Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Text-to-video models under-develop irreversible attributes instead of reversing them, shown by a null-tested progress/stasis protocol.

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 ↗

Text-to-video generators under-develop irreversible processes: near-zero progress and 92-100% stasis versus real footage (rho=+0.40, 35% static), confirmed by human raters.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A null-checked protocol and seven-model diagnosis of under-development in T2V; the readout-validity gap is manageable but should be controlled before publication. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00617 v1 pith:GKAAWSHC submitted 2026-08-01 cs.CV

Diagnosing Under-Development of Irreversible Processes in Video Generation

Jian Xu , Yanning Wu , Delu Zeng , John Paisley , Qibin Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-video generationirreversible processestemporal consistencyevaluation protocolnull baselinesunder-developmentdisentangled representationsmonotonicity
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.

The reading

Video generators are often treated as implicit world models, so whether they render irreversible changes—ice melting, paper charring, fruit rotting—is a basic fidelity question. The paper shows this question has been hard to answer: common metrics for 'reversal' score pure noise at chance and reward static clips. After null-testing candidate statistics, it builds a two-part protocol (attribute progress and stasis rate) and finds that seven text-to-video models barely develop irreversible attributes whereas real footage advances, a gap that nine human raters confirm. The reliable failure is under-development, not time reversal. A complementary result shows why the obvious fix—steering generation with a frozen attribute readout—is gameable, and why enforcing monotonicity inside a disentangled attribute latent can work instead.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that current text-to-video generators fail irreversible processes by under-development, not by systematic time reversal, and that this can be established reliably only with a null-tested two-part protocol. Using a per-attribute directional readout (a vision-language similarity to prompts like 'rusted' minus 'clean') and running real reference footage through the identical pipeline, the authors report real clips advance (rho = +0.40, 35% static) while every one of seven generators shows near-zero progress and 92–100% stasis; nine annotators rate real clips 2.75 vs 0.99 on a 0–4 scale of how much the process advances. Naive reversal metrics—a per-clip violation rat

What carries the argument

Central machinery: a directional attribute readout a(x) = <phi(x), u>, where phi is a vision-language image encoder and u is a text-defined attribute direction; a progress–stasis protocol built from the rank correlation between time and the readout plus a stasis rate, both calibrated against null baselines; and, for the repair, a swap-consistency trained disentangled autoencoder D(z_a, z_c) whose scalar or vector attribute latent z_a is forced monotone by isotonic projection or softplus increment dynamics. The readout carries the diagnosis; the monotone latent carries the proposed construction; an independent probe (e.g. a color statistic) certifies that apparent changes are real.

Load-bearing premise

The central diagnosis assumes the per-attribute measurement—comparing frames against text descriptions like 'rusted' versus 'clean'—tracks true attribute progress in both real and generated clips; if it partly responds to camera motion, lighting, or image quality, the reported gap between real and generated footage would shrink.

What would settle it

Take a clip of an object whose attribute never changes but whose camera moves steadily; if the directional text-based readout rises with the motion, the metric is not measuring the attribute, and the real-vs-generated separation would need to be re-scored.

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

If this is right

  • Any evaluation of irreversibility in text-to-video that reports a normalized violation rate or a generic embedding-monotonicity score should be re-run with the progress/stasis protocol; those metrics score pure noise and static clips favorably.
  • Unless training or architecture changes reward directional progress, new text-to-video models will likely continue to under-develop irreversible attributes; stasis is the dominant failure mode, not reversal.
  • Readout-guided editing or sampling that optimizes a frozen vision-language score cannot certify that the attribute was added; an independent probe is required, and even then the readout gap can close while the attribute stays flat.
  • Monotone-by-construction repair is only as good as the disentanglement: without a faithful attribute latent, a perfectly monotone latent can leave the visible attribute unchanged.
  • The protocol's progress and stasis numbers can serve as a reusable measurement instrument for future text-to-video models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the stasis finding generalizes, the right training fix is an explicit progress reward or a prompt-conditioned progress floor, not just an arrow-of-time constraint; a static clip already satisfies monotonicity.
  • The gaming result suggests a cheap safeguard for text-to-video evaluation: keep the score used to steer a model separate from the score used to judge it, and include a readout-independent physical or held-out probe.
  • The disentanglement bottleneck—leaky nuisance codes on real content—identifies a concrete research target: better attribute/nuisance separation on natural video could move the repair mechanism from synthetic renderers to real generators.
  • The null-degeneracy of normalized reversal metrics may apply beyond video generation, to any near-static time series where a monotone signal is measured with noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses whether text-to-video generators respect irreversible physical processes. It argues that naive metrics—a per-clip violation rate, a variance-normalized reversal residual, and a generic monotonicity score—are null-degenerate or reward stasis, and it proposes a two-part protocol: progress (correlation between time and an attribute-specific readout) and a stasis rate read against a matched real baseline. Applying this protocol to seven T2V models and 108 real reference clips, the paper reports a clean separation: real footage advances (rho=+0.40, 35% static) whereas generators show near-zero progress and 92–100% stasis. A nine-annotator human study validates the ordering. The paper further shows that post-hoc frozen-readout optimization is gameable: the readout rises while an independent physical probe stays flat. As an alternative, it enforces monotonicity by construction in a disentangled attribute latent, validating this in a controlled renderer and on Stable-Diffusion semi-synthetic content, with elementary propositions in the supplement.

Significance. If the diagnosis holds, the paper contributes a reusable, null-robust evaluation protocol for irreversibility in video generation and a well-supported negative finding: current generators under-develop irreversible attributes rather than systematically reversing them. The paper is unusually careful in several ways: it null-tests its own proposed metrics (Tables I and II), runs real reference footage through the identical pipeline, uses bootstrap CIs, category-level paired tests, leave-one-category-out checks, and a human study, and it distinguishes between readout, probe, and ground truth. The guiding assumptions are stated and empirically checked in controlled settings, and the theoretical claims are elementary but explicit. The main weakness is that the central large-scale diagnosis relies on a CLIP directional readout whose attribute-specificity on natural video is not established against the confound of general dynamicness; this is load-bearing and fixable with additional controls, so the paper merits major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (2)
  1. [III-l and III-m (Table III)] The central diagnosis uses the per-category CLIP directional readout a(x)=<phi(x),u> as the measure of irreversible-attribute progress. This readout can in principle increase under any visual change with a component along u—lighting drift, camera motion, global color shifts—not only under the named attribute. Section III-f itself reports that generated clips make 2–3x less overall change than real reference footage, so the observed separation (ρ=+0.40 vs. ≈0; stasis 35% vs. 92–100%) could be partly or entirely a separation in general dynamicness rather than in attribute-specific development. The human validation in III-m uses a 0–4 rating of 'how much the process advances,' which can track the same dynamicness. No control separates the attribute-specific direction from generic directional change: e.g., a reversible attribute axis, an axis-orthogonal direction u_perp, motion-matched real/
  2. [III-h] The readout-validity study in III-h is carried out on text-embedding-interpolated graded sequences (fixed latent, only the prompt attribute varies). This construct guarantees that the only systematic variation is the intended attribute and does not test discriminant validity against non-attribute sources of visual change (motion, camera, lighting, quality) in natural videos. Since the seven-model diagnosis is applied to real reference footage and generated clips with substantial motion differences, the protocol needs a demonstration that a(x) is insensitive to non-attribute change—for instance, a null experiment on reversed or frame-shuffled clips, or a comparison of a(x) with an independent probe on a sample of real videos. As written, the measurement study supports the readout's sensitivity to controlled attribute changes but not its specificity on the data to which the diagnosis is ap
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Several section references such as 'Sec. III-0d' and 'Sec. III-l' appear to be formatting artifacts from auto-numbering; please fix.
  2. [Table III] The CogVideoX-2b row reports ρ=+0.16 and stasis 90% without a confidence interval, unlike the other rows. State how the 40 clips (5 processes x 8 seeds) are aggregated and whether the other models' clips are per-prompt independent.
  3. [III-a and III-m] Section III-a mentions 'human evaluation (a three-annotator study we run below)' but Section III-m describes nine annotators; reconcile the numbers.
  4. [IV-b and IV-c] The section title says 'adversarially gamed,' but the body qualifies this for in-loop guidance (perceptibly directional but partial, with identity preservation underpowered). Align the title or abstract wording with the qualified claim.
  5. [S2] In Proposition 3, the constants m and κ are estimated through proxy probes; this limitation is stated in the supplement but should appear in the main text where the proposition is invoked.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the central diagnosis; one minor self-definitional loop in the readout-support validation.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. III-h (readout measurement study); cf. Sec. S3-a (readout and synthetic-sequence construction)]
    "Using text-embedding interpolation to synthesize graded sequences (fixed latent, attribute prompt interpolated 0→1) for five processes, an independent CLIP directional readout recovers the ground-truth progress with median rank correlation≈0.84 ... The attribute readout is a CLIP ViT-B/32 directional score a(x)=⟨ϕ(x), u⟩ with u=normalize(ψ(end)−ψ(start)); graded attribute sequences are produced by interpolating the CLIP text-encoder embedding from a start-state prompt e0 to an end-state prompt e1 as (1−α)e0 + αe1."

    The 'ground-truth progress' in this validation is the interpolation level α used to generate the synthetic clip. The readout axis u is exactly the normalized difference of the same two prompt embeddings (ψ(end)−ψ(start)) that are linearly interpolated to produce the clip. A CLIP image encoder trained to align image and text embeddings will therefore produce ⟨φ(x_α), u⟩ monotonically increasing in α by construction; the high rank correlation and 100% reversal detection are a self-consistency check of CLIP's text-image alignment, not an independent confirmation that the readout isolates the visual attribute. The seven-model diagnosis uses this same per-category directional readout, so this support step is partly self-fulfilling. The central real-vs-generated separation is nevertheless not re

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is genuinely self-contained. The seven-model diagnosis (Sec. III-l, Table III) applies a fixed per-category CLIP directional readout to both real reference footage and generated clips, with no parameter fitted to the data determining the outcome; the real/generated separation is then corroborated by nine human annotators on source-hidden clips (Sec. III-m). The protocol's null checks (Tables I-II) are simulations with explicit noise models and do not presuppose the conclusion; the paper explicitly refuses to report the degenerate V statistic. The theoretical guarantees (Props. 1-6) are stated as conditional on Assumptions 1-2 (faithful, disentangled decoder), which are empirically probed in the controlled renderer and SD semi-synthetic grid; the assumptions are not the target result. The controlled monotone-by-construction validation includes the decisive entangled-latent ablation showing monotonicity alone gives zero repair, so the benefit is attributed to disentanglement rather than to the constraint. The only concrete circularity is in the readout-support study of Sec. III-h: the synthetic 'ground-truth' progress is generated by interpolating the same prompt-embedding endpoints that define the readout axis u, so the reported rank correlation is partly a self-consistency check of CLIP rather than independent evidence of attribute-specific tracking. This step is not load-bearing for the headline real-vs-generated separation, which survives human validation and threshold sweeps, but it does weaken the attribute-specificity argument. There are no load-bearing self-citations; the cited benchmarks are external. The paper's explicit scope/limitation statements (S1) further reduce any hidden-circularity concern by disclaiming reversal claims and acknowledging probe faithfulness limits.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the validity of CLIP-based progress readouts and on the representativeness of ChronoMagic-Bench real time-lapses. The enforcement guarantees rest on Assumptions 1-2, which are empirically checked in controlled domains but only approximate on real video. No new physical entities are introduced; z_a is a latent coordinate, not a new entity.

free parameters (3)
  • stasis threshold tau = 0.05 (swept over 0.03-0.12)
    Chosen threshold defining 'static'; the protocol's stasis numbers depend on it, but robustness to the sweep is reported.
  • violation threshold epsilon = 0.003 (used for CogVideoX violation-rate measurement)
    Chosen threshold for detecting decreases in the readout; not part of the headline protocol, which abandons violation rates.
  • progress floor epsilon in floored dynamics = not reported
    Positive increment added in Prop. 4 to prevent stasis; the numeric value is left unspecified and the floor is scoped as a diagnostic.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1 (A1, A2): the decoder is attribute-faithful in z_a and z_c carries no attribute information.
    Used in Prop. 2 to prove non-gameable monotonicity; empirically checked via probe sensitivity to z_a and invariance to z_c in Sec. V-A, but only in controlled domains.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2 (A1', A2'): approximate faithful disentanglement with margin m and defect kappa.
    Used in Props. 3-4 for robust guarantees; m and kappa are measurable but only estimated through proxy probes.
  • domain assumption Factored renderer x=R(u,v) with attribute u and independent nuisance v, and exact swap reconstruction.
    Used in Prop. 6 to show swap consistency identifies the split; holds by construction in the synthetic renderer and approximately in the SD grid.
  • domain assumption The per-category CLIP directional readout and the mean orange-blue chroma probe are valid proxies for the true irreversible attribute.
    Load-bearing for the diagnosis and for the guidance/probe experiments; validated by rank correlation on synthetic sequences and human ratings, but not certified for all content.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diagnosing Under-Development of Irreversible Processes in Video Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKAAWSHC

@misc{pith2026260800617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diagnosing Under-Development of Irreversible Processes in Video Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKAAWSHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00617}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Many physical attributes are \emph{irreversible}: ice melts but does not re-freeze, paper chars but does not un-burn. Do video generators respect this? We show the question is hard to measure, and that what can be measured reliably is \emph{development} rather than reversal. Metrics of local reversal are null-degenerate: a per-clip violation rate scores $0.50$ on pure noise, and a variance-normalized reversal residual sits at its noise ceiling. What survives null-testing is a two-part protocol: progress (a directional attribute correlation) and a stasis rate. Under this protocol, generated video separates cleanly from real footage, and the gap is human-validated. Across seven text-to-video models, real reference footage advances ($\rho{=}{+}0.40$, $35\%$ static) while every generator shows near-zero progress and $92$--$100\%$ stasis; nine annotators rate real footage far above generated ($2.75$ vs.\ $0.99$ on a $0$--$4$ scale). The reliable finding is \emph{under-development}: generators barely advance irreversible attributes rather than reversing them. As a complementary mechanism, we show that post-hoc readout guidance is gameable, whereas enforcing monotonicity by construction in a disentangled attribute latent removes the gameable readout, validated in controlled and semi-synthetic settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00617 by Delu Zeng, Jian Xu, John Paisley, Qibin Zhao, Yanning Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Gallery of generated graded irreversible processes. Each row is a process; columns interpolate the attribute from start to end state at fixed nuisance. Sixteen diverse processes across materials (rust, corrosion, weathering, char), biology (rot, mold, ripening, decay, plant death), and a person (face aging) all render as coherent monotone progressions. 0.0 0.5 1.0 REAL reference CogVideoX-2b MCM-MSLAION Ma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The progress–stasis protocol across real footage and seven T2V models. Per-model means of the two null-surviving metrics. Real reference footage (green), run through the identical protocol, is the achievable baseline (ρ=+0.40, 35% static); every generator instead clusters near zero progress and near-total stasis, clearly separated from real footage. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 backtracking ratio R (mean … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A generic monotonicity metric does not separate real from generated. Left: backtracking ratio (backward motion / total motion) is no lower for six T2V models than for real time-lapse. Right: the models simply change 2–3× less. A generic metric therefore rewards stasis, which is why we use attribute-specific readouts, independent probes, and always report progress alongside violations. their initial state o… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Readout measurement study. Rank correlation between a directional attribute readout and ground-truth progress, and stability across paraphrased attribute axes, for five processes on generated content. Gradual attributes are tracked well; the abrupt process (burning) is weakest, matching the stated scope. Injected reversals are detected in 100% of cases. TABLE II NULL BASELINES (T =8, 20K DRAWS). PROGRESS ρ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-seed progress correlation (CogVideoX-2b, 8 seeds/process, mean ±95% CI). Means hover near zero with large spread; 25–50% of seeds run backwards and progress magnitudes are negligible (0.002–0.012). The failure is under-development and inconsistency, not systematic reversal. We plot ρ, not the degenerate violation rate V (Table I). agreement 0.73. Humans thus confirm the headline: generators under-dev… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Five frozen readouts, one guidance procedure, one independent probe. All readouts reach their target (purple = 1.0), but the readout￾independent attribute barely moves (green). Learned/robust attribute regressors resist best (0.26–0.32) yet still leave most of the gap unfilled; CLIP-based scores and their ensemble are gamed outright [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Post-hoc frozen-readout guidance is gamed (for the readouts we test). Left to right: a rusted neighbour frame; an injected low-attribute (clean￾metal) frame; the frame after weak and strong monotonicity guidance; another rusted neighbour. Guidance raises the CLIP readout to the monotone target, but the frames stay visibly clean metal and the readout-independent color probe does not move—the readout is sati… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Guidance games the readout; a real fix must move the independent probe. Fraction of the gap to the true rusted state closed by each method, measured by the guidance readout (purple) versus a readout-independent physical probe (green). Frozen-readout guidance closes most of the readout gap but essentially none of the probe gap (3%)—it is gamed. Reject/resample moves both, but only by replacing the object’s … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: In-loop diffusion guidance sweep (held-out probe recovery vs. perceptual deviation). Six strengths × two step budgets × three readouts; point size is guidance strength. CLIP guidance (purple) barely moves the held-out probe while the output deviates strongly from the plain generation; learned/robust regressors (orange/green) raise the probe only at large percep￾tual deviation. The corner with high probe re… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Method: enforce the arrow of time in a disentangled latent, not on a readout. A swap-consistency encoder E splits each frame into an attribute za and content zc. A reversal in the attribute trajectory (red) is removed by a monotone constraint (isotonic projection Π↑ post-hoc, or a softplus positive-increment dynamics), giving a non-decreasing path (green) while zc is untouched; the decoder D then renders … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Genuine attribute repair in the controlled renderer. Rows: input sequence with an injected reversal (7th frame is clean); reconstruction from the raw encoded attribute (reproduces the reversal); decode from the monotone￾projected attribute latent (the 7th frame is rendered as a genuinely rusted bar, same position/width/background). Unlike guidance, the readout-independent color probe rises to the neighbou… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Disentanglement. Left: the decoded attribute (color probe) responds monotonically to za (a large sensitivity gap is what gives the monotone constraint teeth). Right: the attribute is nearly invariant to random resampling of zc, confirming nuisance and attribute are separated. B. The cost of post-hoc autoencoding, and why it is not the constraint Applying the constraint by encoding every frame and de￾codin… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Monotone dynamics enforces a vector partial order at generation time. Per-component violation rate (independent probes) over 2×-horizon noisy rollouts. The unconstrained dynamics reverses each irreversible compo￾nent as noise grows; the monotone dynamics keeps latent violations at exactly zero by construction and greatly reduces probe-measured violations. Residual probe violations reflect probe unfaithful… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mechanism transfers to Stable Diffusion content. Rows: SD-generated sequence with an injected reversal; disentangled-autoencoder reconstruction; decode from the monotone-projected attribute latent. The clean→rust progression is preserved and the reversal is removed; the au￾toencoder softens SD detail (the fidelity bottleneck the analysis predicts on real content). genuine (readout-independent probe recove… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Repair reduces to decoder faithfulness (A1). Each point is a trained autoencoder; x-axis is the empirical faithfulness margin (probe response to za), y-axis the genuine repair recovery on injected reversals, color is the swap￾disentanglement weight. Recovery is ≈ 0 when the decoder is not faithful to za and jumps once the margin is positive (r = 0.90), as Proposition 3 predicts. b) Monotonicity alone is v… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Readout tracking across sixteen processes. Rank correlation ρ(α, a) per process (blue: gradual, in-scope ρ ≥ 0.7; red: abrupt). Median ρ = 0.92; 15/16 in-scope. of 16 processes, with an 88% reversal-detection rate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.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

36 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    OSCBench: Benchmarking Object State Change in Text-to-Video Generation

    X. Han, B. Zhu, S. Hu, F. M. Li, P. Carrington, R. Zimmermann, and J. Chen, “OSCBench: Benchmarking object state change in text-to-video generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11698, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    ChronoMagic-Bench: A benchmark for metamorphic evaluation of text-to-time-lapse video generation,

    S. Yuan, J. Huanget al., “ChronoMagic-Bench: A benchmark for metamorphic evaluation of text-to-time-lapse video generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18522, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Do generative video models understand physical principles?

    S. Motamed, L. Culp, K. Swersky, P. Jaini, and R. Geirhos, “Do generative video models understand physical principles?” inIEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2026, pp. 948–958

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Videophy: Evaluating physical commonsense for video generation,

    H. Bansal, Z. Lin, T. Xie, Z. Zong, M. Yarom, Y . Bitton, C. Jiang, Y . Sun, K.-W. Chang, and A. Grover, “Videophy: Evaluating physical commonsense for video generation,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Worldmodelbench: Judging video generation models as world models,

    D. Li, Y . Fang, Y . Chen, S. Yang, S. Cao, J. Wong, M. Luo, X. Wang, H. Yin, J. Gonzalez, I. Stoica, S. Han, and Y . Lu, “Worldmodelbench: Judging video generation models as world models,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Look for the change: Learning object states and state-modifying actions from untrimmed web videos,

    T. Sou ˇcek, J.-B. Alayrac, A. Miech, I. Laptev, and J. Sivic, “Look for the change: Learning object states and state-modifying actions from untrimmed web videos,” inCVPR, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Seeing the arrow of time in large multimodal models,

    Z. Xue, M. Luo, and K. Grauman, “Seeing the arrow of time in large multimodal models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03340, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    AUTM flow: Atomic unrestricted time machine for monotonic normalizing flows,

    D. Cai, Y . Ji, H. He, Q. Ye, and Y . Xi, “AUTM flow: Atomic unrestricted time machine for monotonic normalizing flows,” inUAI, 2022

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Invertible Monotone Operators for Normalizing Flows

    B. Ahn, C. Kim, Y . Hong, and H. J. Kim, “Invertible monotone operators for normalizing flows,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08176, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Constrained synthesis with projected diffusion models,

    J. K. Christopher, S. Baek, and F. Fioretto, “Constrained synthesis with projected diffusion models,” inNeurIPS, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Towards world simulator: Crafting physical commonsense-based benchmark for video generation,

    F. Meng, J. Liao, X. Tan, W. Shao, Q. Lu, K. Zhang, Y . Qiao, and P. Luo, “Towards world simulator: Crafting physical commonsense-based benchmark for video generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05363, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    GenHowTo: Learning to generate actions and state transformations from instructional videos,

    T. Sou ˇcek, D. Damen, M. Wray, I. Laptev, and J. Sivic, “GenHowTo: Learning to generate actions and state transformations from instructional videos,” inCVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    WISA: World simulator assistant for physics-aware text- to-video generation,

    J. Wang, A. Ma, K. Cao, J. Zheng, J. Feng, Z. Zhang, W. Pang, and X. Liang, “WISA: World simulator assistant for physics-aware text- to-video generation,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Physical simulator in-the-loop video generation,

    L. G. Foo, M. H. Huang, A. Lattas, S. Moschoglou, T. Beeler, and C. Theobalt, “Physical simulator in-the-loop video generation,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2026, pp. 4301–4311

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    PHANTOM: Physics- infused video generation via joint modeling of visual and latent physical dynamics,

    Y . Shen, J. Xiong, T. Yu, and I. Lourentzou, “PHANTOM: Physics- infused video generation via joint modeling of visual and latent physical dynamics,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2026, pp. 11 185–11 194

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation,

    Y . He, T. Yang, Y . Zhanget al., “Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation,”arXiv:2211.13221, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    VideoComposer: Compositional video synthesis with motion controllability,

    X. Wang, H. Yuan, S. Zhanget al., “VideoComposer: Compositional video synthesis with motion controllability,”NeurIPS, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    LSTD: Long short-term temporal diffusion for video generation,

    H. Zhao, J. Gu, S. Wang, T. Lu, X. Zhang, Z. Wu, H. Xu, and Y .-G. Jiang, “LSTD: Long short-term temporal diffusion for video generation,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 28, pp. 2460–2473, 2026

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    FluencyVE: Marrying temporal- aware mamba with bypass attention for video editing,

    M. Cai, Y . Li, O. Yoshie, and Y . Ieiri, “FluencyVE: Marrying temporal- aware mamba with bypass attention for video editing,”IEEE Transac- tions on Multimedia, vol. 28, pp. 3202–3213, 2026

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Monotonic networks,

    J. Sill, “Monotonic networks,” inNeurIPS, 1997

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    Constrained monotonic neural networks,

    D. Runje and S. M. Shankaranarayana, “Constrained monotonic neural networks,” inICML, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Learning dynamical systems from partial observations,

    I. Ayed, E. de B ´ezenac, A. Pajotet al., “Learning dynamical systems from partial observations,”arXiv:1902.11136, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1902

  23. [23]

    Challenging common assump- tions in the unsupervised learning of disentangled representations,

    F. Locatello, S. Bauer, M. Lucicet al., “Challenging common assump- tions in the unsupervised learning of disentangled representations,” in ICML, 2019

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Variational autoencoders and nonlinear ICA: A unifying framework,

    I. Khemakhem, D. Kingma, R. Monti, and A. Hyvarinen, “Variational autoencoders and nonlinear ICA: A unifying framework,” inAISTATS, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Concept bottleneck models,

    P. W. Koh, T. Nguyen, Y . S. Tanget al., “Concept bottleneck models,” inICML, 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    VideoDreamer: Customized multi-subject text-to-video generation with disen-mix finetuning on language-video foundation IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA 11 models,

    H. Chen, X. Wang, G. Zeng, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhou, F. Han, Y . Wu, and W. Zhu, “VideoDreamer: Customized multi-subject text-to-video generation with disen-mix finetuning on language-video foundation IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA 11 models,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 27, pp. 2875–2885, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Defining and characterizing reward gaming,

    J. Skalse, N. Howe, D. Krasheninnikov, and D. Krueger, “Defining and characterizing reward gaming,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 35, 2022, pp. 9460–9471

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization,

    L. Gao, J. Schulman, and J. Hilton, “Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization,”ICML, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    PISA exper- iments: Exploring physics post-training for video diffusion models by watching stuff drop,

    C. Li, O. Michel, X. Pan, S. Liu, M. Roberts, and S. Xie, “PISA exper- iments: Exploring physics post-training for video diffusion models by watching stuff drop,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025, pp. 35 685–35 709

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Temporal cycle-consistency learning (video time alignment),

    D. Dwibedi, Y . Aytar, J. Tompson, P. Sermanet, and A. Zisserman, “Temporal cycle-consistency learning (video time alignment),” inCVPR, 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Representation learning via global temporal alignment and cycle-consistency (phase/time align- ment),

    I. Hadji, K. G. Derpanis, and A. D. Jepson, “Representation learning via global temporal alignment and cycle-consistency (phase/time align- ment),” inCVPR, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clarket al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inICML, 2021

    2021

  33. [33]

    Adversarial diffusion distillation,

    A. Sauer, D. Lorenz, A. Blattmann, and R. Rombach, “Adversarial diffusion distillation,” inarXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17042, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” inCVPR, 2022

    2022

  35. [35]

    CogVideoX: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer,

    Z. Yang, J. Teng, W. Zheng, M. Ding, S. Huanget al., “CogVideoX: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA 12 Supplementary Material IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA 13 S1. SCOPE ANDLIMITATIONS We deliberately scope v1 togradual, approximately scalar irreversible attrib...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [64]

    Evaluation injects a reversal at a mid-sequence frame over8seeds/positions

    to(z a ∈R 1, zc ∈R 8)and a mirrored deconv decoder; it is trained for6000Adam steps (lr2×10 −3, batch128) on L=∥ˆx−x∥ 2 +∥D(z a, z(π) c )−R(a,nuis (π))∥2 +0.5∥z a −a∥ 2, whereπis a random permutation (the swap term) andRthe renderer. Evaluation injects a reversal at a mid-sequence frame over8seeds/positions. c) Latent dynamics and monotone-variant baselin...

    work page

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.