arxiv: 2604.05898 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: no theorem link

Physics-Aware Video Instance Removal Benchmark

Zirui Li , Xinghao Chen , Lingyu Jiang , Dengzhe Hou , Fangzhou Lin , Kazunori Yamada , Xiangbo Gao , Zhengzhong Tu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV

keywords Physics-Aware Video Instance RemovalPVIR benchmarkvideo object removalphysical consistencyvideo editing evaluationinstance maskshuman evaluation protocol

0 comments

The pith

A new benchmark shows video object removal methods fail to preserve physical effects like shadows and reflections.

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

The paper argues that existing benchmarks for video instance removal only check visual plausibility and miss physical inconsistencies such as unwanted shadows or reflections after removal. To address this, it presents the Physics-Aware Video Instance Removal benchmark consisting of 95 videos with precise masks and prompts, divided into simple and hard categories based on physical complexity. Human evaluations of four methods reveal that while some perform better overall, all struggle more on the hard subset, underscoring the need for improved physical reasoning in editing models.

Core claim

We introduce the Physics-Aware Video Instance Removal (PVIR) benchmark, featuring 95 high-quality videos annotated with instance-accurate masks and removal prompts, partitioned into Simple and Hard subsets targeting complex physical interactions. Evaluations using a decoupled human protocol across instruction following, rendering quality, and edit exclusivity show PISCO-Removal and UniVideo as top performers, with persistent performance drops on the Hard subset indicating challenges in recovering complex physical side effects.

What carries the argument

The PVIR benchmark and its three-axis human evaluation protocol that isolates semantic, visual, and spatial failures in edited videos.

Load-bearing premise

That the human raters can reliably distinguish physical inconsistencies from other visual flaws in the edited videos.

What would settle it

Observing whether a new method that incorporates explicit physics simulation outperforms others specifically on the Hard subset without similar gains on Simple videos would support or refute the benchmark's value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05898 by Dengzhe Hou, Fangzhou Lin, Kazunori Yamada, Lingyu Jiang, Xiangbo Gao, Xinghao Chen, Zhengzhong Tu, Zirui Li.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Qualitative comparison on the PVIR benchmark. Each row presents a specific instance removal scenario with its corresponding textual prompt. As a unified model, UniVideo demonstrates strong physics-awareness, successfully removing coupled side effects like ground shadows (e.g., rows b and c); however, it suffers from severe semantic hallucinations, occasionally generating unprompted artifacts to fill the v… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Cross-metric trade-off analysis across Instruction Following (IF), Rendering Quality (RQ), and Edit Exclusivity (EE). Each point represents a single video-model pair. Markers distinguish between the Simple (•) and Hard (×) subsets. The tight clustering in the top-right quadrant for PISCO-Removal and UniVideo indicates high-fidelity, balanced performance. Conversely, the wide dispersion of DiffuEraser and C… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Video Instance Removal (VIR) requires removing target objects while maintaining background integrity and physical consistency, such as specular reflections and illumination interactions. Despite advancements in text-guided editing, current benchmarks primarily assess visual plausibility, often overlooking the physical causalities, such as lingering shadows, triggered by object removal. We introduce the Physics-Aware Video Instance Removal (PVIR) benchmark, featuring 95 high-quality videos annotated with instance-accurate masks and removal prompts. PVIR is partitioned into Simple and Hard subsets, the latter explicitly targeting complex physical interactions. We evaluate four representative methods, PISCO-Removal, UniVideo, DiffuEraser, and CoCoCo, using a decoupled human evaluation protocol across three dimensions to isolate semantic, visual, and spatial failures: instruction following, rendering quality, and edit exclusivity. Our results show that PISCO-Removal and UniVideo achieve state-of-the-art performance, while DiffuEraser frequently introduces blurring artifacts and CoCoCo struggles significantly with instruction following. The persistent performance drop on the Hard subset highlights the ongoing challenge of recovering complex physical side effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

PVIR adds a useful Hard subset and decoupled human ratings to VIR evaluation, but the protocol does not clearly isolate physical consistency failures.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is the PVIR benchmark of 95 videos with instance masks and prompts, split into Simple and Hard subsets to target complex physical side effects like shadows and reflections during removal. It evaluates four methods with a three-axis human protocol meant to separate instruction following, rendering quality, and edit exclusivity. This setup is new in the VIR space and does a reasonable job of showing performance drops on the Hard cases plus specific weaknesses such as blurring in DiffuEraser and instruction problems in CoCoCo. The partitioned dataset and comparative results give a concrete starting point for testing physical realism beyond pure visual plausibility. The soft spot is the missing link between the rating dimensions and actual physics. The abstract claims the protocol isolates semantic/visual/spatial failures and that Hard videos expose gaps in physical causalities, yet it provides no mapping, examples, or checks confirming that low Hard scores reflect incorrect physics rather than generic artifacts. No quantitative scores, annotation details, or statistical analysis appear, so the strength of the method rankings and the Hard-subset challenge remains only partially supported. This work is for researchers building or benchmarking video editing and inpainting systems who need to check physical side effects. Readers interested in dataset construction or method comparisons would get practical value from the split and the protocol idea. It deserves peer review because the benchmark framing and the Hard subset are worth referee scrutiny even if the evaluation validation needs tightening.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Physics-Aware Video Instance Removal (PVIR) benchmark, consisting of 95 high-quality videos annotated with instance-accurate masks and removal prompts. It partitions the benchmark into Simple and Hard subsets, with the latter targeting complex physical interactions such as specular reflections and illumination changes. Four representative methods (PISCO-Removal, UniVideo, DiffuEraser, and CoCoCo) are evaluated using a decoupled human evaluation protocol across three dimensions (instruction following, rendering quality, and edit exclusivity) intended to isolate semantic, visual, and spatial failures. The results claim that PISCO-Removal and UniVideo achieve state-of-the-art performance, while the others exhibit specific artifacts, and that a persistent performance drop on the Hard subset highlights ongoing challenges in recovering physical side effects.

Significance. If the evaluation protocol and Hard subset genuinely isolate and expose gaps in physical causalities beyond prior visual-plausibility benchmarks, this benchmark could provide a valuable, more rigorous testbed for video instance removal methods. The empirical focus on existing methods and the introduction of a targeted Hard subset represent a constructive contribution to the field, though the current lack of supporting quantitative details and validation limits its immediate impact.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the human evaluation protocol is described as isolating semantic, visual, and spatial failures to measure physical consistency, but no validation, explicit mapping, examples of failure modes (e.g., missing reflections vs. generic blurring), or inter-rater reliability metrics are provided to confirm that low scores on Hard videos specifically reflect incorrect physics rather than conflated artifacts. This is load-bearing for the central claim that PVIR exposes gaps in physical causalities.
[Abstract] Abstract and results description: the paper reports performance differences and method rankings (e.g., PISCO-Removal and UniVideo as SOTA, DiffuEraser introducing blurring) but provides no quantitative scores, details on the annotation process for the 95 videos and masks, or statistical analysis (e.g., significance tests or variance across raters), leaving the claims about Hard-subset challenges only partially supported.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments. We agree that strengthening the validation of the evaluation protocol and providing quantitative details will improve the paper. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the human evaluation protocol is described as isolating semantic, visual, and spatial failures to measure physical consistency, but no validation, explicit mapping, examples of failure modes (e.g., missing reflections vs. generic blurring), or inter-rater reliability metrics are provided to confirm that low scores on Hard videos specifically reflect incorrect physics rather than conflated artifacts. This is load-bearing for the central claim that PVIR exposes gaps in physical causalities.

Authors: We agree that the abstract is too concise to fully substantiate the isolation of physical consistency failures. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Evaluation Protocol section with an explicit mapping of the three dimensions to physical causality aspects, concrete examples of failure modes (e.g., missing lingering shadows or incorrect specular reflections on Hard videos versus generic blurring), and inter-rater reliability metrics (Fleiss' kappa > 0.75 across raters). These additions confirm that the performance drop on the Hard subset reflects physics-related issues. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results description: the paper reports performance differences and method rankings (e.g., PISCO-Removal and UniVideo as SOTA, DiffuEraser introducing blurring) but provides no quantitative scores, details on the annotation process for the 95 videos and masks, or statistical analysis (e.g., significance tests or variance across raters), leaving the claims about Hard-subset challenges only partially supported.

Authors: We acknowledge the absence of quantitative support in the original abstract and results. The revised version includes a new table with mean scores and standard deviations for each method on Simple and Hard subsets across all three dimensions. We have added a detailed description of the annotation process (professional annotators, instance segmentation tools, multi-round verification for the 95 videos and masks) and statistical analysis (paired t-tests for subset differences with p < 0.05, plus inter-rater variance). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical benchmark paper with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper introduces the PVIR benchmark (95 videos with masks and prompts, partitioned into Simple/Hard subsets) and evaluates four existing methods via a three-axis human protocol. No equations, derivations, parameter fitting, or predictions are present. The central contribution is the benchmark construction and empirical results, which do not reduce to any self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. The evaluation dimensions are defined directly in the paper without circular reduction to inputs. This is a standard self-contained empirical benchmark contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces an empirical benchmark rather than a derivation; it rests on the domain assumption that physical consistency is a critical and previously overlooked dimension in VIR evaluation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5507 in / 986 out tokens · 47717 ms · 2026-05-10T19:23:42.491346+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

VEFX-Bench: A Holistic Benchmark for Generic Video Editing and Visual Effects
cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

VEFX-Bench releases a large human-labeled video editing dataset, a multi-dimensional reward model, and a standardized benchmark that better matches human judgments than generic evaluators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Ivebench: Modern benchmark suite for instruction-guided video editing assessment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11647, 2025

Yinan Chen, Jiangning Zhang, Teng Hu, Yuxiang Zeng, Zhu- cun Xue, Qingdong He, Chengjie Wang, Yong Liu, Xiaobin Hu, and Shuicheng Yan. Ivebench: Modern benchmark suite for instruction-guided video editing assessment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11647, 2025. 2

work page arXiv 2025
[2]

Fgvc: Flow-guided video completion

Chen Gao, Ayush Saraf, Jia-Bin Huang, and Johannes Kopf. Fgvc: Flow-guided video completion. InCVPR, 2019. 2

2019
[3]

Pisco: Precise video instance insertion with sparse control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08277, 2026

Xiangbo Gao, Renjie Li, Xinghao Chen, Yuheng Wu, Suofei Feng, Qing Yin, and Zhengzhong Tu. Pisco: Precise video instance insertion with sparse control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08277, 2026. 1, 3, 5

work page arXiv 2026
[4]

The pulse of motion: Measuring physical frame rate from visual dynamics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14375, 2026

Xiangbo Gao, Mingyang Wu, Siyuan Yang, Jiongze Yu, Par- dis Taghavi, Fangzhou Lin, and Zhengzhong Tu. The pulse of motion: Measuring physical frame rate from visual dy- namics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14375, 2026. 2

work page arXiv 2026
[5]

Tokenflow: Con- sistent 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

work page arXiv 2023
[6]

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

Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. InNeurIPS, 2017. 2

2017
[7]

Video Diffusion Models

Jonathan Ho, William Chan, and Pieter Abbeel. Video diffu- sion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03458, 2022. 2

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[8]

Vbench++: Comprehensive and versatile benchmark for video understanding and generation.arXiv preprint, 2024

Weizhe Huang, Xiaofeng Liu, Yifan Wang, Xin Li, et al. Vbench++: Comprehensive and versatile benchmark for video understanding and generation.arXiv preprint, 2024. 2

2024
[9]

CoRR , volume =

Zeyinzi Jiang, Zhen Han, Chaojie Mao, Jingfeng Zhang, Yulin Pan, and Yu Liu. Vace: All-in-one video creation and editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07598, 2025. 3

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

Segment any- thing

Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international confer- ence on computer vision, pages 4015–4026, 2023. 3

2023
[11]

Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control,

Xuan Li, Yujie Wang, Chuhang Zhang, Bin Zhao, and Ying Shan. Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04761, 2023. 2

work page arXiv 2023
[12]

Diffueraser: A diffusion model for video inpainting,

Xiaowen Li, Haolan Xue, Peiran Ren, and Liefeng Bo. Dif- fueraser: A diffusion model for video inpainting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10018, 2025. 1, 2, 3, 5

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

Towards an end-to-end framework for flow- guided video inpainting

Zhen Li, Cheng Xie, Weidi Zhang, Yebin Liu, Qi Tian, and Ying Shan. Towards an end-to-end framework for flow- guided video inpainting. InCVPR, 2022. 2

2022
[14]

Fuseformer: Fusing fine-grained information in transformers for video inpainting

Rui Liu, Hanming Deng, Yangyi Huang, Xiaoyu Shi, Lewei Lu, Wenxiu Sun, Xiaogang Wang, Jifeng Dai, and Hong- sheng Li. Fuseformer: Fusing fine-grained information in transformers for video inpainting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 14040–14049, 2021. 2

2021
[15]

CoRR , volume =

Chenxuan Miao, Yutong Feng, Jianshu Zeng, Zixiang Gao, Hantang Liu, Yunfeng Yan, Donglian Qi, Xi Chen, Bin Wang, and Hengshuang Zhao. Rose: Remove objects with side effects in videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18633,

work page arXiv
[16]

V oid: Video object and interaction deletion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02296, 2026

Saman Motamed, William Harvey, Benjamin Klein, Luc Van Gool, Zhuoning Yuan, and Ta-Ying Cheng. V oid: Video object and interaction deletion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02296, 2026. 1

work page arXiv 2026
[17]

Deepak Pathak, Philipp Krahenbuhl, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Alexei A. Efros. Context encoders: Feature learning by inpainting. InCVPR, 2016. 2

2016
[18]

A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation

Federico Perazzi, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Brian McWilliams, Luc Van Gool, Markus Gross, and Alexander Sorkine-Hornung. A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 724–732,
[19]

A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation

Federico Perazzi, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Brian McWilliams, Luc Van Gool, Markus Gross, and Alexander Sorkine-Hornung. A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation. InCVPR, 2016. 2

2016
[20]

High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bjorn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. InCVPR, 2022. 2

2022
[21]

Adapool: Expo- nential adaptive pooling for information-retaining downsam- pling

Alexandros Stergiou and Ronald Poppe. Adapool: Expo- nential adaptive pooling for information-retaining downsam- pling. 2021. 3

2021
[22]

Resolution-robust large mask inpaint- ing with fourier convolutions

Roman Suvorov, Ekaterina Logacheva, Anton Mashikhin, Mikhail Melnikov, Mikhail Kaigorodov, Sergey Yudin, Denis Davydov, Anastasia Molchanova, Artem Malkov, Alexander Ilin, et al. Resolution-robust large mask inpaint- ing with fourier convolutions. InWACV, 2022. 2

2022
[23]

Towards Accurate Generative Models of Video: A New Metric & Challenges

Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, Guenter Klambauer, Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, and Sepp Hochreiter. To- wards accurate generative models of video: A new metric and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717, 2018. 2

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018
[24]

Huang, Y

Jiayu Wang, Yicheng Zhang, Kai Liu, Xin Sun, Lijuan Ye, Yunchao Wei, et al. Vbench: Comprehensive bench- mark suite for video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17982, 2024. 2

work page arXiv 2024
[25]

Univideo: Unified understanding, generation, and editing for videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08377, 2025a

Cong Wei, Quande Liu, Zixuan Ye, Qiulin Wang, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Kun Gai, and Wenhu Chen. Univideo: Unified understanding, generation, and editing for videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08377, 2025. 1, 2, 3, 5

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

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

Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Stan Z. Lei, Yuchao Gu, Bolei Huo, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11565, 2023. 2

work page arXiv 2023
[27]

Youtube-vos: Sequence-to-sequence video object segmentation

Ning Xu, Linjie Yang, Yuchen Fan, Dingkang Yue, Yuchen Liang, James Yang, and Thomas Huang. Youtube-vos: Sequence-to-sequence video object segmentation. InECCV,
[28]

Free-form image inpainting with gated con- volution

Jiahui Yu, Zhe Lin, Jimei Yang, Xiaohui Shen, Xin Lu, and Thomas Huang. Free-form image inpainting with gated con- volution. InICCV, 2019. 2

2019
[29]

Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting

Shangchen Zhou, Chongyi Li, Kelvin CK Chan, and Chen Change Loy. Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10477–10486, 2023. 2 9

2023
[30]

Cococo: Improving text-guided video inpaint- ing for better consistency, controllability and compatibility

Bojia Zi, Shihao Zhao, Xianbiao Qi, Jianan Wang, Yukai Shi, Qianyu Chen, Bin Liang, Rong Xiao, Kam-Fai Wong, and Lei Zhang. Cococo: Improving text-guided video inpaint- ing for better consistency, controllability and compatibility. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 11067–11076, 2025. 1, 2, 3, 5 10 A. Supplementary Ma...

2025