Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Through-The-Mask: Mask-based Motion Trajectories for Image-to-Video Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that image-to-video generation becomes more temporally coherent and text-faithful, especially with multiple objects, when motion is first represented as per-object mask trajectories and injected into a video diffusion…

desk verdict A solid, well-ablated I2V paper whose mask-based motion trajectories beat optical flow, but the unmeasured Stage-1-to-Stage-2 gap and missing code/data keep it from being fully settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03059 v1 pith:COP73ULR submitted 2025-01-06 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Guy Yariv , Yuval Kirstain , Amit Zohar , Shelly Sheynin , Yaniv Taigman , Yossi Adi , Sagie Benaim , Adam Polyak This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords image-to-videogenerationmask-basedmotiontrajectorytwo-stagevideomaskedcross-attentionself-attentionmulti-objectdiffusionmodelssegmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Image-to-video models must animate a still photo according to a text prompt, and they often fail when several objects have to move and interact. This paper argues that the failure comes from forcing one network to infer object semantics, motion, and appearance all at once, and that a cleaner division of labour is possible. The proposed method first generates an explicit mask-based motion trajectory—a time-consistent per-object segmentation of the scene—and then lets a standard video diffusion model render the video while masked attention objectives tie each object to its own prompt and its own moving region. The authors claim this two-stage decomposition yields state-of-the-art temporal coherence, motion realism, and prompt faithfulness on multi-object benchmarks, and that masks beat optical flow as the intermediate motion representation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mask-based motion trajectory: a sequence of per-frame binary masks, color-coded by object, that tracks each motion-capable object through time and doubles as a semantic label. Stage 1 predicts this trajectory from the reference image, its initial SAM2 segmentation, and a motion-only text prompt. Stage 2 conditions video synthesis on the trajectory through masked cross-attention and masked spatio-temporal self-attention, both built by adding log-masks to the attention logits: $h_{\mathrm{cross}} = \sigma(qk^\top/\sqrt{d} + \log M_{\mathrm{cross}})v$ and $h_{\mathrm{self}} = \sigma(qk^\top/\sqrt{d} + \log M_{\mathrm{self}})v$. These masks are what force the generator to keep each object's appearance in its own region and to keep each object consistent across frames.

What would settle it

Take a trained system and systematically delete one object's mask from the generated trajectory at inference, then measure the deleted object's motion in the output video. If the video still animates that object correctly, the mask trajectory is not carrying the motion and the two-stage claim is false. A complementary check is comparing mask-based and optical-flow-based stage-2 conditioning on a benchmark with many small, fast objects, where mask-level trajectories that lose such objects should show clear per-object motion failures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coarse, semantic, per-object mask trajectory is a better intermediate representation for image-to-video than either end-to-end latent mapping or pixel-level optical flow. The mask trajectory expresses both what each object is and where and how it moves, while deliberately discarding precise per-pixel motion; the second stage then fills in appearance and fine detail. To make the masks causally effective, the method injects them through two attention mechanisms: masked cross-attention, which lets each spatial latent position attend only to the text prompt of the object occupying that position, and masked self-attention, which lets each position attend only to positions of the same object across frames. In the paper's experiments, this configuration outperforms existing image-to-video methods and the authors' own matched baselines on FVD, CLIP-based faithfulness, and human preference.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline depends on the first stage producing a correct, complete set of per-object masks from a single image and a text prompt: if an object is missed or its mask drifts, the second stage cannot recover that object's motion, because the attention masks only tell it where to look.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, multi-object image-to-video becomes inspectable: the intermediate mask trajectory can be examined and edited before video rendering, instead of trusting the model to infer motion from the prompt alone.
  • The two-stage recipe is architecture-agnostic, demonstrated on both U-Net and DiT backbones, so the same mask-conditioning objectives can be added to existing video diffusion models.
  • Replacing optical-flow conditioning with mask conditioning shifts the hard part of the task: the first stage predicts coarse object-level motion, while the second stage keeps pixel-level appearance.
  • Masked self-attention is the mechanism that ties each object's appearance to its own region across frames, which is where the reported FVD and ViCLIP-V improvements concentrate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This is an editorial extension: because the trajectory is an explicit mask sequence, a user could drag, delete, or re-color an object's mask and re-run stage 2, steering the video without retraining the diffusion model.
  • A natural next step is text-to-video and video editing, where an LLM or detector proposes object masks from text alone, removing the need for a reference image at stage 1.
  • The paper's logic predicts localized errors: if stage 1 misses an object, only that object's motion should degrade, so per-object motion metrics would be a sharper test than whole-video FVD.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Through-The-Mask (TTM), a two-stage image-to-video (I2V) generation framework. Stage 1 (Image-to-Motion) generates a mask-based motion trajectory, i.e., a time-consistent per-frame semantic segmentation of motion-capable objects, conditioned on the first frame, its initial segmentation, and a motion-specific text prompt. Stage 2 (Motion-to-Video) generates the output video conditioned on the input frame, the full text prompt, and the predicted mask trajectory, injecting object-level information via two proposed masked attention objectives: masked cross-attention that binds object-specific prompts to the corresponding latent regions, and masked spatio-temporal self-attention that constrains attention to same-object positions for temporal consistency. The method is evaluated on a new benchmark SA-V-128 (64 single-object and 64 multi-object videos) and on Image-Animation-Bench, with U-Net and DiT backbones, reporting improvements in FVD, CLIPFrame, ViCLIP-T/V, and human preference over several baselines, plus ablations showing the contribution of each masked attention component and a comparison against optical flow as the intermediate representation.

Significance. If the empirical results are reliable, this is a solid contribution: the paper demonstrates that a compact object-level intermediate representation (mask trajectories) can be more effective than per-pixel optical flow for controllable I2V generation, and the proposed masked attention objectives are architecture-agnostic, being validated on both U-Net and DiT. The ablations in Table 3 and Table 4 are well designed to isolate the contribution of each component, and the comparison against optical flow is a meaningful and non-trivial empirical finding. The main caveat is that the full two-stage system is evaluated without measuring the gap between training-time conditioning on ground-truth masks and inference-time conditioning on predicted masks; this is load-bearing for the central SOTA claim. The lack of error bars and the author-curated new benchmark further moderate the strength of the conclusions. The paper does not ship code or data, which limits reproducibility, but the method description and ablations are detailed enough to permit re-implementation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and 3.3.1] Stage 2 is trained on the tuple (x, s, c, cmotion, clocal) with ground-truth mask trajectories s, and the masked attention masks M^(l) and M_self in Eqs. (1)-(3) are constructed from ground-truth segmentation during training. At inference, however, the model conditions on the predicted trajectory \hat{s} generated by Stage 1, and the attention masks are derived from \hat{s}. The paper reports no metric on Stage-1 mask quality (e.g., per-object mIoU against the ground-truth trajectory, temporal consistency) and no oracle-vs-predicted comparison for Stage 2. Consequently, the reported gains (e.g., Table 1 FVD 925 vs. 1089) could partly reflect the oracle-like training condition rather than the actual two-stage system. I ask the authors to (i) report Stage-1 mask accuracy on the evaluation benchmarks, and (ii) run Stage 2 with ground-truth masks and with predicted masks (and ideally a no-mask-conditioning baseline) to quantify the error-propagation gap. This is necessary to support the claim that mask trajectories are a robust intermediate representation.
  2. [Tables 1-4] All reported automatic metrics are point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests, and the number of generated videos per cell is not stated for the Image-Animation-Bench results. Several differences between the proposed method and baselines are small (e.g., Table 3 ViCLIP-T 0.220 vs. 0.220; Table 1 ViCLIP-T 0.220 vs. 0.220 vs. 0.218). Without bootstrapped confidence intervals or repeated-seed evaluations, the 'state-of-the-art' claim is not fully supported. Please provide confidence intervals for FVD, CLIPFrame, ViCLIP-T, and ViCLIP-V and at least an inter-rater agreement measure for the human evaluation.
  3. [Sec. 4.3 and Table 4] The mask-vs-flow ablation compares two full two-stage systems, but the authors do not report the accuracy of the Stage-1 predictors for each representation. It is therefore unclear whether the large FVD difference (648 vs. 1014) is caused by the representation itself or by the relative difficulty of generating accurate flow compared to accurate masks, or by the train/test shift described in the first comment. An oracle comparison (feeding ground-truth flow vs. ground-truth masks directly into Stage 2, avoiding Stage-1 error) would isolate the effect of the representation on the generator and would strengthen the paper's central claim about the choice of intermediate representation.
  4. [Sec. 4.1 (SA-V-128)] The new benchmark SA-V-128 is created by the authors via an automatic selection process: videos are scored by aesthetic quality and optical-flow-based motion, the top 500 are kept, and then 64 single-object and 64 multi-object videos are randomly drawn. Since this benchmark is a primary testbed for the SOTA claim, the authors should release the exact list of videos, the selection script, and ideally the scores, and report the stability of the metric rankings across multiple random draws of the final 128. Without such details, the possibility that the benchmark is accidentally biased toward the method's strengths cannot be ruled out.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Tables 1-2] Cell values in Table 1 and Table 2 suffer from malformed spacing, e.g., '8.9475.0' and '4.8778.9'; these should be fixed to clearly separate the two numbers.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The Image-Animation-Bench is used as an evaluation benchmark, but no original citation or description of its curation is given in the main text; please cite the source or provide a reference to the supplementary material that defines it.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 (metrics)] The Average Displacement (AD) metric is reported without the corresponding AD of the ground-truth reference videos; without this reference value, it is difficult to interpret whether the reported AD indicates realistic motion or merely a specific motion magnitude range.
  4. [Sec. 4.3 and Table 3] In the ablation table, the 'no mask attn' configuration still concatenates the mask trajectory as an input to the denoising network, whereas the TI2V baseline does not use a mask trajectory at all; the text should state this difference explicitly to avoid confusion about what each row represents.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The notation \hat{s}_\theta(s_t, t, E(x(0)), E(s(0)), c_motion) is ambiguous because s_t denotes the noised trajectory and the output is the predicted clean trajectory; please clarify that during training s_t is the noised ground-truth trajectory and during inference the model is conditioned on the noisy latent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mask-trajectory decomposition is a genuine two-stage predictive pipeline, and remaining concerns are evaluation gaps rather than circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a learned two-stage decomposition: (1) offline preprocessing extracts mask trajectories from training videos using SAM2; (2) Stage 1 is trained to predict a mask trajectory from the first frame, an initial mask, and a motion prompt; (3) Stage 2 is trained to generate video frames conditioned on the first frame, the predicted trajectory, the global prompt, and object-specific prompts; (4) the full pipeline is evaluated on SA-V-128 and Image-Animation-Bench against external baselines. No step fits a parameter to the evaluation target and then reports that fit as a prediction. Stage 2 is trained with ground-truth masks and evaluated with Stage 1's predicted masks, which is a standard train/inference distribution shift; the paper does not quantify Stage-1 mask accuracy or provide an oracle-versus-predicted comparison, but this is an evaluation gap and a robustness risk, not circular reasoning. The author-constructed SA-V-128 benchmark is selected from SA-V by aesthetic and optical-flow scores, but the selection does not depend on this method's outputs, so it is a benchmark-construction concern rather than a circularity. Self-citations such as SpaText [3] and MovieGen [38] are used as auxiliary evidence or architectural priors, not as the sole justification for the central claim, and the main comparisons include independent baselines. Therefore no load-bearing circular step is identifiable from the text.

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

The central claim rests on the quality of off-the-shelf segmentation and LLM tools, and on the pre-trained video prior. These are external dependencies whose reliability is not established in the paper. The only hand-tuned hyperparameter explicitly tied to the method's design is the number of masked attention blocks K.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of masked attention blocks K = 6 (U-Net), 10 (DiT)
    Chosen by hand; determines how much of the network attends under object-level masks. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained text-to-video diffusion models (AnimateDiff, MovieGen) provide a strong prior that can be fine-tuned for image-to-video generation.
    Used as initialization for both stages; the quality of the final video depends on this prior.
  • domain assumption Grounding DINO and SAM2 reliably detect and segment motion-capable objects in the first frame and across the video.
    Stage 1 training uses these segmentations as ground truth; errors would propagate.
  • domain assumption A frozen LLM (Llama) can extract accurate motion-specific and object-specific prompts from a global caption.
    Both stages condition on these prompts; if they are wrong, the semantic guidance is wrong.
  • standard math The VAE latent space of the video model can faithfully encode both frames and masks.
    Both stages operate in latent space; if masks are poorly encoded, conditioning degrades.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Through-The-Mask: Mask-based Motion Trajectories for Image-to-Video Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COP73ULR

@misc{pith2026250103059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Through-The-Mask: Mask-based Motion Trajectories for Image-to-Video Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COP73ULR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03059}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the task of Image-to-Video (I2V) generation, which involves transforming static images into realistic video sequences based on a textual description. While recent advancements produce photorealistic outputs, they frequently struggle to create videos with accurate and consistent object motion, especially in multi-object scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose a two-stage compositional framework that decomposes I2V generation into: (i) An explicit intermediate representation generation stage, followed by (ii) A video generation stage that is conditioned on this representation. Our key innovation is the introduction of a mask-based motion trajectory as an intermediate representation, that captures both semantic object information and motion, enabling an expressive but compact representation of motion and semantics. To incorporate the learned representation in the second stage, we utilize object-level attention objectives. Specifically, we consider a spatial, per-object, masked-cross attention objective, integrating object-specific prompts into corresponding latent space regions and a masked spatio-temporal self-attention objective, ensuring frame-to-frame consistency for each object. We evaluate our method on challenging benchmarks with multi-object and high-motion scenarios and empirically demonstrate that the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art results in temporal coherence, motion realism, and text-prompt faithfulness. Additionally, we introduce \benchmark, a new challenging benchmark for single-object and multi-object I2V generation, and demonstrate our method's superiority on this benchmark. Project page is available at https://guyyariv.github.io/TTM/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. THROUGH-THE-MASK is an Image-to-Video method that animates an input image based on a provided text caption. The generated video (rows 2 and 4) leverages mask-based motion trajectories (rows 1 and 3), enabling accurate animation of multiple objects. Abstract We consider the task of Image-to-Video (I2V) generation, which involves transforming static images into realistic video sequences based on a textual description.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our I2V framework, transforming a reference image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the masked attention block. Squares represent video latent patches, color-coded to indicate objects (e.g., cat or dog). Triangles denote prompt tokens: gray for global prompts and object-specific colors for local prompts. The pipeline features self-attention for all patches, masked self-attention re￾stricted to each object, cross-attention integrating global prompts, and masked cross-attention aligni… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison: Visual examples of generated videos for T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of generated videos using seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of generated videos for each configuration of T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of generated videos using segmentation masks vs optical flow as an intermediate motion representation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of video generations produced by T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of video generations produced by T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The input prompt used for extracting a motion-specific description from the global prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The input prompt used for extracting motion-capable object descriptions from the global prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Seeing Voices: Generating A-Roll Video from Audio with Mirage

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Mirage generates photorealistic A-roll videos of people speaking directly from audio, using only joint self-attention over audio, text, and video tokens.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Stochastic interpolants: A unifying framework for flows and diffusions

    Michael S Albergo, Nicholas M Boffi, and Eric Vanden- Eijnden. Stochastic interpolants: A unifying framework for flows and diffusions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08797,

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Latent-shift: Latent diffu- sion with temporal shift for efficient text-to-video genera- tion

    Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Harry Yang, Sonal Gupta, Jia-Bin Huang, Jiebo Luo, and Xi Yin. Latent-shift: Latent diffu- sion with temporal shift for efficient text-to-video genera- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08477, 2023. 2

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Spatext: Spatio-textual representation for con- trollable image generation

    Omri Avrahami, Thomas Hayes, Oran Gafni, Sonal Gupta, Yaniv Taigman, Devi Parikh, Dani Lischinski, Ohad Fried, and Xi Yin. Spatext: Spatio-textual representation for con- trollable image generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 18370–18380, 2023. 3, 8

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf, 2(3):8, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [5]

    Understanding object dynamics for in- teractive image-to-video synthesis

    Andreas Blattmann, Timo Milbich, Michael Dorkenwald, and Bjorn Ommer. Understanding object dynamics for in- teractive image-to-video synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5171–5181, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets, 2023

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, Varun Jampani, and Robin Rombach. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  7. [7]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dock- horn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22563–22575, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [8]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks et al. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In CVPR, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high-quality video generation, 2023

    Haoxin Chen, Menghan Xia, Yingqing He, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Shaoshu Yang, Jinbo Xing, Yaofang Liu, Qifeng Chen, Xintao Wang, Chao Weng, and Ying Shan. Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high-quality video generation, 2023. 3, 6

    2023

  2. [10]

    Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffu- sion models

    Haoxin Chen, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Menghan Xia, Xintao Wang, Chao Weng, and Ying Shan. Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffu- sion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7310– 7...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Emu: Enhanc- ing image generation models using photogenic needles in a haystack

    Xiaoliang Dai, Ji Hou, Chih-Yao Ma, Sam Tsai, Jialiang Wang, Rui Wang, Peizhao Zhang, Simon Vandenhende, Xi- aofang Wang, Abhimanyu Dubey, et al. Emu: Enhanc- ing image generation models using photogenic needles in a haystack. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15807, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Animateanything: Fine- grained open domain image animation with motion guid- ance, 2023

    Zuozhuo Dai, Zhenghao Zhang, Yao Yao, Bingxue Qiu, Siyu Zhu, Long Qin, and Weizhi Wang. Animateanything: Fine- grained open domain image animation with motion guid- ance, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  5. [13]

    The llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    Abhimanyu Dubey et al. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024. 6, 1, 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling recti- fied flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first International Conference on Machin...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Preserve your own correlation: A noise prior for video diffusion models

    Songwei Ge, Seungjun Nah, Guilin Liu, Tyler Poon, Andrew Tao, Bryan Catanzaro, David Jacobs, Jia-Bin Huang, Ming- Yu Liu, and Yogesh Balaji. Preserve your own correlation: A noise prior for video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Comp...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Emu video: Factoriz- ing text-to-video generation by explicit image conditioning

    Rohit Girdhar, Mannat Singh, Andrew Brown, Quentin Du- val, Samaneh Azadi, Sai Saketh Rambhatla, Akbar Shah, Xi Yin, Devi Parikh, and Ishan Misra. Emu video: Factoriz- ing text-to-video generation by explicit image conditioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10709, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to- image diffusion models without specific tuning, 2024

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to- image diffusion models without specific tuning, 2024. 2, 5, 1

    2024

  10. [18]

    Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation

    Yingqing He, Tianyu Yang, Yong Zhang, Ying Shan, and Qifeng Chen. Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13221 ,

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

  13. [21]

    Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion mod- els

    Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Gritsenko, Diederik P Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J Fleet, et al. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303, 2022. 2

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Video dif- fusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video dif- fusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:8633–8646, 2022. 2 9

    2022

  15. [23]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 4

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Videogen: A reference-guided latent diffusion ap- proach for high definition text-to-video generation

    Xin Li, Wenqing Chu, Ye Wu, Weihang Yuan, Fanglong Liu, Qi Zhang, Fu Li, Haocheng Feng, Errui Ding, and Jingdong Wang. Videogen: A reference-guided latent diffusion ap- proach for high definition text-to-video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00398, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation, 2023

    Yuheng Li, Haotian Liu, Qingyang Wu, Fangzhou Mu, Jian- wei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, Chunyuan Li, and Yong Jae Lee. Gligen: Open-set grounded text-to-image generation, 2023. 3

    2023

  18. [26]

    Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed, 2024

    Shanchuan Lin, Bingchen Liu, Jiashi Li, and Xiao Yang. Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed, 2024. 1

    2024

  19. [27]

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maxi- milian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Rectified flow: A marginal preserving approach to optimal transport

    Qiang Liu. Rectified flow: A marginal preserving approach to optimal transport. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14577, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Grounding dino: Marry- ing dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object de- tection, 2024

    Shilong Liu, Zhaoyang Zeng, Tianhe Ren, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Jie Yang, Qing Jiang, Chunyuan Li, Jianwei Yang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, and Lei Zhang. Grounding dino: Marry- ing dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object de- tection, 2024. 4

    2024

  22. [30]

    Cinemo: Consis- tent and controllable image animation with motion diffusion models, 2024

    Xin Ma, Yaohui Wang, Gengyun Jia, Xinyuan Chen, Yuan- Fang Li, Cunjian Chen, and Yu Qiao. Cinemo: Consis- tent and controllable image animation with motion diffusion models, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  23. [31]

    Latte: Latent diffusion transformer for video generation

    Xin Ma, Yaohui Wang, Gengyun Jia, Xinyuan Chen, Zi- wei Liu, Yuan-Fang Li, Cunjian Chen, and Yu Qiao. Latte: Latent diffusion transformer for video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03048, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Snap video: Scaled spatiotemporal transformers for text-to-video synthesis

    Willi Menapace, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Ivan Skorokhodov, Ekaterina Deyneka, Tsai-Shien Chen, Anil Kag, Yuwei Fang, Aleksei Stoliar, Elisa Ricci, Jian Ren, et al. Snap video: Scaled spatiotemporal transformers for text-to-video synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Compositional text-to-image gen- eration with dense blob representations, 2024

    Weili Nie, Sifei Liu, Morteza Mardani, Chao Liu, Benjamin Eckart, and Arash Vahdat. Compositional text-to-image gen- eration with dense blob representations, 2024. 3, 4, 5

    2024

  26. [34]

    Video generation models as world simula- tors

    OpenAI. Video generation models as world simula- tors. https : / / openai . com / index / video - generation - models - as - world - simulators/,

  27. [35]

    Video generation from sin- gle semantic label map

    Junting Pan, Chengyu Wang, Xu Jia, Jing Shao, Lu Sheng, Junjie Yan, and Xiaogang Wang. Video generation from sin- gle semantic label map. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3733–3742, 2019. 3

    2019

  28. [36]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4195–4205,

  29. [37]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sampson, Shikai Li, Simone Parmeggiani, Steve Fine, Tara Fowler, Vladan Petro- vic, and Yuming Du

    Adam Polyak, Amit Zohar, Andrew Brown, Andros Tjandra, Animesh Sinha, Ann Lee, Apoorv Vyas, Bowen Shi, Chih- Yao Ma, Ching-Yao Chuang, David Yan, Dhruv Choudhary, Dingkang Wang, Geet Sethi, Guan Pang, Haoyu Ma, Ishan Misra, Ji Hou, Jialiang Wang, Kiran Jagadeesh, Kunpeng Li, L...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. 6

    2021

  32. [40]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman Rädle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Eric Mintun, Junt- ing Pan, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Nicolas Carion, Chao- Yuan Wu, Ross Girshick, Piotr Dollár, and Christoph Feicht...

  33. [41]

    Consisti2v: Enhancing visual consistency for image-to-video generation, 2024

    Weiming Ren, Huan Yang, Ge Zhang, Cong Wei, Xinrun Du, Wenhao Huang, and Wenhu Chen. Consisti2v: Enhancing visual consistency for image-to-video generation, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2024

  34. [42]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  35. [43]

    Motion-i2v: Consistent and controllable image-to-video generation with explicit motion modeling, 2024

    Xiaoyu Shi, Zhaoyang Huang, Fu-Yun Wang, Weikang Bian, Dasong Li, Yi Zhang, Manyuan Zhang, Ka Chun Che- ung, Simon See, Hongwei Qin, Jifeng Dai, and Hongsheng Li. Motion-i2v: Consistent and controllable image-to-video generation with explicit motion modeling, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2024

  36. [44]

    Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data, 2022

    Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, Devi Parikh, Sonal Gupta, and Yaniv Taigman. Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data, 2022. 2 10

    2022

  37. [45]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 2

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 2

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow, 2020

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow, 2020. 6, 2

    2020

  40. [48]

    To- wards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges, 2019

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. To- wards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges, 2019. 6

    2019

  41. [49]

    Modelscope text-to-video technical report

    Jiuniu Wang, Hangjie Yuan, Dayou Chen, Yingya Zhang, Xiang Wang, and Shiwei Zhang. Modelscope text-to-video technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06571, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Videofactory: Swap at- tention in spatiotemporal diffusions for text-to-video gener- ation

    Wenjing Wang, Huan Yang, Zixi Tuo, Huiguo He, Junchen Zhu, Jianlong Fu, and Jiaying Liu. Videofactory: Swap at- tention in spatiotemporal diffusions for text-to-video gener- ation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10874, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Lavie: High-quality video gener- ation with cascaded latent diffusion models

    Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Xin Ma, Shangchen Zhou, Ziqi Huang, Yi Wang, Ceyuan Yang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Peiqing Yang, et al. Lavie: High-quality video gener- ation with cascaded latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15103, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation, 2024

    Yi Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Kunchang Li, Jiashuo Yu, Xin Ma, Xinhao Li, Guo Chen, Xinyuan Chen, Yaohui Wang, Conghui He, Ping Luo, Ziwei Liu, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Internvid: A large-scale video-text dataset for multimodal understanding and generation, 2024. 6

    2024

  45. [53]

    Cvpr 2023 text guided video editing competition, 2023

    Jay Zhangjie Wu, Xiuyu Li, Difei Gao, Zhen Dong, Jin- bin Bai, Aishani Singh, Xiaoyu Xiang, Youzeng Li, Zuwei Huang, Yuanxi Sun, Rui He, Feng Hu, Junhua Hu, Hai Huang, Hanyu Zhu, Xu Cheng, Jie Tang, Mike Zheng Shou, Kurt Keutzer, and Forrest Iandola. Cvpr 2023 text guided vide...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Dynamicrafter: Animating open-domain im- ages with video diffusion priors, 2023

    Jinbo Xing, Menghan Xia, Yong Zhang, Haoxin Chen, Wangbo Yu, Hanyuan Liu, Xintao Wang, Tien-Tsin Wong, and Ying Shan. Dynamicrafter: Animating open-domain im- ages with video diffusion priors, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    2023

  47. [55]

    I2vgen-xl: High-quality image-to-video synthe- sis via cascaded diffusion models, 2023

    Shiwei Zhang, Jiayu Wang, Yingya Zhang, Kang Zhao, Hangjie Yuan, Zhiwu Qin, Xiang Wang, Deli Zhao, and Jin- gren Zhou. I2vgen-xl: High-quality image-to-video synthe- sis via cascaded diffusion models, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  48. [56]

    Magicvideo: Efficient video generation with latent diffusion models

    Daquan Zhou, Weimin Wang, Hanshu Yan, Weiwei Lv, Yizhe Zhu, and Jiashi Feng. Magicvideo: Efficient video generation with latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11018, 2022. 2 11 Through-The-Mask: Mask-based Motion Trajectories for Image-to-Video Generation Suppleme...

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Qualitative Comparison of Masked Attention Mechanism Fig

    Additional Results 6.1. Qualitative Comparison of Masked Attention Mechanism Fig. 6 shows qualitative comparison of generated videos for each configuration of T HROUGH -T HE-MASK, demonstrat- ing the differences when applying masked cross-attention, self-attention, both, or no...

  50. [58]

    3.1, our pre-processing pipeline ex- tracts a motion-specific prompt, cmotion, from the input text c, using a pre-trained LLM

    Motion and Object-Specific Prompts Details As described in Sec. 3.1, our pre-processing pipeline ex- tracts a motion-specific prompt, cmotion, from the input text c, using a pre-trained LLM. This prompt provides a con- solidated description of all motion in the scene, excludin...

  51. [59]

    3.1, the pre-processing process be- gins with extracting motion-capable object prompts from the global prompt c

    Motion-capable Objects’ Prompt Extraction Details As described in Sec. 3.1, the pre-processing process be- gins with extracting motion-capable object prompts from the global prompt c. We utilize Llama v3.1-8B [13] as a frozen LLM and provide the prompt shown in Fig. 11, which ...

  52. [60]

    First, the initial segmenta- tion s(0) is extracted from x(0) using SAM2 [40]

    Inference Given the reference image x(0) and text prompt c, infer- ence is carried out in two stages. First, the initial segmenta- tion s(0) is extracted from x(0) using SAM2 [40]. Concur- rently, the text prompt c is processed by a pre-trained LLM to obtain the motion-specifi...

  53. [61]

    The first is the U-Net architecture

    Implementation Details As detailed above, we demonstrate the applicability of our approach to two architectures. The first is the U-Net architecture. We follow the Ani- mateDiff V3 [17] design, consisting of approximately 1.4B parameters. In the second stage of motion-to-video...

    2000

  54. [62]

    The filtering of 128 videos, out of the full SA-V dataset, involved several steps

    SA-V-128 Benchmark We introduce a balanced test set of 128 videos from the SA- V dataset [40], comprising 64 single-object and 64 multi- object cases, with an average duration of 14 seconds per video. The filtering of 128 videos, out of the full SA-V dataset, involved several ...

  55. [63]

    description of overall motion

    Image-Animation-Bench The Image-Animation-Bench comprises 2,500 videos, meticulously curated to meet high-resolution requirements and aesthetic quality thresholds. To ensure comprehensive coverage of diverse visual scenarios, the dataset is divided into 16 categories: Portrait...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.