Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 66 references

A one-step, draft-free video object removal model can match or surpass multi-step diffusion and flow-based baselines by distilling from a teacher that sees the ground truth.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 00:31 UTC pith:7F4MDSEY

load-bearing objection A practical one-step video object removal system with a clever distillation idea, but the core mechanism is under-verified and the headline SOTA claim is stronger than the evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14976 v1 pith:7F4MDSEY submitted 2026-07-16 cs.CV

From Draft to Draft-Free: One-Step Video Object Removal via Privileged Distillation and Fast Planting

Zizhao Chen , Ping Wei , Guang Dai , Jingdong Wang , Mengmeng Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords video object removalvideo inpaintingone-step diffusionconsistency distillationprivileged distillationpseudo-drafttemporal masked transformerlatent diffusion model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Video object removal usually means choosing between fast but blurry propagation methods and realistic but slow multi-step diffusion models. This paper tries to break that trade-off by distilling a 50-step diffusion refiner into a one-step student, then removing the student's dependence on an external draft entirely. The central move is Prior-Privileged Consistency Distillation: during training the teacher is shown the ground-truth video instead of the flawed draft, so it produces a stable 'golden' trajectory that the student can imitate, while at inference the student still sees only the draft. A second module, Self-Guided Fast Planting, constructs pseudo-drafts in latent space, yielding a fully draft-free, one-step model. If the claims hold, object removal becomes state-of-the-art in quality and about 40 times faster than the slowest diffusion baselines, with denoising taking roughly one second per video.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a one-step student can match or surpass multi-step diffusion and flow-based methods for video object removal if it is distilled from a teacher that is conditioned on the ground truth rather than on the imperfect draft. The authors call this 'truth-injected' distillation (PPCD) and show that it stabilizes the consistency training, giving the student a consistent target path even though the student never sees the ground truth at inference. With the SGFP module generating latent pseudo-drafts, the final D2DF-DF model requires no external prior and still leads prior methods in PSNR on RORD, ROVI, and VPLM while using a single denoising step. The implied discover

What carries the argument

Prior-Privileged Consistency Distillation (PPCD): a consistency-distillation loss in which the teacher's condition is the masked video plus the ground-truth latent during training (Eq. 6), producing a golden target; the student is trained with that target plus a direct ground-truth loss (Eq. 9). Self-Guided Fast Planting (SGFP): a lightweight Temporal Masked Transformer that tokenizes video latents into patches and allows only unmasked patches as keys/values, reconstructing masked regions to form a latent pseudo-draft in 0.02s. The two mechanisms together convert a multi-step draft-refinement process into a one-step, draft-free generative model.

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on the assumption that the teacher's ground-truth-conditioned path is a target the student can actually reach from a blurry draft; if a draft is too far from the true background, the student has no way to follow the golden trajectory and will blur or fail.

What would settle it

Take a fixed set of RORD videos and run D2DF-DG with drafts artificially corrupted to varying degrees (random noise, heavy blur, larger masks) and compare one-step student output against the 50-step teacher's output; if the PSNR gap between student and teacher grows sharply as draft quality drops, then the privileged trajectory is not reachable and the central claim fails in that regime.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Denoising for a single 25-frame 480x720 video drops to about 1.03 s, making near-real-time video object removal feasible on an A100; total inference including encode/decode stays under 10 s.
  • The draft-free model removes the need for optical-flow or ProPainter-style pre-processing at inference, eliminating a whole class of flow-related failure modes and extra latency.
  • Performance on large-mask videos improves more than existing methods as mask ratio grows, so the method is suited to removing large or slowly moving objects where propagation fails.
  • The draft-guided variant can refine drafts from unseen sources (FuseFormer, DiffuEraser) even though it was trained with ProPainter drafts, indicating the distillation teaches a general refinement capability rather than overfitting to one draft distribution.
  • The three-stage decomposition is modular: trained teachers can be re-used to distill faster students, suggesting the framework can be applied to other conditional video editing tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The truth-injected distillation idea may transfer beyond object removal: any conditional generation task with a cheap imperfect prior (e.g., super-resolution from low-res, deblurring, frame interpolation) could train its teacher on the clean target to stabilize distillation, as long as the student's input remains the imperfect prior. This is an extension, not something the paper tests.
  • Because SGFP builds pseudo-drafts entirely in latent space, one could in principle train the whole D2DF-DF end-to-end from a smaller backbone or even a video autoencoder, potentially shrinking the 5B-parameter footprint; the paper does not explore scaling.
  • The paper's failure cases (complex occlusions between multiple objects) suggest the one-step student inherits the teacher's ambiguity rather than adding its own errors; a natural test is to combine SGFP with explicit motion/occlusion reasoning to see whether the pseudo-draft can resolve some of that ambiguity before the one-step generator runs.
  • No human perceptual study is reported; the metric gains on VFID/LPIPS do not directly tell whether the one-step output is visually indistinguishable from a 50-step teacher in a blind comparison, so that comparison is a concrete open question.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes D2DF, a three-stage framework for video object removal. Stage I trains a draft-guided diffusion teacher (D-LDM) conditioned on the masked video and an external draft (ProPainter). Stage II distills this multi-step teacher into a one-step draft-guided refiner (D2DF-DG) using Prior-Privileged Consistency Distillation (PPCD), in which the teacher is conditioned on the ground-truth video during distillation. Stage III introduces Self-Guided Fast Planting (SGFP), a latent-space pseudo-draft generator, and distills D2DF-DG into D2DF-DF, a draft-free one-step model. The paper reports state-of-the-art results on RORD, ROVI, and VPLM, with a zero-shot evaluation on Camera-Bench, and a denoising time of about 1 second per video.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a practically valuable contribution: it directly addresses the latency and hallucination problems of diffusion-based video object removal through progressive distillation. The paper contains extensive experiments, multiple ablations, and a public code repository, which are strengths. The privileged-distillation idea and the latent pseudo-draft generator are creative. However, the current evidence does not fully support either the proposed mechanism or the state-of-the-art claim. The comparison is weakened by training-protocol ambiguity, the PPCD ablation is confounded by an unattributed direct regression term, and the Stage III distillation with a one-step teacher is not formally specified. These issues are addressable but require additional experiments and exposition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 (Datasets) and Table 1] The proposed models are trained on the training splits of RORD and ROVI (approximately 30k samples) and evaluated on their test splits plus VPLM. The comparison methods in Table 1 are not stated to be trained or fine-tuned on the same training splits. If the baselines are used off-the-shelf, the comparison conflates algorithmic quality with an in-domain training advantage. To support the state-of-the-art claim, the paper must state the training data for each baseline and either retrain/fine-tune all methods on the same training splits or include a zero-shot/cross-dataset evaluation where all methods are trained on the same external data.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (9), and Table 4] The claim that PPCD's privileged trajectory is responsible for the reported improvement is not established. The PPCD loss is L_ppcd = d(x_pred^0, x_hat^phi_0) + alpha * d(x_pred^0, x_0), with alpha = 1 (Section 4.1). Thus PPCD differs from the preceding CD baseline in two ways at once: the teacher condition (draft vs. ground truth) and the additional direct L2 term. Table 4 does not ablate these two factors. With alpha = 1, the direct L2 term alone is a regression to ground truth, so the gain over CD may stem entirely from that term rather than from the 'golden trajectory.' Additionally, the teacher at distillation time receives I_pp(x_t) = Cat(x_t, x_0^M + x_0) (Eq. 6), a conditioning input that was never used in Stage I training (Eq. 5); the paper provides no evidence that this out-of-distribution teacher produces stable or accurate trajectories. An ablation such as 'CD + direct L2 wit
  3. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (6)-(9), and Table 6] The paper states that Stage III 'employs the PPCD framework again' with D2DF-DG as the teacher (Section 3.4). However, PPCD as defined in Section 3.3 requires a multi-step diffusion teacher and an ODE solver Phi to produce the trajectory point x_hat^phi_tn from x_{tn+1} (Eqs. 6-8). D2DF-DG is a one-step student, not a diffusion model with an ODE solver. No equations are provided for how a trajectory is generated from D2DF-DG, nor what the EMA target becomes in this setting. Without this, the D2DF-DF results in Tables 1-2 and the Stage III ablations in Table 6 are not reproducible, and the draft-free half of the headline claim is unsupported. The authors should formally specify the Stage III distillation objective and trajectory construction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] There are formatting errors in the table: numbers run together, e.g., ProPainter's ROVI row '0.026341.15' and D2DF-DG's ROVI row '42.410.98880.062 0.0227'. The table should be reformatted so each metric is a distinct cell.
  2. [Table 3] The table has similar spacing issues and the symbols in the 'Draft' and 'Flow' columns (e.g., '–%' and '–!') are unexplained. Please define them in the caption or use clear check/cross marks.
  3. [Section 4.1 (Implementation Details)] The phrase 'We train only the DiT component with full-parameter SFT' is unclear. Please define SFT (supervised fine-tuning?) and specify which parameters are updated in each stage.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eq. (7)] The notation x_hat^phi_0 in Eq. (7) is confusing because the quantity is produced by the student's EMA target f_{theta^-}, not by the teacher phi. Renaming this variable would avoid implying that the teacher generated it.
  5. [Section 4.2 (Efficiency) and Table 2] Table 2 reports D2DF-DF total time as 1.05 s (prior 0.02 s + denoising 1.03 s), but the text says 'including the time for encoding and decoding latents, our complete processing time is within 10 seconds.' Please clarify whether the 1-second claim is only for the denoising process and what the end-to-end latency actually is.
  6. [Section 4.5 (Analysis of Failure Cases)] The failure analysis is brief and mostly qualitative. A quantitative breakdown of failure modes (e.g., by number of objects, mask ratio, or occlusion complexity) would help readers understand the limitations of one-step inference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the framework is a supervised distillation pipeline and its claims are external benchmark measurements.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Stage I trains a draft-conditioned diffusion teacher D-LDM with a standard LDM objective (Eq. 5). Stage II's PPCD replaces the draft condition with the ground-truth latent for the teacher only (Eq. 6), while the student still conditions on the draft at inference (Eqs. 7–8). The objective Eq. 9 contains both a consistency term toward the teacher's output and a direct regression term to x0; this is supervised training with privileged information, not a prediction derived from fitted parameters. There is no quantity that is defined in terms of the target and then reported as a predicted result. The SOTA claims in Tables 1–3 are empirical evaluations on held-out datasets, including a zero-shot benchmark, and thus are externally grounded. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: references to CogVideoX, consistency distillation, and baselines such as ProPainter are standard components or comparisons, not cited to force the framework's conclusion. The under-specification of Stage III, where PPCD is said to be applied again with the one-step D2DF-DG as teacher without providing the required ODE-trajectory equations, is a completeness/correctness concern, not a circularity. Likewise, the acknowledged failure cases (Section 4.5 and Conclusion) limit the method but do not make the pipeline circular. No circular step can be exhibited by reduction of an equation or fitted parameter to the claimed output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the SGFP pseudo-draft is a learned representation, not a new ontological object. The free parameters are empirical hyperparameters for the architecture and losses. The main epistemic dependence is on the pretrained CogVideoX model and the effectiveness of the GT-conditioned teacher strategy, both assumptions that the paper does not independently justify.

free parameters (6)
  • PPCD loss weight α = 1
    Set without sensitivity analysis; multiplies the direct GT regression term in Eq. 9.
  • SGFP mask threshold τ = 0.7
    Chosen to decide which patches are valid keys/values; no sweep reported.
  • SGFP patch size P = 10
    Determines tokenization granularity; chosen without ablation.
  • SGFP spatial radius R = 2
    Restricts attention window; ablated only as on/off, not swept.
  • SGFP layers L = 4
    Number of transformer layers; no sensitivity study.
  • Draft loss ratio L_draft:L_ppcd = 1:5
    Weighting between pseudo-draft reconstruction and distillation loss; no ablation reported.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Pretrained CogVideoX-5B-I2V provides a sufficiently strong video prior for the teacher and student.
    Used as initialization for the D-LDM teacher (Section 4.1). If this prior is inadequate, the whole distillation chain loses its foundation.
  • domain assumption The flow-based output of ProPainter is a useful draft prior that simplifies the mapping to clean video.
    The teacher is trained to refine ProPainter drafts; the benefit of this conditioning is asserted, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Conditioning the teacher on ground truth during distillation yields a stable 'golden trajectory' that the student can approximate.
    This is the key heuristic behind PPCD (Section 3.3). It is not proven and fails in some cases, as the paper admits (Section 4.5).
  • standard math Consistency distillation (Eq. 3) transfers to video latents with the chosen ODE solver.
    The paper adopts the consistency model framework from prior work without deriving it for the video case.
  • domain assumption The latent space of the pretrained autoencoder preserves enough spatial-temporal structure for SGFP to reconstruct meaningful pseudo-drafts.
    SGFP operates entirely in latent space; if the latent representation discards spatial detail, the pseudo-drafts would be useless.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15754 in / 10963 out tokens · 120183 ms · 2026-08-02T00:31:33.695038+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Video object removal is a fundamental yet challenging task in video editing. Despite recent progress, existing methods typically fall into two categories. Traditional approaches based on optical flow or attention mechanisms often introduce noticeable artifacts and yield unnatural results. In contrast, diffusion-based methods improve visual realism but demand multiple denoising steps, limiting their practicality. To address these issues, we propose From-Draft-to-Draft-Free (D2DF), a framework that distills the ability of transforming coarse drafts into refined videos into a one-step video generation model. Within D2DF, a teacher model is trained to refine low-quality removal results ("drafts") into high-fidelity videos by multiple steps. Then, through Prior-Privileged Consistency Distillation (PPCD), we distill this capability into a student model that performs one-step removal conditioned on the draft. To eliminate draft dependency, we introduce a Self-Guided Fast Planting (SGFP) module based on our Temporal Masked Transformer that autonomously generates scene-consistent pseudo-drafts in latent space, enabling a fully draft-free one-step model. Extensive experiments show that both draft-conditioned and draft-free versions achieve state-of-the-art performance on multiple metrics, surpassing traditional and multi-step generative methods in both quality and efficiency. The denoising process for a single video takes only about 1 second.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14976 by Guang Dai, Jingdong Wang, Mengmeng Wang, Ping Wei, Zizhao Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our three-staged D2DF framework. To address the limitations of traditional and diffusion-based methods, we combine them as a refiner. However, this incurs significant time costs and depends on external drafts. Through PPCD distillation and the SGFP module, we obtain the one-step video object removal models D2DF-DG and D2DF-DF. Visual comparisons from (a) to (f) demonstrate that D2DF exhibits po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of D-LDM outputs under different conditions. The middle column shows the results obtained by 4-step DDIM denoising of the teacher network. The solid red line represents the ground-truth denoising trajectory. The dashed line represents the solution trajectory of the teacher. The short solid line indicates the target provided by the teacher at the current timestep. Stage I: The Draft-Guided Diffus… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pipeline of D2DF. On the left are the three stages of our framework, while on the right is the PPCD distillation we propose. 3.2 Stage I: Draft-Guided Diffusion Teacher Our first stage simplifies the task into a refinement process. We introduce a strong con￾ditional prior (draft) from existing methods (e.g., ProPainter [65]). This process es￾tablishes a sufficiently powerful teacher network to provide a ma… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pipeline of SGFP. The entire reconstruc￾tion operation is in the latent space, constrained by the attention mask based on valid patches and spatial windows. The SGFP module (Fig.4) learns to reconstruct a “pseudo-draft" directly in latent space using spatio-temporal information from unoccluded regions. The module is built upon our Tempo￾ral Masked Transformer (TMT) architec￾ture, which aims to rapidly reco… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of different models at differ￾ent mask ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparisons on video object removal. Our D2DF-DF model demonstrates exceptionally strong object removal and background reconstruction capabilities. [65] for comparison. As shown in Fig.6, our method D2DF-DF demonstrates strong ca￾pabilities for reconstructing background regions. When removing objects from larger areas in the last two rows, D2DF-DF still delivers highly stable performance. Howev… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparisons under extreme occlusion conditions. Our DF model achieves re￾markable structural consistency and generative performance in one step. agate between frames, ProPainter directly produces blurred textures, while MiniMax￾Remover (6 steps) exhibits noise artifacts. In contrast, our D2DF-DF model achieves excellent background reproduction with just one step. This demonstrates a unique ad￾v… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual verification of the generalization of draft sensitivity on a sample from DAVIS. The results demonstrate that our DG can refine various types of drafts. Draft-source Robustness. We further evaluate D2DF-DG with drafts from different sources. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Analysis of failure cases. Object removal models fail when complex occlu￾sions exist between objects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Bertalmio, M., Bertozzi, A.L., Sapiro, G.: Navier-stokes, fluid dynamics, and image and video inpainting. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2001. vol. 1, pp. I–I. IEEE (2001)

    2001

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the Spe- cial Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Confer- ence Papers

    Bian, Y ., Zhang, Z., Ju, X., Cao, M., Xie, L., Shan, Y ., Xu, Q.: Videopainter: Any-length video inpainting and editing with plug-and-play context control. In: Proceedings of the Spe- cial Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference Confer- ence Papers. pp. 1–12 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127 (2023)

    Blattmann, A., Dockhorn, T., Kulal, S., Mendelevitch, D., Kilian, M., Lorenz, D., Levi, Y ., English, Z., V oleti, V ., Letts, A., et al.: Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Blattmann, A., Rombach, R., Ling, H., Dockhorn, T., Kim, S.W., Fidler, S., Kreis, K.: Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 22563–22575 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    OpenAI Blog 1(8), 1 (2024)

    Brooks, T., Peebles, B., Holmes, C., DePue, W., Guo, Y ., Jing, L., Schnurr, D., Taylor, J., Luhman, T., Luhman, E., et al.: Video generation models as world simulators. OpenAI Blog 1(8), 1 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Advances in neural information processing systems34, 8780–8794 (2021)

    Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A.: Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems34, 8780–8794 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Ding, D., Pan, Y ., Feng, R., Dai, Q., Qiu, K., Bao, J., Luo, C., Chen, Z.: Homogen: Enhanced video inpainting via homography propagation and diffusion. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 22953–22962 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 24(10), 3034–3047 (2015)

    Ebdelli, M., Le Meur, O., Guillemot, C.: Video inpainting with short-term windows: appli- cation to object removal and error concealment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 24(10), 3034–3047 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Gao, C., Saraf, A., Huang, J.B., Kopf, J.: Flow-edge guided video completion. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 713–729. Springer (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14548 (2024)

    Geng, Z., Pokle, A., Luo, W., Lin, J., Kolter, J.Z.: Consistency models made easy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14548 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    arXiv e-prints pp

    Gu, B., Luo, H., Guo, S., Dong, P.: Advanced video inpainting using optical flow-guided efficient diffusion. arXiv e-prints pp. arXiv–2412 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00857 (2024)

    Gu, B., Luo, H., Guo, S., Dong, P., Zhou, Q.: Coherent video inpainting using optical flow- guided efficient diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00857 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303 (2022)

    Ho, J., Chan, W., Saharia, C., Whang, J., Gao, R., Gritsenko, A., Kingma, D.P., Poole, B., Norouzi, M., Fleet, D.J., et al.: Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Hore, A., Ziou, D.: Image quality metrics: Psnr vs. ssim. In: 2010 20th international confer- ence on pattern recognition. pp. 2366–2369. IEEE (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Jin, W., Dai, Q., Luo, C., Baek, S.H., Cho, S.: Flovd: Optical flow meets video diffusion model for enhanced camera-controlled video synthesis. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 2040–2049 (2025)

    2040

  16. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Kim, D., Woo, S., Lee, J.Y ., Kweon, I.S.: Deep video inpainting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 5792–5801 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Lai, W.S., Huang, J.B., Wang, O., Shechtman, E., Yumer, E., Yang, M.H.: Learning blind video temporal consistency. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 170–185 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Lee, M., Cho, S., Shin, C., Lee, J., Yang, S., Lee, S.: Video diffusion models are strong video inpainter. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 39, pp. 4526–4533 (2025) From Draft to Draft-Free 17

    2025

  19. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Lee, S., Oh, S.W., Won, D., Kim, S.J.: Copy-and-paste networks for deep video inpainting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 4413– 4421 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10018 (2025)

    Li, X., Xue, H., Ren, P., Bo, L.: Diffueraser: A diffusion model for video inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10018 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Li, Z., Lu, C.Z., Qin, J., Guo, C.L., Cheng, M.M.: Towards an end-to-end framework for flow-guided video inpainting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 17562–17571 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01693 (2026)

    Liu, D., Wang, W., Li, C., Lyu, J.: From understanding to erasing: Towards complete and stable video object removal. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01693 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Liu, R., Deng, H., Huang, Y ., Shi, X., Lu, L., Sun, W., Wang, X., Dai, J., Li, H.: Fuseformer: Fusing fine-grained information in transformers for video inpainting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 14040–14049 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11081 (2024)

    Lu, C., Song, Y .: Simplifying, stabilizing and scaling continuous-time consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11081 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Advances in neural information processing systems35, 5775–5787 (2022)

    Lu, C., Zhou, Y ., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., Zhu, J.: Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 5775–5787 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378 (2023)

    Luo, S., Tan, Y ., Huang, L., Li, J., Zhao, H.: Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high- resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05556 (2023)

    Luo, S., Tan, Y ., Patil, S., Gu, D., von Platen, P., Passos, A., Huang, L., Li, J., Zhao, H.: Lcm- lora: A universal stable-diffusion acceleration module. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05556 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Meng, C., Rombach, R., Gao, R., Kingma, D., Ermon, S., Ho, J., Salimans, T.: On distillation of guided diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 14297–14306 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18633 (2025)

    Miao, C., Feng, Y ., Zeng, J., Gao, Z., Liu, H., Yan, Y ., Qi, D., Chen, X., Wang, B., Zhao, H.: Rose: Remove objects with side effects in videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18633 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Peebles, W., Xie, S.: Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 4195–4205 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Perazzi, F., Pont-Tuset, J., McWilliams, B., Van Gool, L., Gross, M., Sorkine-Hornung, A.: A benchmark dataset and evaluation methodology for video object segmentation. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 724–732 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952 (2023)

    Podell, D., English, Z., Lacey, K., Blattmann, A., Dockhorn, T., Müller, J., Penna, J., Rom- bach, R.: Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    In: BMVC

    Sagong, M.C., Yeo, Y .J., Jung, S.W., Ko, S.J.: Rord: A real-world object removal dataset. In: BMVC. p. 542 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512 (2022)

    Salimans, T., Ho, J.: Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Sauer, A., Lorenz, D., Blattmann, A., Rombach, R.: Adversarial diffusion distillation. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 87–103. Springer (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    Song, J., Meng, C., Ermon, S.: Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14189 (2023) 18 Z

    Song, Y ., Dhariwal, P.: Improved techniques for training consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14189 (2023) 18 Z. Chen et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning

    Song, Y ., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M., Sutskever, I.: Consistency models. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 32211–32252 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

    Song, Y ., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D.P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., Poole, B.: Score- based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 13(4), 602–614 (2011)

    Tang, N.C., Hsu, C.T., Su, C.W., Shih, T.K., Liao, H.Y .M.: Video inpainting on digitized vintage films via maintaining spatiotemporal continuity. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 13(4), 602–614 (2011)

    2011

  42. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

    Wang, C., Huang, H., Han, X., Wang, J.: Video inpainting by jointly learning temporal struc- ture and spatial details. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. vol. 33, pp. 5232–5239 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06601 (2018)

    Wang, T.C., Liu, M.Y ., Zhu, J.Y ., Liu, G., Tao, A., Kautz, J., Catanzaro, B.: Video-to-video synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.06601 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 7594–7611 (2023)

    Wang, X., Yuan, H., Zhang, S., Chen, D., Wang, J., Zhang, Y ., Shen, Y ., Zhao, D., Zhou, J.: Videocomposer: Compositional video synthesis with motion controllability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 7594–7611 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Wang, Y ., Bao, J., Weng, W., Feng, R., Yin, D., Yang, T., Zhang, J., Dai, Q., Zhao, Z., Wang, C., et al.: Microcinema: A divide-and-conquer approach for text-to-video generation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 8414–8424 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2023)

    Wang, Z., Wang, J., Li, X., Li, Y .L., Lu, Y ., Wang, S.: Unsupervised temporal correspondence learning for unified video object removal. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    IEEE transactions on image processing13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from er- ror visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    2004

  48. [48]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Wei, Y ., Zhang, S., Qing, Z., Yuan, H., Liu, Z., Liu, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Zhou, J., Shan, H.: Dreamvideo: Composing your dream videos with customized subject and motion. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 6537–6549 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Weng, W., Feng, R., Wang, Y ., Dai, Q., Wang, C., Yin, D., Zhao, Z., Qiu, K., Bao, J., Yuan, Y ., et al.: Art-v: Auto-regressive text-to-video generation with diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 7395–7405 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Wu, J.Z., Ge, Y ., Wang, X., Lei, S.W., Gu, Y ., Shi, Y ., Hsu, W., Shan, Y ., Qie, X., Shou, M.Z.: Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 7623–7633 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Wu, J., Li, X., Si, C., Zhou, S., Yang, J., Zhang, J., Li, Y ., Chen, K., Tong, Y ., Liu, Z., et al.: Towards language-driven video inpainting via multimodal large language models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 12501–12511 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    In: Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision

    Xing, J., Xia, M., Zhang, Y ., Chen, H., Yu, W., Liu, H., Liu, G., Wang, X., Shan, Y ., Wong, T.T.: Dynamicrafter: Animating open-domain images with video diffusion priors. In: Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 399–417. Springer (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition

    Xing, Z., Dai, Q., Hu, H., Wu, Z., Jiang, Y .G.: Simda: Simple diffusion adapter for efficient video generation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition. pp. 7827–7839 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    In: Proceedings of the Eu- ropean conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Xu, N., Yang, L., Fan, Y ., Yang, J., Yue, D., Liang, Y ., Price, B., Cohen, S., Huang, T.: Youtube-vos: Sequence-to-sequence video object segmentation. In: Proceedings of the Eu- ropean conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 585–601 (2018) From Draft to Draft-Free 19

    2018

  55. [55]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Xu, R., Li, X., Zhou, B., Loy, C.C.: Deep flow-guided video inpainting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 3723–3732 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072 (2024)

    Yang, Z., Teng, J., Zheng, W., Ding, M., Huang, S., Xu, J., Yang, Y ., Hong, W., Zhang, X., Feng, G., et al.: Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Yoon, J., Yu, S., Bansal, M.: RACCooN: Versatile instructional video editing with auto- generated narratives. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 27960–27996. Association for Computational Linguistics (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition

    Zeng, Y ., Wei, G., Zheng, J., Zou, J., Wei, Y ., Zhang, Y ., Li, H.: Make pixels dance: High- dynamic video generation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition. pp. 8850–8860 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Zeng, Y ., Fu, J., Chao, H.: Learning joint spatial-temporal transformations for video inpaint- ing. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 528–543. Springer (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    In: European con- ference on computer vision

    Zhang, K., Fu, J., Liu, D.: Flow-guided transformer for video inpainting. In: European con- ference on computer vision. pp. 74–90. Springer (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion

    Zhang, K., Fu, J., Liu, D.: Inertia-guided flow completion and style fusion for video inpaint- ing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion. pp. 5982–5991 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 586–595 (2018)

    2018

  63. [63]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Zhang, R., Li, W., Wang, P., Guan, C., Fang, J., Song, Y ., Yu, J., Chen, B., Xu, W., Yang, R.: Autoremover: Automatic object removal for autonomous driving videos. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 34, pp. 12853–12861 (2020)

    2020

  64. [64]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Zheng, H., Nie, W., Vahdat, A., Azizzadenesheli, K., Anandkumar, A.: Fast sampling of diffusion models via operator learning. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 42390–42402. PMLR (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Zhou, S., Li, C., Chan, K.C., Loy, C.C.: Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 10477–10486 (2023)

    2023

  66. [66]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24873 (2025)

    Zi, B., Peng, W., Qi, X., Wang, J., Zhao, S., Xiao, R., Wong, K.F.: Minimax-remover: Taming bad noise helps video object removal. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24873 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025