Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that all major video-control tasks are one task—completing a video from patches at any location and timestamp—and that a hybrid of zero-padded canvases and fractional temporal positions makes it work on a frozen video enco

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 ↗

A single diffusion model with in-context conditioning and fractional RoPE positions completes videos from arbitrary spatio-temporal image patches.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Neat task formalization and a sensible fractional-RoPE trick; the claimed arbitrary-timestamp precision needs direct benchmark evidence before I believe it fully. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.08555 v2 pith:JDL5CSZB submitted 2025-10-09 cs.CV

VideoCanvas: Unified Video Completion from Arbitrary Spatiotemporal Patches via In-Context Conditioning

Minghong Cai , Qiulin Wang , Zongli Ye , Wenze Liu , Quande Liu , Weicai Ye , Xintao Wang , Pengfei Wan
show 2 more authors
Kun Gai Xiangyu Yue
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords video completionspatio-temporal conditioningin-context conditioningcausal video VAErotary position embeddinglatent video diffusionvideo inpaintingvideo generation benchmark
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

This paper claims that many separately engineered video-generation controls—first-frame image-to-video, inpainting and outpainting, extension, interpolation, scene-to-scene transitions—are really one task: given user patches at any spatial location and any timestamp, generate a coherent video around them. It proposes VideoCanvas, which applies In-Context Conditioning: each condition is encoded on its own as a latent token and appended to the noisy video tokens inside one self-attention sequence. The load-bearing idea is a hybrid conditioning strategy that separates space from time. Spatially, patches are placed on zero-padded full-frame canvases and encoded in image mode, keeping the encoder's inputs in-distribution. Temporally, each condition receives a fractional position equal to its pixel-frame index divided by the encoder's temporal stride (frame 41 becomes position 10.25 when the stride is 4), which the paper argues resolves the frame ambiguity created by causal video encoders that crush several frames into one latent slot. If the claim holds, one fine-tuned diffusion transformer—with a frozen encoder and zero new parameters—gives pixel-frame-accurate control across a wide range of video generation tasks, and the paper's new benchmark, VideoCanvasBench, provides the first common testbed for that unified capability.

Core claim

The central claim is that the real obstacle to arbitrary spatio-temporal video completion is the causal video encoder's temporal ambiguity, not the diffusion model. Because the encoder compresses N consecutive pixel frames into a single latent slot, a condition intended for pixel frame 41 cannot be pinned down by overwriting a latent or concatenating channels. VideoCanvas decouples the two axes of control. Spatial placement is handled by laying each patch onto a zero-padded full-frame canvas and encoding each canvas independently in image mode; the paper presents evidence that hybrid encoders tolerate spatial padding well but degrade sharply on temporally padded input, which is why the naive

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hybrid conditioning strategy. Spatial Zero-Padding takes each user condition, places it on a full-frame canvas with zeros elsewhere, and encodes each canvas independently in image mode, so the frozen encoder sees inputs it can handle and each condition becomes its own token. Temporal RoPE Interpolation then assigns that token a fractional position t_i/N—the pixel-frame index divided by the encoder's temporal stride—in the 3D rotary position embedding, so self-attention can treat the token as if it sat at exactly that pixel frame even though the encoder's native resolution is one latent per N frames. Working together, the pair turns a frozen causal video enco

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the model can treat a fractional time label like 10.25 as a genuinely precise position between latent slots—so a condition marked 'frame 41' is honored as frame 41 rather than as 'the fourth slot'—and the only direct evidence offered is that reconstruction quality peaks at target frames 2, 3, and 4; if the fractional part is ignored or only coarsely used, the arbitrary-timestamp claim collapses.

What would settle it

Replicate the paper's single-frame image-to-video test but place the condition inside a different stride window at adjacent fractional positions (e.g., pixel frames 41 and 42, latent positions 10.25 and 10.50) and record the PSNR curve over the output. If the curve does not peak at the corresponding pixel frame for each position, or if the two runs produce statistically indistinguishable output, the fractional part of the position index is not driving alignment. A second, complementary check is attention analysis: inspect whether tokens at an interpolated position form strong attention links w

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

If this is right

  • A single fine-tuned model, with no added parameters, subsumes first-frame image-to-video, keyframe interpolation, video inpainting and outpainting, long extension, seamless looping, and cross-scene transitions as special cases of one completion task.
  • Pixel-frame-accurate conditioning is achievable without retraining the video encoder, so the method's cost is limited to fine-tuning the diffusion transformer (about 24.5 hours over 20,000 steps in the paper's setup), which lowers the barrier for other groups to adopt the recipe.
  • Temporal control becomes effectively continuous rather than quantized to latent slots: conditions at sub-stride timestamps (e.g., frames 2, 3, 4 within a stride-4 window) are distinguishable and alignable to their exact frames.
  • Because each condition is encoded independently, inference cost grows with the number of condition tokens (168s to 184s for one to three conditions in the paper's timing), a direct and predictable cost of dense conditioning.
  • VideoCanvasBench gives the field a common evaluation surface—over 2,000 test cases across patch, image, and video conditions—against which future unified completion models can be compared.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The headline claim of arbitrary-timestamp precision rests on a narrow empirical base: the main paradigm comparison confines all methods to stride-aligned frames {0,4,8,...}, while the sub-stride pixel precision is shown only for target frames 2, 3, and 4 in one ablation. A reader extending the claim would want fractional-alignment evidence across many stride windows and with multiple simultaneous
  • If the fractional-position mechanism is what does the work, it should transfer across causal-VAE video diffusion models: the appendix already shows two other encoders tolerate spatial padding well, so the same image-mode-encoding-plus-t_i/N recipe could be dropped onto other backbones without retraining them.
  • The paper treats alignment as an empirical effect (PSNR peaks), not an understood mechanism; an attention analysis of how queries at fractional positions attend to condition tokens would either confirm that rotary embeddings are performing true interpolation or reveal that the model uses the fractional number as a coarse cue.
  • The task formulation invites a corruption-recovery reading: any sparse subset of a video is a legal condition, which connects directly to the packet-loss and partial-data reconstruction applications the paper mentions in passing; a stress test would degrade real videos randomly and measure reconstruction quality as a function of patch coverage.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formalizes a unified task, arbitrary spatio-temporal video completion, in which a video is generated from user-specified patches or full frames placed at arbitrary spatial locations and timestamps. The proposed method, VideoCanvas, adapts the In-Context Conditioning (ICC) paradigm to this task: conditional frames are zero-padded into full-frame canvases and encoded independently by a frozen causal video VAE in image mode, and their temporal positions are encoded via a proposed Temporal RoPE Interpolation that assigns each conditional token a fractional latent position t_i/N (e.g., Frame 41 -> 10.25 for N=4). The DiT is fine-tuned with flow matching, adding zero new parameters. A new benchmark, VideoCanvasBench, with over 2,000 test cases spanning AnyP2V, AnyI2V, and AnyV2V, is introduced. Experiments compare three conditioning paradigms—Latent Replacement, Channel Concatenation, and ICC—and report that ICC achieves the best overall trade-off, with a user study strongly preferring ICC.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable unification: a single frozen-VAE, fine-tuned-DiT framework with zero new parameters covers first-frame I2V, any-timestamp I2V, patch-to-video, inpainting/outpainting, transitions, extension, and camera control. The hybrid design—spatial zero-padding plus fractional temporal RoPE positions—is a clean and plausible solution to the causal-VAE temporal ambiguity, and the paper provides a useful empirical study (Appendix D.1) showing that hybrid video VAEs tolerate spatial padding but not temporal padding, which directly supports the method's separation of space and time. The new benchmark is a practical contribution even if its construction is simple. However, the central claim of pixel-frame-aware, arbitrary-timestamp precision is supported only by a narrow three-point ablation; the main benchmark comparison deliberately avoids non-stride-aligned timestamps. The idea is promising, but the evidence as presented is not yet sufficient for the strength of the claims made in the abstract and conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.4 / Appendix B] The central claim is precise frame-level control beyond the VAE stride, but the paradigm comparison in Table 2 restricts all methods, including ICC, to stride-aligned conditionable indices {0,4,8,...,76} (Appendix B). The 'Any Keyframes' rows therefore test only coarse alignment and cannot support the abstract's 'arbitrary timestamp' advantage. The only non-stride evidence is Sec. 5.3/Fig. 4, which tests single-frame I2V at targets 2,3,4 on an unspecified sample size. Please extend the comparison to non-multiple-of-4 targets (e.g., 41,42,43 or 5,6,7), report N and variance, and either compare baselines under the same protocol or explicitly narrow the claim.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The method assumes a DiT with 3D RoPE can interpret continuous fractional indices t_i/N as precise intra-slot positions (Frame 41 -> 10.25). No formal argument, attention analysis, or probing is provided. The PSNR peaks in Fig. 4 could also arise from learning a coarse integer-like ordering or nearest-slot matching. Please add an analysis of attention weights or position-interpolation behavior, plus a controlled test that varies t_i within one latent slot while keeping the conditioning image identical, and reports alignment accuracy (e.g., per-frame LPIPS or retrieval).
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Table 1] The text states that 'our method with RoPE Interpolation ... achieves the best fidelity,' but Table 1 reports PSNR 23.86 for Ours versus 25.13 for Latent-space Cond. The claim is only defensible if PSNR is read together with Dynamic Degree (5.00 for Latent-space). Please report a motion-aware fidelity metric (e.g., FVD) or specify that 'best fidelity' refers to the best among non-collapsed methods; otherwise the sentence is contradicted by the table.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] The latent-index formula appears garbled ('l ti N m'); use proper floor notation such as floor(t_i/N).
  2. [Fig. 4 / Fig. 5] The figure captions are inconsistent and one is incomplete: Fig. 5 says 'Conditional frame index 1' without explanation, and the methods are named differently across Fig. 4 ('w/o RoPE Interpolation') and Table 1 ('w/o RoPE Interp.'). Please unify.
  3. [Appendix D.2] The sparse-vs-dense experiment compares conditioning on two frames versus five frames; it does not directly test RoPE interpolation. The interpretation that this 'demonstrates that RoPE Interpolation ... leverages dense temporal cues' is not supported. Rephrase or add a proper control with and without RoPE interpolation.
  4. [Sec. 4] The paper says VideoCanvasBench is 'released,' but no URL, dataset link, or code repository is provided. Since the backbone is internal and not released, a public benchmark link is important for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims are trained, empirical results and no prediction reduces to a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: the paper's core proposal is a hybrid conditioning design (zero-padded full-frame canvases encoded in image mode, plus Temporal RoPE Interpolation assigning fractional positions t_i/N) that is fine-tuned on a diffusion transformer under a flow-matching loss. There is no step in which a parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then a closely related quantity is reported as a prediction. The fractional-position mapping is a design choice, not a fitted value; the PSNR peaks in Fig. 4 and Table 1 are measurements of the trained model's behavior, not outputs forced by the construction of the conditioning scheme. The main comparison on VideoCanvasBench, while based on a benchmark introduced by the same paper, compares three conditioning paradigms retrained on the same backbone under identical settings, so the state-of-the-art claim is an empirical measurement rather than a derivation from the paper's own equations. The paper does cite several same-group works (FullDiT, FullDiT2, UNIC, LCT, and the temporal-coherence metric from Cai et al.), but these citations are used to position the ICC paradigm and evaluation metrics, not as load-bearing evidence that the proposed RoPE interpolation works; no uniqueness theorem or prior proof is imported to force the paper's conclusion. The genuinely weak point is evidentiary, not circular: the arbitrary-timestamp capability is mainly supported by a narrow three-point ablation on target indices 2, 3, 4, while the main benchmark restricts all paradigms to stride-aligned conditionable indices {0,4,8,...,76}. That limitation affects how strongly the 'arbitrary timestamp' claim is established, but it does not mean the result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Under the stated scoring rules, this is a minor-evidence concern, not a circularity finding; the correct score is therefore low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method is empirical; the main implicit assumptions are about the VAE behavior, the fractional RoPE interpretability, and the training protocol's generalization. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond the 'fractional position' conditioning idea.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The hybrid causal VAE performs temporal compression with a fixed stride N (e.g., 4), and the mapping from pixel frame t to latent index floor(t/N) with first-latent replication is correct.
    Introduced in Sec 3.2; the entire fractional positioning scheme depends on this exact stride relationship.
  • ad hoc to paper The DiT's 3D RoPE can be safely interpolated to fractional temporal indices, and the model can learn to interpret them as precise positions.
    Sec 3.3 and Fig 4 assert this; no mathematical justification is provided, only empirical PSNR peaks on three target indices.
  • domain assumption Image-mode VAE encoding of spatially zero-padded full-frame canvases is sufficiently in-distribution for the frozen VAE to produce useful latents.
    Supported only by experiments on Hunyuan/CogVideo VAEs in Appendix D.1, not on the internal backbone VAE.
  • domain assumption Training on 650k clips with randomly sampled frames and patches (20%-100% coverage) induces generalization to arbitrary spatio-temporal conditions.
    Sec 5.1 and Appendix B; no distribution analysis or generalization test is provided beyond the curated benchmark.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VideoCanvas: Unified Video Completion from Arbitrary Spatiotemporal Patches via In-Context Conditioning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDL5CSZB

@misc{pith2026251008555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VideoCanvas: Unified Video Completion from Arbitrary Spatiotemporal Patches via In-Context Conditioning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDL5CSZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.08555}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Existing controllable video generation methods are typically designed for rigid, task-specific settings, such as first-frame image-to-video, inpainting, or interpolation, treating spatio-temporal control as a set of isolated problems. We formalize a unified task, arbitrary spatio-temporal video completion, where a model generates a coherent video from user-specified patches placed at any spatial location and timestamp. However, realizing such a unified framework within modern latent video diffusion models is non-trivial: causal video VAEs compress multiple frames into a single latent slot, making frame-level conditioning fundamentally ill-posed, and directly feeding sparsely populated, zero-padded video inputs into the VAE leads to severe out-of-distribution artifacts. To address these challenges, we propose VideoCanvas, a simple yet effective framework that adapts the In-Context Conditioning paradigm to arbitrary spatio-temporal completion without modifying or retraining the VAE. Our key idea is a hybrid conditioning strategy that decouples spatial and temporal control: spatially, we encode zero-padded full-frame canvases in image mode to keep VAE inputs in-distribution, and temporally we use Temporal RoPE Interpolation to assign each condition a continuous fractional index in the latent sequence for precise frame-level alignment. To evaluate this capability, we develop VideoCanvasBench, the first benchmark for arbitrary spatio-temporal video completion, covering both intra-scene fidelity and inter-scene creativity. Extensive experiments demonstrate that VideoCanvas achieves state-of-the-art performance across a diverse range of video generation tasks under a single, unified framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.08555 by Kun Gai, Minghong Cai, Pengfei Wan, Qiulin Wang, Quande Liu, Weicai Ye, Wenze Liu, Xiangyu Yue, Xintao Wang, Zongli Ye.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: VideoCanvas: Arbitrary Spatio-Temporal Video Completion. Given any conditions (frames or patches, outlined in red), the model fills in the remaining gray regions to generate coher￾ent, high-quality videos. This unified formulation subsumes various tasks such as Any-Timestep￾Patch/Image-to-Video, In/Outpainting, Camera Control, and Cross-scene Video Transitions, all in a zero-shot manner. More results are a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Core challenge and solution for pixel-frame-aware conditioning. (a) Causal VAEs create temporal ambiguity by mapping frames to a single latent. We propose a hybrid solution com￾bining Spatial Padding with Temporal RoPE Interpolation. (b) We show how competing paradigms are ill-suited for fine-grained control, while our ICC approach provides an effective solution. In this paper, we introduce VideoCanvas, th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The pipeline of VideoCanvas, which fine-tunes a base T2V model for arbitrary spatio￾temporal control with zero new parameters. Our framework leverages the In-Context Conditioning (ICC) paradigm. After preparing conditional patches with zero-padding for spatial placement, we use independent VAE encoding for temporal decoupling. Our RoPE Interpolation then aligns each discrete token by mapping its source pix… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of Temporal RoPE Interpolation. Per-frame PSNR for single-frame I2V with targets 2/3/4. Our method (red, solid) peaks exactly at the target frame. “w/o RoPE Interpola￾tion” (blue, dashed) misaligns, “Latent-space Condition” (orange, dot-dashed) collapses motion, and “Pixel-space Padding” (green, dotted) is precise but degraded. completion of full-frame content. (3) AnyV2V, covering video-level compl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Padding vs. RoPE Interp. Method PSNR↑ Dynamic Degree↑ Imaging Quality↑ Ours (RoPE Interp.) 23.86 39.75 71.61 w/o RoPE Interp. 22.95 23.00 70.85 Pixel-space Pad. 22.02 30.25 71.50 Latent-space Cond. 25.13 5.00 71.17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison. Our method preserves high quality and smooth transitions. Qualitative Comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ShotPlan: Cinematic Video Generation with Learnable Planning Token

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Learnable planning tokens with fractional positional timestamps let one diffusion pass generate multi-shot video with frame-accurate cuts and timed camera motion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 20 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127,

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [3]

    Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high- quality video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19512,

    Haoxin Chen, Menghan Xia, Yingqing He, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Shaoshu Yang, Jinbo Xing, Yaofang Liu, Qifeng Chen, Xintao Wang, et al. Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high- quality video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19512,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [6]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffu- sion models without specific tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725,

    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 diffu- sion models without specific tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [7]

    Long context tuning for video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10589,

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Ziyan Yang, Zhibei Ma, Zhijie Lin, Zhenheng Yang, Dahua Lin, and Lu Jiang. Long context tuning for video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10589,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [8]

    Ltx-video: Realtime video latent diffusion

    Yoav HaCohen, Nisan Chiprut, Benny Brazowski, Daniel Shalem, Dudu Moshe, Eitan Richardson, Eran Levin, Guy Shiran, Nir Zabari, Ori Gordon, et al. Ltx-video: Realtime video latent diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00103,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [10]

    Vace: All- in-one video creation and editing.ArXiv, abs/2503.07598,

    11 Preprint Zeyinzi Jiang, Zhen Han, Chaojie Mao, Jingfeng Zhang, Yulin Pan, and Yu Liu. Vace: All- in-one video creation and editing.ArXiv, abs/2503.07598,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [11]

    semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276928131

    URLhttps://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276928131. Xuan Ju, Weicai Ye, Quande Liu, Qiulin Wang, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, Kun Gai, and Qiang Xu. Fulldit: Multi-task video generative foundation model with full attention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19907,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [12]

    MUSIQ: multi-scale image quality transformer.CoRR, abs/2108.05997,

    Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. MUSIQ: multi-scale image quality transformer.CoRR, abs/2108.05997,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [13]

    Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03603,

    Weijie Kong, Qi Tian, Zijian Zhang, Rox Min, Zuozhuo Dai, Jin Zhou, Jiangfeng Xiong, Xin Li, Bo Wu, Jianwei Zhang, et al. Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03603,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [15]

    Flow matching for generative modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747,

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [16]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003,

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [17]

    William Peebles and Saining Xie

    Accessed: 2024-2. William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 4195–4205, October

    2024

  13. [18]

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

    Xiaoyu Shi, Zhaoyang Huang, Fu-Yun Wang, Weikang Bian, Dasong Li, Yi Zhang, Manyuan Zhang, Ka Chun Cheung, Simon See, Hongwei Qin, et al. Motion-i2v: Consistent and controllable image-to-video generation with explicit motion modeling. InACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pp. 1–11,

    2024

  14. [19]

    Ominicontrol: Min- imal and universal control for diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15098,

    Zhenxiong Tan, Songhua Liu, Xingyi Yang, Qiaochu Xue, and Xinchao Wang. Ominicontrol: Min- imal and universal control for diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15098,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [20]

    Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & chal- lenges.ArXiv, abs/1812.01717,

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Rapha ¨el Marinier, Marcin Michal- ski, and Sylvain Gelly. Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & chal- lenges.ArXiv, abs/1812.01717,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [22]

    Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314, 2025a

    Ang Wang, Baole Ai, Bin Wen, Chaojie Mao, Chen-Wei Xie, Di Chen, Feiwu Yu, Haiming Zhao, Jianxiao Yang, Jianyuan Zeng, Jiayu Wang, Jingfeng Zhang, Jingren Zhou, Jinkai Wang, Jixuan Chen, Kai Zhu, Kang Zhao, Keyu Yan, Lianghua Huang, Mengyang Feng, Ningyi Zhang, Pan- deng Li, Pingyu Wu, Ruihang Chu, Ruili Feng, Shiwei Zhang, Siyang Sun, Tao Fang, Tianxing ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [23]

    Resim: Reliable world simulation for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09981, 2025a

    Jiazhi Yang, Kashyap Chitta, Shenyuan Gao, Long Chen, Yuqian Shao, Xiaosong Jia, Hongyang Li, Andreas Geiger, Xiangyu Yue, and Li Chen. Resim: Reliable world simulation for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09981, 2025a. Shuzhou Yang, Xiaoyu Li, Xiaodong Cun, Guangzhi Wang, Lingen Li, Ying Shan, and Jian Zhang. Gencompositor: Generative video c...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [24]

    Unic: Unified in-context video editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04216, 2025a

    Zixuan Ye, Xuanhua He, Quande Liu, Qiulin Wang, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, Kun Gai, Qifeng Chen, and Wenhan Luo. Unic: Unified in-context video editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04216, 2025a. Zixuan Ye, Huijuan Huang, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, and Wenhan Luo. Stylemaster: Stylize your video with artistic generation and translation. InPr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [25]

    Text prompt

    as the base T2V generation model, as illustrated in Fig. S7. We employ a 3D-V AE to transform videos from the pixel space to a latent space, upon which we construct a transformer-based video diffusion model. Unlike previous models that rely on UNets or transformers, which typically incorporate an additional 1D temporal attention module for video generatio...

    2024

  20. [26]

    Condition frames are encoded into latents, assembled into a zero-padded latent sequence, and concatenated with the noisy latent sequence along the channel dimension

    •Channel Concatenation(Yang et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025a). Condition frames are encoded into latents, assembled into a zero-padded latent sequence, and concatenated with the noisy latent sequence along the channel dimension. A learnable projection layer then restores the embedding dimension. In our implementation, concatenation is appliedafter patchif...

    2024

  21. [27]

    All paradigms are trained under identical settings and restricted to the same set of conditionable frames defined by the V AE stride, ensuring a rigorous and controlled comparison

    This design requires no additional trainable parameters. All paradigms are trained under identical settings and restricted to the same set of conditionable frames defined by the V AE stride, ensuring a rigorous and controlled comparison. Temporal granularity.Different conditioning paradigms impose different constraints on the in- dices where conditional f...

    2018

  22. [29]

    The set includes: • 50 pairs of non-homologous images, selected to maximize dissimilarity (e.g., indoor vs

    and Unsplash (Un- splash, 2025), ensuring large appearance and semantic gaps. The set includes: • 50 pairs of non-homologous images, selected to maximize dissimilarity (e.g., indoor vs. outdoor, object vs. scene). • 50 triplets of non-homologous images, further increasing combinatorial diversity. • 30 pairs of non-homologous video clips, curated for chall...

    2025

  23. [30]

    • Temporal anchors

    or YOLO (Ultralytics, 2023), and 50% random crops. • Temporal anchors. The same start, middle, and end frame positions are used to construct single-, two-, and three-frame variants, for both homologous and non-homologous cases. • Difficulty. The subset explicitly includes challenging cases with very small subjects, requiring the model to extrapolate from ...

    2023

  24. [31]

    •Inpainting.For homologous videos, interior rectangular masks are applied to each frame, covering 20%–50% of the width/height

    and manually corrected to ensure faithful descriptions of both content and motion. •Inpainting.For homologous videos, interior rectangular masks are applied to each frame, covering 20%–50% of the width/height. The model must fill the missing regions with temporally consistent content. •Outpainting.Boundary masks are applied to crop the central region, mas...

    2025

  25. [200]

    • Length filtering: only videos longer than 5 seconds were retained

    • Motion filtering: static or nearly-static clips were excluded using RAFT-based motion magnitude thresholds exceeding 5 (Teed & Deng, 2020). • Length filtering: only videos longer than 5 seconds were retained. From this pool, we selected 100 diverse, high-quality clips covering a wide range of scenes (e.g., human activities, animals, landscapes). All wer...

    2020

  26. [2020]

    Lora-edit: Controllable first-frame-guided video editing via mask-aware lora fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10082,

    Chenjian Gao, Lihe Ding, Xin Cai, Zhanpeng Huang, Zibin Wang, and Tianfan Xue. Lora-edit: Controllable first-frame-guided video editing via mask-aware lora fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10082,

    arXiv

  27. [2022]

    Reparo: Loss-resilient generative codec for video conferencing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14135,

    Tianhong Li, Vibhaalakshmi Sivaraman, Pantea Karimi, Lijie Fan, Mohammad Alizadeh, and Dina Katabi. Reparo: Loss-resilient generative codec for video conferencing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14135,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [2023]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capa- bilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261,

    Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capa- bilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [2024]

    Fulldit2: Efficient in-context conditioning for video diffusion transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04213,

    Xuanhua He, Quande Liu, Zixuan Ye, Wecai Ye, Qiulin Wang, Xintao Wang, Qifeng Chen, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, and Kun Gai. Fulldit2: Efficient in-context conditioning for video diffusion transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04213,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [2025]

    Videopainter: Any-length video inpainting and editing with plug-and-play context control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05639,

    Yuxuan Bian, Zhaoyang Zhang, Xuan Ju, Mingdeng Cao, Liangbin Xie, Ying Shan, and Qiang Xu. Videopainter: Any-length video inpainting and editing with plug-and-play context control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05639,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.