs

    Justin Johnson, Agrim Gupta, and Li Fei-Fei. 9 Image generation from scene graphs. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1219– 1228, 2018. 3

    2018

  3. [11]

    A multi-modal story generation framework with ai-driven storyline guidance

    Juntae Kim, Yoonseok Heo, Hogeon Yu, and Jongho Nang. A multi-modal story generation framework with ai-driven storyline guidance. Electronics, 12(6):1289, 2023. 1

    2023

  4. [12]

    Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowd- sourced dense image annotations

    Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, et al. Visual genome: Connecting language and vision using crowd- sourced dense image annotations. Interna- tional journal of compu...

  5. [13]

    Audioldm: Text-to- audio generation with latent diffusion models

    Haohe Liu, Zehua Chen, Yi Yuan, Xinhao Mei, Xubo Liu, Danilo Mandic, Wenwu Wang, and Mark D Plumbley. Audioldm: Text-to- audio generation with latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12503 , 2023. 9

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to- image diffusion models for subject-driven gen- eration

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to- image diffusion models for subject-driven gen- eration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, page...

    2023

  7. [15]

    LLMs Are Getting Better at Generating Short Fiction

    Scale AI Blog. LLMs Are Getting Better at Generating Short Fiction. https://scale. com/blog/llms- generating- fiction, 2025. 2

    2025

  8. [16]

    Large language models are profi- cient in solving and creating emotional intel- ligence tests

    Katja Schlegel, Nils R Sommer, and Marcello Mortillaro. Large language models are profi- cient in solving and creating emotional intel- ligence tests. Communications Psychology, 3 (1):1–14, 2025. 3

    2025

  9. [17]

    An overview of affective speech synthesis and con- version in the deep learning era

    Andreas Triantafyllopoulos, Bj¨ orn W Schuller, G¨ ok¸ ce˙Iymen, Metin Sezgin, Xiangheng He, Zijiang Yang, Panagiotis Tzirakis, Shuo Liu, Silvan Mertes, Elisabeth Andr´ e, et al. An overview of affective speech synthesis and con- version in the deep learning era. Proceedings o...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Icm-assistant: Instruction- tuning multimodal large language models for rule-based explainable image content moder- ation

    Mengyang Wu, Yuzhi Zhao, Jialun Cao, Mingjie Xu, Zhongming Jiang, Xuehui Wang, Qinbin Li, Guangneng Hu, Shengchao Qin, and Chi-Wing Fu. Icm-assistant: Instruction- tuning multimodal large language models for rule-based explainable image content moder- ation. In Proceedings of ...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Megatron-cntrl: Controllable story genera- tion with external knowledge using large- scale language models

    Peng Xu, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, Raul Puri, Pascale Fung, An- ima Anandkumar, and Bryan Catanzaro. Megatron-cntrl: Controllable story genera- tion with external knowledge using large- scale language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.00840, 2020. 3

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Seed-story: Multimodal long story generation with large language model

    Shuai Yang, Yuying Ge, Yang Li, Yukang Chen, Yixiao Ge, Ying Shan, and Yingcong Chen. Seed-story: Multimodal long story generation with large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08683, 2024. 1, 3

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Oasis: One image is all you need for multimodal instruction data synthe- sis

    Letian Zhang, Quan Cui, Bingchen Zhao, and Cheng Yang. Oasis: One image is all you need for multimodal instruction data synthe- sis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08741 , 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Self-emotion blended dialogue genera- tion in social simulation agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01633, 2024

    Qiang Zhang, Jason Naradowsky, and Yusuke Miyao. Self-emotion blended dialogue genera- tion in social simulation agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01633, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    climax”) and a specific goal directive (e.g., “Reach the peak of conflict

    Ziqi Zhang, Zeyu Li, Kun Wei, Siduo Pan, and Cheng Deng. A survey on multimodal- guided visual content synthesis. Neurocom- puting, 497:110–128, 2022. 2 10 Supplementary Material Narrative Arc Controller Design The Narrative Arc Controller (NAC) directly guides the Narrator by...

    2022

Pith tools

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