Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 20 references

DragStream shows that drag-based editing of autoregressively generated video can run on the fly with no training, by repairing latent drift and filtering context interference.

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

2026-08-04 11:37 UTC pith:7JK3BSUU

load-bearing objection A genuinely new streaming-drag task with a plausible training-free method, but the quantitative evidence is too weak to fully trust the headline claims. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2510.03550 v4 pith:7JK3BSUU submitted 2025-10-03 cs.CV

Streaming Drag-Oriented Interactive Video Manipulation: Drag Anything, Anytime!

Junbao Zhou , Yuan Zhou , Kesen Zhao , Qingshan Xu , Beier Zhu , Richang Hong , Hanwang Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords streaming video manipulationdrag-based editingautoregressive video diffusiontraining-free controllatent optimizationdistribution driftfrequency-domain selectioninteractive generation
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 paper proposes a new task, REVEL: letting a user drag any frame of a video while it is being generated, with support for translation, deformation, and 2D/3D rotation, in both an edit-a-frame mode and an animate-forward mode. It argues that this can be done without finetuning the video diffusion model, treating each drag as an iterative optimization of the latent code at a chosen denoising step. Two obstacles stand in the way: drag-induced perturbations accumulate and push the latent off-distribution, halting the drag, and context frames interfere with the edited result, producing artifacts. The paper's method, DragStream, counters the first by rescaling the optimized latent to match the mean and standard deviation of neighboring latents, and the second by selectively propagating context in the frequency and spatial domains. A sympathetic reader cares because the result is a plug-in control layer for existing autoregressive video models that avoids the hundreds or thousands of GPU-hours required by finetuning-based alternatives.

Core claim

The central claim is that streaming drag control over autoregressive video diffusion models is achievable at inference time alone, with no training, as long as two failure modes are addressed. DragStream first identifies that each drag optimization step perturbs the latent distribution; over iterations this drift breaks the denoiser, so it rectifies the latent after every step by renormalizing to the mean and standard deviation of the preceding neighboring latents at the same timestep (ADSR). It also observes that context frames, while essential for visual consistency, carry high-frequency details that dominate the optimization and create artifacts, so it filters the cached keys and values i

What carries the argument

ADSR (adaptive distribution self-rectification) is a moment-matching step that, after each latent optimization iteration, rescales the dragged latent so that its mean and standard deviation equal those of the preceding neighboring latents at the same denoising timestep, preventing cumulative drift. SFSO (spatial-frequency selective optimization) is a two-part mechanism: switchable frequency-domain selection, which applies a Butterworth filter with a randomly chosen cutoff frequency to the cached self-attention keys and values so that each iteration mixes low-frequency robustness with high-frequency detail, and criticality-driven spatial-domain selection, a Gaussian filtering map that suppres

Load-bearing premise

ADSR assumes that the mean and standard deviation of a few neighboring latents are a safe reference distribution and that rescaling the optimized latent to those statistics does not erase the drag signal.

What would settle it

A sustained stress test: run a long stream in which a user applies many successive drags to different objects, and measure the KL divergence between the optimized latent distribution and the neighbor distribution after each drag; if the divergence grows without bound, or object attributes change and the drag halts, the central claim fails. A simpler check is whether a drag on an object far outside the training distribution still succeeds with ADSR applied.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Users could correct a frame mid-generation without regenerating the video, because the edit propagates through the context window to subsequent frames.
  • The method is model-agnostic: demonstrated on two different autoregressive video diffusion models, it could become a standard inference-time control layer.
  • Because it is training-free, adding drag control costs only inference-time optimization, making interactive video manipulation feasible on a single GPU.
  • The unified operation format (editing and animation, each with translation, deformation, and rotation) provides a common interface for future drag-style video manipulation systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If ADSR generalizes beyond short clips, local moment matching could become a general recipe for any optimization-based latent editing in autoregressive diffusion, not just drag operations.
  • The switchable-frequency idea may transfer to other context-conditioned generation tasks where high-frequency leakage from reference frames causes artifacts, such as long-context text-to-video or image-to-video.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply ADSR to other perturbation sources (text prompts, camera controls, pose edits) to see whether the same drift-repair mechanism holds.
  • The 'anytime, anything' claim is only established for the tested regime: 204 short Self-Forcing clips; longer streams or out-of-distribution content could break the neighboring-latent reference assumption.

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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces REVEL, a streaming drag-oriented interactive video manipulation task, and proposes DragStream, a training-free plug-in for autoregressive video diffusion models. DragStream combines an Adaptive Distribution Self-Rectification (ADSR) strategy, which normalizes the optimized latent to the mean/standard deviation of neighboring context latents, with a Spatial-Frequency Selective Optimization (SFSO) mechanism, which filters keys/values in the frequency domain and gates gradients spatially during iterative latent optimization. The authors claim that this enables both editing and animation operations (translation, deformation, 2D/3D rotation) at any frame during autoregressive generation, and that it integrates seamlessly with existing autoregressive VDMs such as Self-Forcing and CausVid. Experiments are reported on a newly annotated benchmark of 204 Self-Forcing-generated clips, with FVD, FID, ObjMC, and DAI metrics, plus qualitative visualizations and ablations.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would make a useful practical contribution: a training-free, model-agnostic mechanism for interactive drag control of autoregressive video diffusion models, with a unified treatment of editing and animation. The REVEL task definition is clear and the qualitative demonstration of drag-induced effects (including rotation and deformation) is compelling. The paper also merits credit for attempting to identify latent drift and context interference as distinct failure modes and for providing component-level ablations. However, the current evidence is not sufficient to establish the central claim: the main quantitative figures are unreadable in the provided PDF, the benchmark is small and self-generated, no code or data are released, and the headline metrics (ObjMC and DAI) are closely aligned with the very objective the method optimizes. The ADSR mechanism also raises a specific correctness risk that is not addressed by any long-horizon or repeated-drag test.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figures 5-7] The quantitative results that carry the central claim are not legible in the provided manuscript. Figure 5 (and similarly Figures 6 and 7) renders as a sequence of broken substitution glyphs (e.g., "/uni00000016/...") rather than visible bars or numbers, so none of the FVD/FID/ObjMC/DAI values can be read. This is not a cosmetic issue: the main text's assertion of consistent quantitative superiority cannot be verified. The only legible numeric table is Appendix H (Table 2). The authors should provide readable figures, or equivalently tabulate all reported numbers, for every experiment that is used to support the performance claims.
  2. [Appendix C.2, Eq. (11) vs. Eq. (3)] The DAI and ObjMC metrics are not independent of the DragStream optimization objective. DAI (Eq. 11) measures the latent-feature difference between the original handle region and the target region, which is exactly what the reconstruction loss L_Rec (Eq. 3) minimizes by transplanting source-handle features to the target position. ObjMC similarly measures adherence to the user-specified trajectory that defines the optimization target in Eq. (1). Thus the headline 'better ObjMC/DAI' partially reports the method's own objective. Since the adapted baselines also use latent optimization, the comparison is not wholly meaningless, but the paper should acknowledge this circularity and supplement the evaluation with independent metrics: e.g., user studies, point tracking on held-out points, appearance/identity preservation, or measurements of the actual physical displacement achieved.
  3. [Proposition 2, Eq. (4)] ADSR is load-bearing, but its key assumption is unverified. The method rescales the optimized latent z_{T'}^{k'} to the mean and standard deviation of neighboring latents after every iteration. Figure 2(a) shows that drag operations shift precisely these first-order moments (mean, variance, min, max); Eq. (4) then removes that shift. The paper gives no decomposition of how much of the handle-point displacement is carried by the global moments versus the residual spatial structure, and no long-horizon or repeated-drag test that would rule out partial cancellation of the user's intended motion. The evaluation uses only 204 short Self-Forcing clips, which cannot establish that the mechanism is safe under streaming sessions with multiple or long drags. Please add a direct stress test that measures handle-point displacement with and without ADSR, and report whether the method remains stable w
  4. [Propositions 2-4] The paper labels the three components as 'Propositions,' but no proofs or derivations are supplied. Proposition 2 states a heuristic normalization; Proposition 3 states a frequency-domain filtering choice; Proposition 4 states a spatial gradient mask. Each is plausible, and the ablation plots (once readable) may support them empirically, but calling them propositions without formal statements or assumptions overstates their status. Please either provide rigorous statements (with conditions under which the normalization preserves the drag signal, or the filter choice is optimal) or rename them as design choices/heuristics.
  5. [Appendix C.1] The benchmark is small and self-contained: 204 clips generated by Self-Forcing, annotated by the authors, with no external data, no code, and no data release. No confidence intervals, per-category breakdown, or statistical significance tests are reported. The claim that DragStream is 'seamlessly integrated into existing autoregressive VDMs' is supported only by qualitative results on CausVid in Appendix I. For a new task definition and a proposed method, the evaluation should include: (i) release of code and benchmark annotations; (ii) numerical tables with error bars; and (iii) at least one experiment on a longer stream or a repeated-drag scenario to substantiate the streaming claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, REMARK 2] Typo: 'achievninbg' should be 'achieving'.
  2. [Section 3 and Section 4.2.1] There are two remarks labeled 'REMARK 2': one after Proposition 1 and one after Eq. (3). Renumber to avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix B, Table 1] 'Notions' should be 'Notations'.
  4. [Section 4.1] The notation definitions contain repeated typos: 'indictor' should be 'indicator' (two occurrences).
  5. [Proposition 3, Eq. (7)] The cutoff frequency set {0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1} is given without units (normalized frequency?). Clarify how the Butterworth filter is applied to 2D feature maps and what value of N and the omega_i correspond to.
  6. [Section 5.1] The quantitative figures are not only unreadable but also appear to omit the actual numbers in the text. Even after fixing the rendering, please include the numeric values in the caption or body so that the results are accessible to all readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: DragStream's training-free latent optimization is evaluated with independent FVD/FID and task-level drag metrics; no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. DragStream is a training-free latent-region optimizer (Eqs. 2-3) with ADSR (Eq. 4) and SFSO/CSS (Eqs. 5-10); none of these equations is defined in terms of the quantities they are claimed to predict. The main quantitative claims rest on FVD/FID, which are standard distribution-quality metrics independent of the optimization, plus ObjMC/DAI, which are task-defined drag-fidelity metrics. Although DAI (Eq. 11) is conceptually similar to L_Rec (Eq. 3), it is not algebraically the same quantity: L_Rec operates on intermediate multi-layer DiT features F(z_T'^{k'}) at timestep T'=3 with a mask Y_i^{k'}, while DAI is computed on the final decoded latents z_0 around radius-r trajectory neighborhoods; the paper never fits or predicts DAI from L_Rec. ObjMC uses an external tracker (Co-Tracker 3) against user trajectories, so it is not the loss. The only self-citation is DragNeXt for the r=20 setting in DAI, which is a metric hyperparameter, not a load-bearing premise; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from author-only prior work. The ADSR moment-matching step is a plausible correctness risk (it may partially erase drag-induced moment shifts), but that is a robustness concern, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing machinery is heuristic: ADSR, SFS, and CSS are stated as Propositions but are recipes. The drag-specific evaluation metrics ObjMC and DAI are computed against the same user trajectory used in the optimization loss, so the empirical anchor for the headline claim is partly circular. The independent anchors are FVD/FID and visual inspection only.

free parameters (4)
  • Butterworth cutoff frequency set = {0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1}
    SFS randomly selects a cutoff from this set each iteration. Section 5.2/Figure 7 shows both too-small and too-large cutoffs hurt, and the 'switchable' set is tuned to balance them; no selection rule or held-out validation is given.
  • Gaussian focus scale alpha = 1
    CSS gradient masking sets sigma_x = W/2 * alpha and sigma_y = H/2 * alpha with alpha = 1 (Eq. 10). The value is chosen by hand, with only a qualitative visualization in Figure 11.
  • Latent optimization settings = T'=3, I=4, layers 12-15, lr=4e-2
    These values are copied from DragVideo/SG-I2V and are critical to whether the drag reaches its target; they are not varied or justified beyond citing prior work.
  • ADSR neighbor window L_n = not specified
    Eq. (4) averages statistics over {z_i}_{i=k'-L_n-1:k'-1}, but L_n is never defined. The rectification strength depends on this unspecified number.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Autoregressive VDM chain-rule decomposition and KV-cache streaming
    The method assumes the underlying model factors as P(Gamma_1:k) = prod P(Gamma_i | context) (Section 4.1) and that editing a latent at an intermediate timestep propagates through the context window.
  • domain assumption Features from DiT layers 12-15 encode enough semantic structure for drag points
    F(z) extracts features from specific layers and the optimization trusts those features to localize handle regions; no independent evidence is given for this choice in the streaming setting.
  • ad hoc to paper Moment normalization by neighboring latents does not erase the drag signal
    Proposition 2 (Eq. 4) rescales the optimized latent to neighbor statistics, but the paper gives no proof or analysis that this preserves the direction of the drag while removing drift.
  • ad hoc to paper Butterworth-filtered keys/values retain semantics while suppressing artifacts
    Proposition 3 assumes frequency-domain filtering of cached KV features preserves object identity and appearance; the paper gives qualitative comparisons but no formal or quantitative characterization.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian gradient masking prevents background over-optimization
    Proposition 4 assumes the Gaussian mask with alpha=1 protects background while still allowing large deformations and rotations; no analysis shows the mask cannot block needed context propagation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20232 in / 10895 out tokens · 82424 ms · 2026-08-04T11:37:18.185051+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Streaming Drag-Oriented Interactive Video Manipulation: Drag Anything, Anytime!." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7JK3BSUU

@misc{pith2026251003550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Streaming Drag-Oriented Interactive Video Manipulation: Drag Anything, Anytime!},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7JK3BSUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.03550}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Achieving streaming, fine-grained control over the outputs of autoregressive video diffusion models remains challenging, making it difficult to ensure that they consistently align with user expectations. To bridge this gap, we propose \textbf{stReaming drag-oriEnted interactiVe vidEo manipuLation (REVEL)}, a new task that enables users to modify generated videos \emph{anytime} on \emph{anything} via fine-grained, interactive drag. Beyond DragVideo and SG-I2V, REVEL unifies drag-style video manipulation as editing and animating video frames with both supporting user-specified translation, deformation, and rotation effects, making drag operations versatile. In resolving REVEL, we observe: \emph{i}) drag-induced perturbations accumulate in latent space, causing severe latent distribution drift that halts the drag process; \emph{ii}) streaming drag is easily disturbed by context frames, thereby yielding visually unnatural outcomes. We thus propose a training-free approach, \textbf{DragStream}, comprising: \emph{i}) an adaptive distribution self-rectification strategy that leverages neighboring frames' statistics to effectively constrain the drift of latent embeddings; \emph{ii}) a spatial-frequency selective optimization mechanism, allowing the model to fully exploit contextual information while mitigating its interference via selectively propagating visual cues along generation. Our method can be seamlessly integrated into existing autoregressive video diffusion models, and extensive experiments firmly demonstrate the effectiveness of our DragStream.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03550 by Beier Zhu, Hanwang Zhang, Junbao Zhou, Kesen Zhao, Qingshan Xu, Richang Hong, Yuan Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of our REVEL task. The streaming video manipulation results shown above— including both Editing and Animation with drag effects such as object translation (“Trans”), deformation (“Defor”), and rotation (“Rot”)—are produced by our DragStream method. ABSTRACT Achieving streaming, fine-grained control over the outputs of autoregressive video diffusion models remains challenging, making it difficult t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of Challenge 1 and Challenge 2. Here, editing refers to directly modifying the content of generated video frames, whereas animation represents generating a video clip from an existing frame according to user-given drag instructions. REMARK 2. Here, we clarify how our REVEL task differs from prior works on drag-based video editing and generation. DragVideo Deng et al. (2024) is a recent typical dra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic illustration of our DragStream, where an Adaptive Distribution Self￾Rectification (ADSR) strategy and a Spatial-Frequency Selective Optimization (SFSO) mechanism are designed to suppress latent distribution drift and context interference, respectively. the car (“w/o SFSO”), which obviously lowers the quality of generated videos. We will introduce how to overcome context interference by using our … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization results achieved by our DragStream on REVEL. Note that Editing produces only one video frame, but we insert an extra subsequent frame to maintain layout consis￾tency with Animation. REFERENCES Jianhong Bai, Menghan Xia, Xiao Fu, Xintao Wang, Lianrui Mu, Jinwen Cao, Zuozhu Liu, Haoji Hu, Xiang Bai, Pengfei Wan, et al. Recammaster: Camera-controlled generative rendering from a single video. arX… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantitative performance achieved by our method in terms of ObjMC, FVD, FID, and DAI. “↓” indicates that lower values correspond to better performance. w/o ADSR,SFSOw/ ADSR w/ ADSR,SFS w/ ADSR,CSS Full 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 Score ObjMC ( ) w/o ADSR,SFSOw/ ADSR w/ ADSR,SFS w/ ADSR,CSS Full 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 Score FVD ( ) w/o ADSR,SFSOw/ ADSR w/ ADSR,SFS w/ ADSR,CSS Full 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0 2… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study on the key components of our DragStream. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Switch Cutoff frequency 24 25 26 27 Score ObjMC ( ) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Switch Cutoff frequency 552 556 560 564 568 572 576 580 584 588 Score FVD ( ) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Switch Cutoff frequency 24.0 24.5 Score FID ( ) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Switch Cutoff frequency 0.052 0.053 0.054 0.055 0.056 0.057 Score DAI ( ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analysis on the influence of the cutoff frequency ω. “Switch” represents frequencies are switchable during the latent region optimization. Yufan Deng, Ruida Wang, Yuhao Zhang, Yu-Wing Tai, and Chi-Keung Tang. Dragvideo: Interactive drag-style video editing. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 183–199. Springer, 2024. Linwei Fan, Fan Zhang, Hui Fan, and Caiming Zhang. Brief review of image denois… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A fundamental distinction lies in the different type of used VDMs. In streaming drag-style [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between streaming and non-streaming drag-style video manipulation. forming the bidirectional generation paradigm totally into the autoregressive manner, which in turn necessitates collecting a large-scale, fine-grained drag-style dataset and finetuning VDMs on it by hundreds or even thousands of H100 GPU hours Yin et al. (2025); Huang et al. (2025). In addition to the type of VDMs, another key d… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: More visualization results achieved by our DragStream on the REVEL task. Note that Editing produces only one video frame, but we insert an extra subsequent frame to maintain layout consistency with Animation. F VISUALIZATION ANALYSIS OF SWITCHABLE FREQUENCY In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization analysis of switchable frequency. ω indicates cutoff frequency. to scene blurring and unnatural object shape variation. Meanwhile, the high-frequency information inherently contained in original images (“ω = 1”) causes noticeable artifacts in generated videos. In contrast, our proposed switchable frequency strategy can balance frequency components, effectively suppressing artifacts and blur … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization analysis of Gaussian filtering map. H ABLATION STUDY ON OBJECTIVE FUNCTION LTO T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization results achieved by our DragStream approach based on CausVid Yin et al. (2025). autoregressive VDM, CausVid Yin et al. (2025). As can be seen from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization analysis on the importance of context frames. L ADDITIONAL VIDEO RESULTS IN SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS We present additional video results in our supplementary material ‘supp-material-1676.zip’, includ￾ing 9 videos, which provide a more intuitive demonstration of the results achieved by our approach. For more visualization results, we recommend readers again to visit our anonymous project web￾p… 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

20 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Recammaster: Camera-controlled generative rendering from a single video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11647,

    Jianhong Bai, Menghan Xia, Xiao Fu, Xintao Wang, Lianrui Mu, Jinwen Cao, Zuozhu Liu, Haoji Hu, Xiang Bai, Pengfei Wan, et al. Recammaster: Camera-controlled generative rendering from a single video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11647,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [4]

    Following Deng et al

    We follow SG-I2V to use the AdamW Loshchilov & Hutter (2017) optimizer during latent optimization, with the learning rate set as4×10 −2. Following Deng et al. (2024), we perform latent region optimization at the denoising timestepT ′ = 3, where the features of latent code are extracted from the12−15layers of the DiT denoiser, the number of iterations is s...

    2017

  3. [5]

    Cotracker3: Simpler and better point tracking by pseudo-labelling real videos

    10 Under review Nikita Karaev, Iurii Makarov, Jianyuan Wang, Natalia Neverova, Andrea Vedaldi, and Christian Rupprecht. Cotracker3: Simpler and better point tracking by pseudo-labelling real videos. In Proc. arXiv:2410.11831,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [6]

    Streamdiffusion: A pipeline-level solution for real-time interactive generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12491,

    Akio Kodaira, Chenfeng Xu, Toshiki Hazama, Takanori Yoshimoto, Kohei Ohno, Shogo Mitsuhori, Soichi Sugano, Hanying Cho, Zhijian Liu, and Kurt Keutzer. Streamdiffusion: A pipeline-level solution for real-time interactive generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12491,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [7]

    Streamdit: Real-time streaming text-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03745,

    Akio Kodaira, Tingbo Hou, Ji Hou, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Yue Zhao. Streamdit: Real-time streaming text-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03745,

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    Autoregressive adversarial post-training for real-time interactive video gen- eration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09350,

    Shanchuan Lin, Ceyuan Yang, Hao He, Jianwen Jiang, Yuxi Ren, Xin Xia, Yang Zhao, Xuefeng Xiao, and Lu Jiang. Autoregressive adversarial post-training for real-time interactive video gen- eration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09350,

    arXiv

  7. [10]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [12]

    Freetraj: Tuning-free trajectory control in video diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16863,

    Haonan Qiu, Zhaoxi Chen, Zhouxia Wang, Yingqing He, Menghan Xia, and Ziwei Liu. Freetraj: Tuning-free trajectory control in video diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16863,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [13]

    Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd Van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [15]

    Gooddrag: Towards good practices for drag editing with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07206,

    Zewei Zhang, Huan Liu, Jun Chen, and Xiangyu Xu. Gooddrag: Towards good practices for drag editing with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07206,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [16]

    Tora: Trajectory-oriented diffusion transformer for video generation

    11 Under review Zhenghao Zhang, Junchao Liao, Menghao Li, Zuozhuo Dai, Bingxue Qiu, Siyu Zhu, Long Qin, and Weizhi Wang. Tora: Trajectory-oriented diffusion transformer for video generation. InProceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pp. 2063–2073, 2025a. Zhongwei Zhang, Fuchen Long, Zhaofan Qiu, Yingwei Pan, Wu Liu, Ting Y...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2063

  12. [17]

    Dragnext: Rethinking drag-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07611,

    Yuan Zhou, Junbao Zhou, Qingshan Xu, Kesen Zhao, Yuxuan Wang, Hao Fei, Richang Hong, and Hanwang Zhang. Dragnext: Rethinking drag-based image editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07611,

    arXiv

  13. [18]

    5 4.2 DragStream: Drag Anything, Anytime in a Training-Free Paradigm

    12 Under review CONTENTS 1 Introduction 2 2 Related Work 3 3 Streaming Drag-Oriented Interactive Video Manipulation 3 4 Methodology 5 4.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2 DragStream: Drag Anything, Anytime in a Training-Free Paradigm . . . . . . . . 6 4.2.1 Overall Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . ....

    2025

  14. [20]

    Trans”), deformation (“Defor

    A fundamental distinction lies in the different type of used VDMs. In streaming drag-style video manipulation, video frames are generated autoregressively; thus, when an unsatisfactory video frame is observed, users can directly feed drag-style operations to models and modify videos on the fly. In contrast, non-streaming drag-style video manipulation reli...

    2025

  15. [2017]

    Sg-i2v: Self-guided trajectory control in image-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04989,

    Koichi Namekata, Sherwin Bahmani, Ziyi Wu, Yash Kant, Igor Gilitschenski, and David B Lin- dell. Sg-i2v: Self-guided trajectory control in image-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04989,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [2018]

    Motionctrl: A unified and flexible motion controller for video generation

    Zhouxia Wang, Ziyang Yuan, Xintao Wang, Yaowei Li, Tianshui Chen, Menghan Xia, Ping Luo, and Ying Shan. Motionctrl: A unified and flexible motion controller for video generation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pp. 1–11,

    2024

  17. [2020]

    Looking backward: Streaming video-to-video translation with feature banks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15757,

    Feng Liang, Akio Kodaira, Chenfeng Xu, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Kurt Keutzer, and Diana Mar- culescu. Looking backward: Streaming video-to-video translation with feature banks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15757,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [2023]

    Streaming video diffusion: Online video editing with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19726,

    Feng Chen, Zhen Yang, Bohan Zhuang, and Qi Wu. Streaming video diffusion: Online video editing with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19726,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [2024]

    Self forcing: Bridging the train-test gap in autoregressive video diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08009,

    Xun Huang, Zhengqi Li, Guande He, Mingyuan Zhou, and Eli Shechtman. Self forcing: Bridging the train-test gap in autoregressive video diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08009,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [2025]

    Cameractrl: Enabling camera control for text-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02101,

    Hao He, Yinghao Xu, Yuwei Guo, Gordon Wetzstein, Bo Dai, Hongsheng Li, and Ceyuan Yang. Cameractrl: Enabling camera control for text-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02101,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv