Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

TV-LiVE: Training-Free, Text-Guided Video Editing via Layer Informed Vitality Exploitation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a diffusion-transformer video generator can perform object addition and non-rigid motion edits from a text prompt alone, with no training, by selectively swapping key and value features between the source and edited…

desk verdict A genuinely useful layer analysis and an honest training-free video editing recipe, but the "outperforms" claim rests on thin margins and a mask whose failure mode the paper itself shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07205 v1 pith:SODZDHQ7 submitted 2025-06-08 cs.CV

Min-Jung Kim , Dongjin Kim , Seokju Yun , Jaegul Choo This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-guidedvideoeditingtraining-freediffusiontransformerlayervitalityprominencekey-valueinjectionrotarypositionembeddingsobjectaddition
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

This paper claims that a diffusion-transformer video generator can be turned into a text-guided video editor without any fine-tuning, for two tasks that prior editing methods handle poorly: adding a novel object to a scene and changing an existing subject's motion or pose. The trick is to learn which internal attention layers carry positional information and to swap in or withhold the source video's key and value features layer by layer. For object addition, the method also reads off an editing mask from the attention paid to the newly added prompt words, so that only the intended region changes. If the claims hold, complex video edits become a lightweight, prompt-driven operation on top of an off-the-shelf generator.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pair of layer-scoring metrics plus a masked attention-injection scheme. Layer vitality scores each of the 42 DiT layers by how much the output changes when Rotary Position Embeddings are dropped from its keys or the layer is bypassed, measured with a self-supervised perceptual similarity model; vital layers are the ones most dependent on positional encoding. Layer prominence scores each layer by whether dropping RoPE changes the foreground while sparing the background, computed with per-region PSNR; layer 11 comes out most prominent. In object addition, attention maps of the target prompt's delta tokens (words such as 'flower crown' that are not in the source prompt) are averaged and binarized into a mask, and that mask decides where source keys and values are suppressed so the new object can appear. In non-rigid editing, no mask is used; instead source keys and values are injected only into non-vital layers during the early denoising steps.

What would settle it

Take a set of object-addition prompt pairs in which the object to be added is small or partly occluded, compare the automatically extracted layer-11 mask with the pixels the new object actually occupies in the output, and check whether edit failures occur exactly when the mask misses the intended region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that layer-specific behavior in a RoPE-based diffusion-transformer video model is predictable enough to control editing by selective key/value injection. Using CogVideoX, the authors measure each layer's vitality by removing Rotary Position Embeddings or bypassing the layer and measuring perceptual similarity to the original; vital layers are position-dependent and preserve spatial structure, while non-vital layers transfer appearance without locking position. For object addition they inject source keys and values into vital layers and, guided by a mask extracted from attention to the newly added prompt words at the most prominent layer (layer 11), leave the masked region free to follow the target prompt. For non-rigid editing they inject source keys and values into non-vital layers only, during early denoising steps, which lets pose and motion change while appearance stays close to the source. The paper reports that this beats prior training-free and inversion-based baselines on both tasks in aggregate-metric and user-preference comparisons.

Load-bearing premise

For object addition, the entire pipeline depends on the assumption that the attention map of the newly added prompt words, at the prominent layer, reliably marks the exact region the user wants to edit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pretrained DiT video generators can serve as general-purpose editors: object addition and non-rigid motion changes require no fine-tuning or extra training.
  • The method transfers to real-world videos using DDIM inversion with the same hyperparameters, so it is not restricted to generated source videos.
  • Because masks come from attention to the delta tokens, extending the target prompt with additional words enables multi-object addition in a single pass.
  • The layer vitality and prominence rankings give a concrete map of which DiT layers encode position versus appearance, and that map can guide other interventions inside the same model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference the paper leaves implicit: if RoPE sensitivity is what separates vital from non-vital layers, the same two ranking metrics could be run once on any RoPE-based DiT model, and the editing recipe may transfer without retraining.
  • The paper's own failure case suggests a testable extension: replacing the raw attention-map mask with prompt-grounded segmentation or a small refinement step could remove the main failure mode in object addition.
  • A further consequence, not explored here, is that the injection timestep schedule might be re-tuned per task or per object, since the paper fixes one schedule across all prompts.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. TV-LiVE proposes a training-free, text-guided video editing method for DiT-based video generators, targeting object addition and non-rigid edits. The method is built on two layer-level analyses: 'vitality,' measured by how much bypassing a layer or removing RoPE from its keys degrades perceptual similarity, and 'prominence,' which scores layers that preserve background while disrupting foreground. For object addition, the authors inject source keys/values into vital layers, extract a binary mask from attention maps of delta tokens in the most prominent layer (Layer 11), and withhold injection inside that mask. For non-rigid editing, they inject source keys/values into non-vital layers early in denoising. Experiments use CogVideoX as backbone, 30 ChatGPT-generated prompt pairs per task, automatic metrics (CLIP-based, VBench) multiplied into an overall score, a user study, and ablations. The central claim is that TV-LiVE outperforms existing approaches on both tasks.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides layer-level interpretability evidence for DiT video models (the 0.987 correlation between bypass and RoPE-removal vitality is striking), and it shows that a training-free key/value injection scheme can achieve non-rigid edits and object addition in a single framework. The method is clearly described with pseudocode, and the authors disclose a concrete failure case and their computational cost, which is commendable. However, the evaluation is the weak point: the reported margins over strong baselines are extremely small (0.2286 vs. 0.2277 for object addition, 0.2255 vs. 0.2239 for non-rigid), no error bars or significance tests are provided, and the main object-addition mechanism depends on an automatically extracted mask whose failure mode is shown in the paper's own Limitations section. The significance of the paper therefore hinges on whether these issues can be addressed with additional evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1; Section 5.2; Checklist item 7] The quantitative support for the headline claim 'outperforms existing approaches' is very weak. In Table 1, the overall margin over the best baseline is 0.0009 for object addition (0.2286 vs. CogV2V's 0.2277) and 0.0016 for non-rigid editing (0.2255 vs. CogV2V's 0.2239). The Checklist explicitly states that no error bars are reported. With only 30 prompt pairs per task and no variance estimates or significance testing, differences of this size are indistinguishable from noise. Please report per-prompt distributions, confidence intervals, or a paired test, and discuss whether the reported margins are stable across random seeds and prompt subsets.
  2. [Supplementary Material G, Figure 14; Section 4.2; Algorithm 1] The object-addition capability is load-bearing on the reliability of the mask extracted from delta-token attention in the prominent layer, because masked injection determines where the target prompt may act. The paper's own Limitations section (Figure 14) shows a concrete failure in which the mask highlights background rather than the man's hand, producing an unintended new person holding a red umbrella. This directly contradicts the abstract's statement that masks from prominent layers 'faithfully indicate the region to be edited.' A single anecdotal failure would not be fatal by itself, but the paper provides no systematic mask-quality metric, no success-rate statistics over the test set, and no analysis of which prompt/types of objects produce unreliable masks. Please add a quantitative mask-reliability evaluation (e.g., IoU against a manual or Grounded-SAM-based region for the added object) and report how often the failure mode in Figure 14 occurs.
  3. [Sections 4.2 and 5.1; Equations (4)-(5); Algorithm 1] Several load-bearing design choices are selected empirically on the same task family used for the final evaluation, without a held-out selection procedure or sensitivity analysis. These include the vital layer set [0,1,10,11,12,14,15,17,19,23], the non-vital layer set, the prominent layer (Layer 11), the injection timesteps [10,25), the mask threshold tmask=0.8, the preprocessing constants (k=10.0, ck=0.1), and the normalization constant C=400 in Eq. (4). Since the method is essentially a prescription of which layers and timesteps to inject, the reported result could reflect fitting these choices to the test prompts rather than a generally valid editing rule. Please provide ablations that perturb these choices (e.g., layer subsets, timestep windows, threshold values, C) and show that the conclusions are robust, or give a principled, task-independent rule for selecting them.
  4. [Section 4.1; Table 1; Supplementary Table 3] The paper's central evidence for layer vitality is that DINOv2 perceptual similarity after layer bypass or RoPE removal correlates with a layer's importance for editing. However, the link between this analysis and the actual editing tasks is indirect: the vitality analysis uses 40 prompts, while the evaluation uses 30 different prompt pairs, and the layer sets are then fixed. The same applies to the prominence analysis, which relies on Grounded SAM2 foreground segmentation and the C-dependent normalized PSNR in Eq. (4). Please clarify whether the layer-analysis prompts overlap with the evaluation prompts, and show that the selected layers generalize across different prompt distributions and different backbone checkpoints or video domains. Without this, the risk of selection-on-the-evaluation-set cannot be ruled out.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (4)] The formula for S_fg(l) and S_bg(l) has a formatting issue with parentheses, and the role of C=400 is not intuitive; the supplementary note also flags that the main text says 'PSNR values exceeding 40 close to 0' when it should say 'close to 1.' Please fix the typo and clarify the normalization.
  2. [Algorithm 1; Section 4.2] The notation around delta tokens is inconsistent: the algorithm uses idx_{w*} while the text refers to 'delta tokens' and 'target prompt tokens.' Please define the token-indexing procedure precisely, especially how tokens for multi-word phrases such as 'flower crown' are selected.
  3. [Section 5.1; Supplementary Material F] The real-world video experiments are qualitative only, and the limitations section notes that existing video inversion methods are 'not sufficiently faithful.' Please provide quantitative evidence of inversion fidelity (e.g., reconstruction PSNR or CLIP similarity between the inverted-and-reconstructed source and the original source) to support the real-video claim.
  4. [Table 1] The table formatting obscures some entries, with underlines and row alignments that are hard to read; also, the 'TV-LiVE (w/ N.P. Mask)' and 'TV-LiVE (w/ V.L.)' rows suggest the ablations should be clearly labeled as ablations in the caption, not as competing methods.
  5. [Checklist items 4 and 5] The reproducibility statement says code 'will be released upon acceptance,' which is not the same as providing a reproducibility path now. Please provide at least a detailed hyperparameter table (including all preprocessing constants and random seeds) and, if possible, an anonymous code repository or detailed instructions in the supplementary material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: layer/timestep choices are empirical hyperparameters, the only same-author citation is background, and the mask-localization failure is a robustness limitation rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

TV-LiVE's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity check. Vitality (Eqs. 2-3) is an independent perceptual-similarity measurement, prominence (Eqs. 4-5) is computed from PSNR over Grounded-SAM foreground/background regions, and the resulting edit recipes are tested on separate ChatGPT-generated prompt pairs (Sec. 5.2). The vital/non-vital layer lists, prominent layer 11, timestep range [10,25), and tmask=0.8 are manually chosen empirical settings disclosed in Sec. 5.1; they are not fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions, and the quantitative comparison against BIVDiff, RA VE, CogInv, VidToMe, and CogV2V is an external benchmark. The only same-author citation ([30] TCAN) appears in related-work background and is not load-bearing; StableFlow and FreeFlux, the actual methodological precedents, are external prior work. The abstract's claim that prominent-layer masks 'faithfully indicate the region to be edited' is an empirical assumption about attention alignment, and the paper's own Limitations section (Fig. 14) documents a counterexample with a mislocalized mask. That admission is a robustness/correctness concern, not evidence of circularity, because the mask is extracted from attention and then used to constrain injection; it is not obtained by regressing the reported evaluation scores. No equation-level reduction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no self-citation chain forces the results.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical layer selection and metric choices rather than a derivation. The main burden is that the layer sets, prominence layer, timesteps, and thresholds are chosen by hand on the same task family and then used to report the headline comparison, so the reader cannot separate discovery from fitting without a held-out evaluation.

free parameters (7)
  • C in normalized PSNR (Eq. 4) = 400
    Scaling constant in the normalized PSNR mapping; prominence scores and the choice of Layer 11 depend on this hand-set value.
  • Vital layer set for object addition = [0, 1, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23]
    Selected empirically after RoPE vitality analysis; no threshold or validation protocol is given for the selection.
  • Non-vital layer set for non-rigid editing = [16, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]
    Selected from low RoPE vitality layers; used to inject appearance without enforcing spatial alignment.
  • Prominent layer for mask extraction = 11
    Chosen because it has the highest prominence score; the entire object-addition mask depends on this choice.
  • Injection timesteps = Ti = 10, Te = 25, prominent timestep = 8
    The paper reports [10, 25) as the sweetspot for masked injection and timestep 8 for mask extraction, both chosen empirically from Figure 3(b) and Figure 5.
  • Mask threshold tmask = 0.8
    Binarization threshold for the attention-map mask after preprocessing.
  • Mask preprocessing constants = k = 10.0, ck = 0.1, Gaussian kernel 3, sigma 1.0
    Constants used in NORMALIZE and PREPROCESS to turn attention maps into binary masks.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CogVideoX self-attention can be steered by substituting key/value tensors from a source generation into a target generation.
    The whole method operates by replacing K and V in selected attention layers; no proof or cross-model validation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper DINOv2 perceptual similarity after layer bypass or RoPE removal is a valid proxy for layer vitality.
    The vitality scores that select vital layers are defined through this proxy, which is not independently validated as a measure of editability.
  • ad hoc to paper The prominence metric identifies layers whose attention maps localize newly added objects.
    Prominence is defined through foreground/background PSNR and used to choose Layer 11 for mask extraction, but the paper itself shows a mask failure (Figure 14).
  • domain assumption The multiplicative combination of CLIP and VBench metrics is a valid overall quality score.
    The headline 'outperforms' claim relies on multiplying several uncalibrated metrics into one scalar, with no error bars or significance testing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TV-LiVE: Training-Free, Text-Guided Video Editing via Layer Informed Vitality Exploitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SODZDHQ7

@misc{pith2026250607205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TV-LiVE: Training-Free, Text-Guided Video Editing via Layer Informed Vitality Exploitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SODZDHQ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07205}
}
read the original abstract

Video editing has garnered increasing attention alongside the rapid progress of diffusion-based video generation models. As part of these advancements, there is a growing demand for more accessible and controllable forms of video editing, such as prompt-based editing. Previous studies have primarily focused on tasks such as style transfer, background replacement, object substitution, and attribute modification, while maintaining the content structure of the source video. However, more complex tasks, including the addition of novel objects and nonrigid transformations, remain relatively unexplored. In this paper, we present TV-LiVE, a Training-free and text-guided Video editing framework via Layerinformed Vitality Exploitation. We empirically identify vital layers within the video generation model that significantly influence the quality of generated outputs. Notably, these layers are closely associated with Rotary Position Embeddings (RoPE). Based on this observation, our method enables both object addition and non-rigid video editing by selectively injecting key and value features from the source model into the corresponding layers of the target model guided by the layer vitality. For object addition, we further identify prominent layers to extract the mask regions corresponding to the newly added target prompt. We found that the extracted masks from the prominent layers faithfully indicate the region to be edited. Experimental results demonstrate that TV-LiVE outperforms existing approaches for both object addition and non-rigid video editing. Project Page: https://emjay73.github.io/TV_LiVE/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07205 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Video editing results conducted using our TV-LiVE. The left two columns demonstrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Layer Vitality and Layer Prominence Analysis. (a) The orange graph shows Bypassing Vitality, measured by bypassing each layer, while the blue graph shows RoPE Vitality, measured by removing RoPE from the key of each attention layer. (b) The Pearson correlation coefficient between Bypassing Vitality and RoPE Vitality is 0.987, indicating a strong correlation between the two metrics. (c) The green graph represents the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Layer Prominence Visualization. (a) The top-left image is from the source video, and the others show results when RoPE is ablated at each layer. Layer 11, which mainly affects the foreground, has the highest prominence score. (b) Visualization of where the target video attends the most at each denoising timestep. Key and value features are injected without a mask. Red: target prompt, Yellow: delta token, Blue: sourc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of our object addition framework. Up to the denoising timestep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Denoising timesteps ablation where the masked injection is applied. First Row: Sampled frame from source video. Second row: Generated video frame when the masked injection is applied in range[·, ·) We use CogVideoX [6] as our base text-to-video gen￾eration model. For o…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real video editing results. The top shows object addition, and the bottom shows non-rigid editing. Our method is applicable to real-world video edit￾ing. Given real-world video, we apply DDIM inver￾sion [40] to the video, to find initial noise of the given video. Start…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison between our method and baselines on (a) object addition and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Additional Object Addition Results. Our method can insert objects into the source video without temporal inconsistency or visual artifacts. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Additional Non-Rigid Editing Results. Our method modifies the pose or motion based on the target prompt while faithfully preserving the appearance details from the source video. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Multi-Object Addition Results. Our method can insert multiple objects by simply appending additional words to the target prompt. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prominent Layer Ablation. Using masks extracted from non-prominent layers for object addition often results in (a) failure to add the target object or (b) excessive and unintended modifications across the entire video, highlighting the importance of selecting the appr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Vital Layer Ablation. Using non-vital layers for non-rigid editing results in no changes to the output, showing the importance of using non-vital layers for non-rigid editing. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ablation on Target Prompt Update. Updating the target prompt using the source video during object addition (a) generally preserves the intended edit, but (b) can sometimes lead to no visible change, suggesting that the target prompt is being overridden by information …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visualization of our failure case in object addition. The top row shows the sampled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. ProxyUp: Training-Free Proxy-Conditioned Video Generation for Controllable Dynamics

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A training-free method preserves proxy-video dynamics via region-wise latent noising and Stochastic Flow Relaxation, outperforming editing and motion-transfer baselines on a custom 76-video set.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dockhorn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 22563–22575, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    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

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

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

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Cogvideo: Large-scale pretraining for text-to-video generation via transformers

    Wenyi Hong, Ming Ding, Wendi Zheng, Xinghan Liu, and Jie Tang. Cogvideo: Large-scale pretraining for text-to-video generation via transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15868, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Photorealistic video generation with diffusion models

    Agrim Gupta, Lijun Yu, Kihyuk Sohn, Xiuye Gu, Meera Hahn, Fei-Fei Li, Irfan Essa, Lu Jiang, and José Lezama. Photorealistic video generation with diffusion models. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 393–411. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models

    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, 2024. 16

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving

    Yuqing Wen, Yucheng Zhao, Yingfei Liu, Fan Jia, Yanhui Wang, Chong Luo, Chi Zhang, Tiancai Wang, Xiaoyan Sun, and Xiangyu Zhang. Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6902–6912, 2024

    2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on video diffusion models

    Zhen Xing, Qijun Feng, Haoran Chen, Qi Dai, Han Hu, Hang Xu, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. A survey on video diffusion models. ACM Computing Surveys, 57(2):1–42, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation

    Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Stan Weixian Lei, Yuchao Gu, Yufei Shi, Wynne Hsu, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Pix2video: Video editing using image diffusion

    Duygu Ceylan, Chun-Hao P Huang, and Niloy J Mitra. Pix2video: Video editing using image diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 23206–23217, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

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

    Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, et al. Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14792, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Text2video-zero: Text-to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators

    Levon Khachatryan, Andranik Movsisyan, Vahram Tadevosyan, Roberto Henschel, Zhangyang Wang, Shant Navasardyan, and Humphrey Shi. Text2video-zero: Text-to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer ...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Fatezero: Fusing attentions for zero-shot text-based video editing

    Chenyang Qi, Xiaodong Cun, Yong Zhang, Chenyang Lei, Xintao Wang, Ying Shan, and Qifeng Chen. Fatezero: Fusing attentions for zero-shot text-based video editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15932–15942, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Assisteditor: Multi- agent collaboration for gui workflow automation in video creation

    Difei Gao, Siyuan Hu, Zechen Bai, Qinghong Lin, and Mike Zheng Shou. Assisteditor: Multi- agent collaboration for gui workflow automation in video creation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 11255–11257, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Bivdiff: A training-free framework for general-purpose video synthesis via bridging image and video diffusion models

    Fengyuan Shi, Jiaxi Gu, Hang Xu, Songcen Xu, Wei Zhang, and Limin Wang. Bivdiff: A training-free framework for general-purpose video synthesis via bridging image and video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Rave: Randomized noise shuffling for fast and consistent video editing with diffusion models

    Ozgur Kara, Bariscan Kurtkaya, Hidir Yesiltepe, James M Rehg, and Pinar Yanardag. 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, pages 6507–6516, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Vidtome: Video token merging for zero-shot video editing

    Xirui Li, Chao Ma, Xiaokang Yang, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Vidtome: Video token merging for zero-shot video editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7486–7495, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jiajun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Diffedit: Diffusion- based semantic image editing with mask guidance

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. Diffedit: Diffusion- based semantic image editing with mask guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 17

    2023

  15. [23]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Freeflux: Understanding and exploiting layer-specific roles in rope-based mmdit for versatile image editing

    Tianyi Wei, Yifan Zhou, Dongdong Chen, and Xingang Pan. Freeflux: Understanding and exploiting layer-specific roles in rope-based mmdit for versatile image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16153, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Stable flow: Vital layers for training-free image editing

    Omri Avrahami, Or Patashnik, Ohad Fried, Egor Nemchinov, Kfir Aberman, Dani Lischinski, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Stable flow: Vital layers for training-free image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14430, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control

    Shaoteng Liu, Yuechen Zhang, Wenbo Li, Zhe Lin, and Jiaya Jia. Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8599–8608, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Dreamix: Video diffusion models are general video editors

    Eyal Molad, Eliahu Horwitz, Dani Valevski, Alex Rav Acha, Yossi Matias, Yael Pritch, Yaniv Leviathan, and Yedid Hoshen. Dreamix: Video diffusion models are general video editors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01329, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion features for consistent video editing

    Michal Geyer, Omer Bar-Tal, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion features for consistent video editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10373, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    P+: Extended textual conditioning in text-to-image generation

    Andrey V oynov, Qinghao Chu, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Kfir Aberman. P+: Extended textual conditioning in text-to-image generation. 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Tcan: Animating human images with temporally consistent pose guidance using diffusion models

    Jeongho Kim, Min-Jung Kim, Junsoo Lee, and Jaegul Choo. Tcan: Animating human images with temporally consistent pose guidance using diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 326–342. Springer, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Magicanimate: Temporally consistent human image animation using diffusion model

    Zhongcong Xu, Jianfeng Zhang, Jun Hao Liew, Hanshu Yan, Jia-Wei Liu, Chenxu Zhang, Jiashi Feng, and Mike Zheng Shou. Magicanimate: Temporally consistent human image animation using diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogn...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Swifttry: Fast and consistent video virtual try-on with diffusion models

    Hung Nguyen, Quang Qui-Vinh Nguyen, Khoi Nguyen, and Rang Nguyen. Swifttry: Fast and consistent video virtual try-on with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 6200–6208, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Soyo: A tuning-free approach for video style morphing via style-adaptive interpolation in diffusion models

    Haoyu Zheng, Qifan Yu, Binghe Yu, Yang Dai, Wenqiao Zhang, Juncheng Li, Siliang Tang, and Yueting Zhuang. Soyo: A tuning-free approach for video style morphing via style-adaptive interpolation in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06998, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Chatgpt (gpt-4)

    OpenAI. Chatgpt (gpt-4). https://chat.openai.com/, 2023. Large language model

    2023

  27. [35]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mutual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 22560–22570, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks, 2024

    Tianhe Ren, Shilong Liu, Ailing Zeng, Jing Lin, Kunchang Li, He Cao, Jiayu Chen, Xinyu Huang, Yukang Chen, Feng Yan, Zhaoyang Zeng, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Jie Yang, Hongyang Li, Qing Jiang, and Lei Zhang. Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Stylegan-nada: Clip-guided domain adaptation of image generators

    Rinon Gal, Or Patashnik, Haggai Maron, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Stylegan-nada: Clip-guided domain adaptation of image generators. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–13, 2022. 18

    2022

  31. [39]

    Vbench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models

    Ziqi Huang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Fan Zhang, Chenyang Si, Yuming Jiang, Yuanhan Zhang, Tianxing Wu, Qingyang Jin, Nattapol Chanpaisit, et al. Vbench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat...

    2024

  32. [40]

    PSNR values exceeding 40 close to 0

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 19 Supplementary Material Note on Notation Error We would like to note that there is an inconsistency in the notation used in the main paper. Specifically...

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Please select the video you prefer the most based on how well the target object appears and integrates with the existing elements in the scene

  34. [42]

    Please select the video you prefer the most based on how well the source video is preserved in regions other than the target object, while successfully incorporating the new content

  35. [43]

    Please select the video you would prefer the most if you were the user of this video editing tool. The following 15 source–target prompt pairs were used for the object addition evaluation: • Source: a boy running across a field Target: a boy running across a field while holdin...

  36. [44]

    Please select the video you prefer the most based on how accurately the target motion or pose is reflected

  37. [45]

    Please select the video you prefer the most based on how well the appearance of the source video is preserved while reflecting the target prompt

  38. [46]

    a boy running across a field

    Please select the video you would prefer the most if you were the user of this video editing tool. The following 15 source–target prompt pairs were used for the non-rigid editing evaluation: • Source: a lamb resting in a meadow Target: a lamb resting in a meadow while rolling ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.