Zero-Shot Dynamic Concept Personalization with Grid-Based LoRA

Aliaksandr Siarohin; Daniel Cohen-Or; Ekaterina Deyneka; Hao Chen; Kfir Aberman; Or Patashnik; Rameen Abdal; Sergey Tulyakov

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 references

Zero-Shot Dynamic Concept Personalization with Grid-Based LoRA

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2×2 grid of video cells lets a single LoRA adapter personalize unseen subjects in one forward pass.

desk verdict The zero-shot generalization claim is the whole ballgame, and the paper doesn't actually measure it—the numbers only cover training identities. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17963 v1 pith:QCXJUVLC submitted 2025-07-23 cs.GR cs.CVcs.LG

Rameen Abdal , Or Patashnik , Ekaterina Deyneka , Hao Chen , Aliaksandr Siarohin , Sergey Tulyakov , Daniel Cohen-Or , Kfir Aberman This is my paper

classification cs.GRcs.CVcs.LG

keywords zero-shotpersonalizationdynamicconceptsvideogenerationLoRAadaptersgridinpaintingtext-to-videodiffusionfeedforwardcomposition

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

The paper tries to establish that dynamic concept personalization — capturing a subject's appearance and motion from a single video — can be made fully zero-shot, with no per-instance fine-tuning at test time. The method arranges video input-output pairs into structured 2×2 grids, trains lightweight LoRA adapters to edit and compose concepts within those grids, and then uses a Grid-Fill module to complete partially observed layouts in a single forward pass. If the claim is right, a user could drop in a novel video of any subject and immediately apply text-driven edits such as rain, smoke, or lighting changes, or fuse two concepts, without retraining. The authors report high identity preservation and temporal coherence on unseen subjects in both editing and composition tasks.

What carries the argument

The 2×2 video grid is the central object: it spatially arranges source and output (or two sources and their fusion), and the model treats the grid itself as a visual prompt for in-context transformation. The argument is carried by three LoRA adapters — Multi-DC LoRA, Grid LoRA, and Grid-Fill LoRA — with Grid-Fill performing non-autoregressive inpainting of masked cells, trained with a flow-matching reconstruction loss over the masked regions while keeping unmasked cells fixed. This grid-as-conditioning mechanism is what converts a per-instance optimization problem into a feedforward one.

What would settle it

Record a video of a novel subject performing a highly unusual motion (for example, a backflip or a whip-like arm gesture) that was not in the training set, place it in one grid cell, and prompt the system for an edit like 'under heavy rain'; if identity or temporal coherence degrades substantially compared with per-video fine-tuning, the zero-shot generalization claim is falsified. A second check is to evaluate Grid-Fill's completions when the visible conditioning cell is removed entirely, isolating whether the module actually learns the underlying concept or merely copies from the input.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that three stacked LoRA adapters turn a frozen text-to-video diffusion model into a feedforward personalization engine. A Multi-DC LoRA first consolidates appearance and motion from a small set of dynamic concepts into one shared parameter set; a Grid LoRA learns layout-aware consistency and composition by generating structured 2×2 grids; a Grid-Fill LoRA learns conditional inpainting of masked grid cells. At inference, one real video is placed in a grid cell and the remaining cells are synthesized in a single pass, preserving the subject's identity and motion while applying non-pixel-aligned edits or fusing two concepts. The paper's own framing is that the system operates entirely in one forward pass and generalizes to previously unseen dynamic concepts without any test-time optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption is that the underlying 11.5-billion-parameter video diffusion model, trained on undisclosed data, has enough in-context and inpainting ability that a Grid-Fill LoRA fine-tuned on only about 25 half-resolution generated grids will correctly complete partially observed layouts for unseen subjects and non-pixel-aligned edits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any new subject video can be edited with effects like rain, smoke, and lighting changes in a single forward pass, with no per-video fine-tuning.
Two previously unseen dynamic concepts can be composed into one coherent video in a single pass, without retraining on the pair.
Because one shared adapter set covers all subjects, the approach scales to many concepts where per-instance methods would require one LoRA per video.
The paper's ablation indicates that augmenting training with Grid LoRA-generated samples and dropping the Multi-DC LoRA at inference is what enables identity-preserving generalization.
The method is not tied to the 2×2 layout; the authors note that other layouts such as 1×3 grids could be used for different formats.

Reading between the lines

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

If this zero-shot claim holds, grid-based in-context conditioning may be a general recipe for making other personalization tasks feedforward, potentially extending to image editing, audio, or multi-modal generation.
The heavy reliance on a large proprietary backbone with an undisclosed training set means the reported results may not transfer to smaller open-source video models; a natural test is rerunning the same pipeline on an open DiT backbone.
The paper's own ceiling statement implies the zero-shot system can at best match per-video fine-tuning on identity; a fair comparison would measure the gap at scale across many subjects.
A testable extension is increasing the grid size beyond 2×2 (e.g., 3×3 or hierarchical grids) to see whether richer spatial context improves fine-grained identity retention or supports more complex compositions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The method is real: a three-stage LoRA scheme (Multi-DC, Grid, Grid-Fill) that does dynamic concept personalization in a single feedforward pass, no per-concept fine-tuning. The idea is a genuine step beyond Dynamic Concepts, which still trains per concept. The grid-based training and the Grid-Fill inpainting module are new to me in this context, and the writing is clear, the ablations are sensible, and the limitations section is honest about the identity-preservation ceiling relative to per-video LoRA.

But the central claim—generalization to previously unseen dynamic concepts—is asserted, not measured. Tables 1 and 2, and the user study in Table 3, all run on the same five Pexels identities used to train the consistent-mode adapters. There is no quantitative result for any held-out subject. The unseen-concept evidence is qualitative only: Figs. 6 and 9. So the headline claim rests on the base model's in-context capacity and on the sufficiency of roughly 25 generated training grids at half resolution. That might be true, but it hasn't been shown.

The paper also has some addressable defects: the dataset description is inconsistent (Sec 3.1 says 11 videos, 5 identities, 6 scenes; Sec 8 says composition mode spans 8 human identities and 6 non-human scenes); there are no error bars on any table; no code or data is released; and the backbone is a proprietary 11.5B DiT, so independent reproduction is impossible. The best configuration drops Multi-DC LoRA at inference, which is a little awkward given the framing.

None of this is an internal contradiction. The method is coherent, the losses are standard, and I don't see a circular fit. The gap is purely evidential: the paper's main promise is not backed by numbers on unseen identities.

This paper is worth a serious referee, but a referee should insist on a held-out evaluation, error bars, and a clarified dataset count. If the authors can show quantitative gains on truly unseen subjects, this becomes a solid contribution. As it stands, it's a well-written method paper whose headline claim needs more evidence.

For an editor: send it out, but with a clear request for a held-out eval.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a feedforward framework for personalizing text-to-video diffusion models with dynamic concepts from a single video, without per-instance test-time fine-tuning. The method has three stages: a Multi-DC LoRA that encodes appearance and motion of multiple concepts in shared weights; a Grid LoRA trained on structured 2x2 video grids for editing and composition; and a Grid-Fill LoRA that completes partially observed grids at inference. The central claim is that, once trained, the full system generalizes to previously unseen dynamic concepts in a single forward pass, supporting edits such as lighting, rain, and smoke, as well as compositions between two concepts. Quantitative results are reported on a five-identity Pexels dataset for editing, with ablations and comparisons to per-instance baselines; composition and out-of-domain generalization are shown mainly through qualitative examples.

Significance. If the zero-shot generalization claim is substantiated, this would be a meaningful advance over per-instance methods such as Dynamic Concepts, making video personalization scalable for practical editing and composition. The grid-based in-context formulation is original, the module decomposition is clear, and the training details are reported at a level that allows a reader to understand the pipeline. The paper also honestly lists limitations about half-resolution inference and dependence on the base model. However, the evidence does not currently support the headline claim: the quantitative evaluation is conducted on the same identities used for training the adapters, and the claimed generalization to unseen subjects and non-pixel-aligned edits relies almost entirely on qualitative material. With a proper held-out evaluation, the contribution could be substantial; as written, the central claim is under-verified.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4.1, 5.1, 8; Tables 1-3] The quantitative evaluation is performed on the same five Pexels identities used to train Multi-DC LoRA and the consistent-mode Grid-LoRA/Grid-Fill adapters, and it covers only the editing task; composition results (Sec. 5.2.3) are presented qualitatively. Therefore Tables 1-2 and the user study in Table 3 do not provide any numeric measurement of the paper's central claim of generalization to previously unseen dynamic concepts. Please add an evaluation on held-out identities and concepts, report per-subject numbers, and include quantitative or systematically structured qualitative evaluation for composition.
[Sec. 5.2.2, Sec. 3.3] Grid-Fill LoRA is trained on roughly 25 generated grid samples at half resolution, primarily human-centric, and the claims of generalization to out-of-domain subjects (e.g., a cat) and to non-pixel-aligned edits are supported only by qualitative figures and supplementary videos. Since the abstract states that the system generalizes to previously unseen dynamic concepts without test-time optimization, this load-bearing assertion needs direct evidence rather than illustrative examples.
[Sec. 3.3 vs Sec. 5.1; Table 1] There is an unresolved discrepancy about the final inference configuration: Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 2 say Grid-Fill LoRA is conditioned on the frozen Multi-DC LoRA, while Sec. 5.1 and Table 1 indicate that the best configuration ('Ours') is obtained by removing Multi-DC LoRA at inference. The method description, the system figure, and the inference procedure in Sec. 3.4 must state the actually deployed configuration consistently; otherwise the architecture and the ablation are ambiguous.
[Sec. 3.1 vs Sec. 8] The dataset description is internally inconsistent: Sec. 3.1 reports 11 videos with 5 identities and 6 scenes, whereas Sec. 8 says the composition mode spans 8 human identities and 6 non-human scenes. This ambiguity affects what was actually trained and what the evaluation covers; please reconcile the two descriptions and state clearly which data are used for each training stage.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'The method is not specific to this layout, one chose to have different layouts' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten, e.g., 'The method is not specific to this layout; one could choose other layouts, such as 1x3 for vertically stacked videos.'
[Sec. 4.2] FlowEdit is described as a baseline compared qualitatively, but it does not appear in Tables 2 or 3; please state explicitly where the qualitative comparison is shown and what was compared.
[Table 3] The header '0P' should be 'OP' for Overall Preference; also fix the typos 'comaparison' in Sec. 4.2 and 'Dreanbooth' in Sec. 5.1.
[Sec. 8] The typo 'At inferernce' should be corrected, and the range for c_fg (4-5) should be accompanied by a short description of how the value was selected for each task.
[Sec. 3.4] Step 1 says the user 'samples or inputs a real dynamic concept' into one or two cells, but the paper does not specify how a real video is mapped into the grid latent representation (e.g., autoencoder encoding, token masking, and any alignment to the training grid layout); please clarify for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Quantitative 'zero-shot' results are measured on the very identities used to train Grid-Fill LoRA, and the base concept encoder is inherited from the authors' prior work; cross-identity generalization is supported only qualitatively.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1 (Evaluation Dataset), Sec. 8 (Architecture and Training Details), Tables 1-2]
"The consistent dynamic concepts mode is trained on 5 human subjects, while the composition mode includes a diverse set of 11 dynamic concepts, spanning 8 human identities and 6 non-human scenes. ... we evaluate our framework on a curated human-centric video dataset collected from Pexels. It comprises five distinct identities performing a mix of intricate as well as pronounced actions to test the limits of the methods."

The Grid-Fill LoRA used for the editing task is trained on exactly the same five Pexels human identities that populate the quantitative evaluation (Tables 1-2). The reported identity-preservation and editing scores therefore measure in-distribution completion for training identities, not generalization to previously unseen concepts. The abstract's central claim, 'generalizing to previously unseen dynamic concepts without any test-time optimization,' is supported quantitatively only by numbers obtained on training identities; the only genuinely unseen-subject evidence is qualitative (Figs. 6, 9). Thus the quantitative 'prediction' is forced by the training set and cannot distinguish zero-shot transfer from memorization of the five identities.
self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.1 (Multi Dynamic Concept LoRA) and Sec. 10 (Video Sources)]
"Following the set-and-sequence training strategy of Abdal et al. [Abdal et al . 2025], we fine-tune a LoRA module to capture both the appearance and motion characteristics of these dynamic subjects. ... These samples are taken from set-and-sequence [Abdal et al. 2025]."

The load-bearing premise that a single shared Multi-DC LoRA can encode appearance and motion from a single video is imported from the authors' own prior arXiv paper [Abdal et al. 2025], and the training videos are likewise taken from that same self-cited work. The present paper does not independently verify that base capability against an external benchmark; instead it builds the entire grid-based zero-shot pipeline on it. This is a supporting dependency rather than the paper's novel contribution, so it is moderate, but it means the zero-shot claim rests in part on an unverified same-author result.

full rationale

The paper's own equations are standard: the flow-matching losses and LoRA updates are not fitted to the evaluation metrics, and no target metric appears in the training objective, so there is no equation-level derivation-versus-fitting circularity. The comparison tables also include external baselines and a user study, which are genuinely independent evidence. However, the central 'zero-shot' claim is weakened by a concrete self-referential chain: Grid-Fill LoRA is trained on five human subjects, the quantitative editing evaluation is run on those same five subjects, and the base Multi-DC LoRA that generates the grid training data is inherited from the authors' previous paper with no external verification. The claimed generalization to unseen dynamic concepts therefore rests on qualitative demonstrations and on the assumed capacity of the proprietary 11.5B DiT backbone, rather than on the reported numbers. This is a partial circularity: some evidence is in-distribution, and some load-bearing support comes from self-citation, but the architecture and losses themselves are not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claim draws most of its strength from a proprietary backbone and a small, partially self-generated training set. The free parameters with direct influence on the headline numbers are the LoRA ranks, the per-mode noise scales, the guidance scale, dropout, text-masking probability, and the unquantified inference-time attenuation of Multi-DC LoRA. No physical or natural-kind entities are introduced; the three LoRA modules and the grid representation are software constructs whose evidence is entirely internal to the paper. The main axioms are the backbone's in-context capacity, the representativeness of 11 training videos, and the shared-subspace appearance/motion decomposition.

free parameters (6)

LoRA rank r = 8 (Grid LoRA and Grid-Fill; Multi-DC rank not stated)
Chosen capacity for the adapters; not ablated in the paper.
Grid-Fill noise scale sigma = 1.90 train / 1.80 inference (consistent mode); 1.75 / 1.70 (composition mode)
Tuned separately per mode to improve fine-grained control (Sec 8).
Classifier-free guidance scale c_fg = 4 to 5 at inference
Chosen for best results (Sec 8).
Grid LoRA dropout = 0.5
Choice for both Grid LoRA modes (Sec 8).
Text token masking probability = 0.6
Applied during Grid-Fill training to force reliance on visual input (Sec 8).
Multi-DC LoRA influence at inference = Unquantified (reduced or dropped)
Sec 3.2 and Table 1: the best configuration drops Multi-DC LoRA at inference; the attenuation factor is not specified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The proprietary 11.5B DiT video backbone possesses sufficient in-context and inpainting capacity to support grid completion after a small fine-tune.
Invoked throughout Sec 3.2-3.3; the zero-shot generalization claim depends on this capacity, which cannot be checked from the paper.
domain assumption The 11-video training set (5 identities and 6 scenes) is representative enough for a single shared LoRA to encode generalizable appearance and motion.
Sec 3.1; the Multi-DC LoRA is trained on these 11 videos and used to bootstrap the later stages.
ad hoc to paper Appearance and motion decompose as A1B1 and A1B2 sharing a single subspace A1, and this adapter can be scaled or removed at inference.
Sec 3.1 equations; the shared-A1 factorization is a design choice, and the inference-time attenuation is ad hoc.
standard math Standard flow-matching and masked reconstruction losses are appropriate training objectives for this task.
Sec 3.1 and 3.3 define L_flow and L_grid-fill; these are standard objectives with no derivation gaps relevant to the claim.

invented entities (4)

Multi-DC LoRA (unified appearance-motion adapter)
purpose: Encodes several dynamic concepts in one weight set to provide an inductive bias for later grid stages.
Validated only inside the paper; it is removed at inference in the best configuration (Table 1); no weights are released.
Grid LoRA (layout-aware adapter)
purpose: Learns to generate consistent 2x2 grids of dynamic concepts and to synthesize training data for the Grid-Fill stage.
The only evidence is the paper's own samples (Fig 5, Fig 7) and its role in the ablation; no release.
Grid-Fill LoRA (masked completion module)
purpose: Completes partially observed 2x2 grids in one feedforward pass with identity and motion preservation.
The central new component; supported only by the paper's tables and figures, with no code or weights to verify independently.
2x2 grid layout as input-output representation
purpose: Spatially organizes source and target video cells so in-context editing and composition can be trained and inferred.
Representational choice adopted from image in-context methods (Visual Prompting, IC-LoRA) and extended to video; effectiveness is shown only in-paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-Shot Dynamic Concept Personalization with Grid-Based LoRA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCXJUVLC

@misc{pith2026250717963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-Shot Dynamic Concept Personalization with Grid-Based LoRA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCXJUVLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17963}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in text-to-video generation have enabled high-quality synthesis from text and image prompts. While the personalization of dynamic concepts, which capture subject-specific appearance and motion from a single video, is now feasible, most existing methods require per-instance fine-tuning, limiting scalability. We introduce a fully zero-shot framework for dynamic concept personalization in text-to-video models. Our method leverages structured 2x2 video grids that spatially organize input and output pairs, enabling the training of lightweight Grid-LoRA adapters for editing and composition within these grids. At inference, a dedicated Grid Fill module completes partially observed layouts, producing temporally coherent and identity preserving outputs. Once trained, the entire system operates in a single forward pass, generalizing to previously unseen dynamic concepts without any test-time optimization. Extensive experiments demonstrate high-quality and consistent results across a wide range of subjects beyond trained concepts and editing scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17963 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** We present a generalizable feedforward framework for personalizing text-to-video models with dynamic concepts. Our method enables text-driven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of our feedforward framework for dynamic concept personalization in text-to-video generation, eliminating the need for test-time fine-tuning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison with baselines. Comparison of our method with baseline approaches (NewMove [Materzyńska et al. 2024], DreamVideo [Wei et al. 2024], DB-LoRA [Ruiz et al. 2023; Ryu 2023], and DreamMix [Molad et al. 2023]) and FlowEdit [Kulikov et al. 2024] on two editing scenarios: adding lights and smoke, and adding light that illuminates the hair. Our method demonstrates the ability to adhere to the prompt, while generat… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Ablation of Design Choices. We ablate against two design choices i.e. augmenting the training set with Grid LoRA generated samples and removing the Multi-DC LoRA during inference. image domain and extended to videos, demonstrate local edits that align with the pixel bu…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Grid LoRA Sampling. Left: Sample from the Grid LoRA trained for consistent dynamic concepts. Right: Sample from the Grid LoRA trained for composition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Editing and Interactions. Our feedforward Grid-Fill LoRA enables text-driven edits that go beyond pixel-aligned changes, supporting subject-aware personalization. Here the examples capture interactions while preserving appearance and motion. of these dynamic subjects. …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Concept leaking. Left: Naive finetuning of LoRAs result in concept leaking where the inputs (top row) leaks the information of the identity. Right: using structured LoRAs and attention masking mitigates this effect. 4 Experiment Settings 4.1 Evaluation Dataset Followin…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Story Generation. In the Grid LoRA setting for consistent dynamic concepts, we preserve identity and appearance while allowing variations in motion, interactions, and context enabling coherent story progression across different scenes. Identity Preservation (ID). To en…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Feed Forward Dynamic Concepts Composition. Feedforward composition results achieved by our Grid-Fill LoRA on the composition task with each concept color-coded for clarity. For a more comprehensive demonstration, refer to the supplementary videos. the same character ap…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Dataset used to train Multi-DC LoRA. Backbone DiT Input channels 32 Patch size 1 × 2 × 2 Latent token channels 4096 Positional embeddings 3D-RoPE DiT blocks count 32 Attention heads count 32 Window size 6144 (center) Normalization Layer normalization Use flash attenti…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08629 (2024)

FlowEdit: Inversion-Free Text-Based Editing Using Pre-Trained Flow Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08629 (2024). Feng Liang, Bichen Wu, Jialiang Wang, Licheng Yu, Kunpeng Li, Yinan Zhao, Ishan Misra, Jia-Bin Huang, Peizhao Zhang, Peter Vajda, et al . 2023. FlowVid: Taming Imperfect Optical Flows for Consistent Video-to-Video Synthesis. arXiv preprint ar...

arXiv 2024
[5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11565 (2024)

Moa: Mixture-of-attention for subject-context disentanglement in personalized image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11565 (2024). Yujie Wei, Shiwei Zhang, Zhiwu Qing, Hangjie Yuan, Zhiheng Liu, Yu Liu, Yingya Zhang, Jingren Zhou, and Hongming Shan. 2024. DreamVideo: Composing Your Dream Videos with Customized Subject and Motion. In CVPR. Jay Zhangji...

arXiv 2024
[2022]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence44, 10 (oct 2022), 5962–5979

ArcFace: Additive Angular Margin Loss for Deep Face Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence44, 10 (oct 2022), 5962–5979. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpami.2021.3087709 Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold...

arXiv 2023
[2023]

Break-A-Scene: Extracting Multiple Concepts from a Single Image

Break-A-Scene: Extracting Multiple Concepts from a Single Image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16311 (2023). Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. 2022. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. 18208–18218. Amir Bar, Yossi Gandelsman, Trevor Darrell, Amir Globerson, and Alexei A. Efros. 2022. Visual Prompting via Image Inpainting...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[2024]

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

RAVE: Randomized Noise Shuffling for Fast and Consistent Video Editing with Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. Zero-Shot Dynamic Concept Personalization with Grid-Based LoRA • 11 Weijie Kong, Qi Tian, Zijian Zhang, Rox Min, Zuo...

arXiv 2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08629 (2024)

FlowEdit: Inversion-Free Text-Based Editing Using Pre-Trained Flow Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08629 (2024). Feng Liang, Bichen Wu, Jialiang Wang, Licheng Yu, Kunpeng Li, Yinan Zhao, Ishan Misra, Jia-Bin Huang, Peizhao Zhang, Peter Vajda, et al . 2023. FlowVid: Taming Imperfect Optical Flows for Consistent Video-to-Video Synthesis. arXiv preprint ar...

arXiv 2024

[2] [5]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11565 (2024)

Moa: Mixture-of-attention for subject-context disentanglement in personalized image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11565 (2024). Yujie Wei, Shiwei Zhang, Zhiwu Qing, Hangjie Yuan, Zhiheng Liu, Yu Liu, Yingya Zhang, Jingren Zhou, and Hongming Shan. 2024. DreamVideo: Composing Your Dream Videos with Customized Subject and Motion. In CVPR. Jay Zhangji...

arXiv 2024

[3] [2022]

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence44, 10 (oct 2022), 5962–5979

ArcFace: Additive Angular Margin Loss for Deep Face Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence44, 10 (oct 2022), 5962–5979. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpami.2021.3087709 Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold...

arXiv 2023

[4] [2023]

Break-A-Scene: Extracting Multiple Concepts from a Single Image

Break-A-Scene: Extracting Multiple Concepts from a Single Image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16311 (2023). Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. 2022. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. 18208–18218. Amir Bar, Yossi Gandelsman, Trevor Darrell, Amir Globerson, and Alexei A. Efros. 2022. Visual Prompting via Image Inpainting...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[5] [2024]

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

RAVE: Randomized Noise Shuffling for Fast and Consistent Video Editing with Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. Zero-Shot Dynamic Concept Personalization with Grid-Based LoRA • 11 Weijie Kong, Qi Tian, Zijian Zhang, Rox Min, Zuo...

arXiv 2024