Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Consistent Video Editing as Flow-Driven Image-to-Video Generation

T0 review · 3 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 Optical flow, not depth, drives shape-changing video edits

desk verdict Plausible flow-based editing pipeline whose headline non-rigid claim is undercut by the constant-flow averaging in Eq. (3); evaluation also thinner than reported, but worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07713 v2 pith:YO4KDRAQ submitted 2025-06-09 cs.CV cs.AI

Ge Wang , Songlin Fan , Hangxu Liu , Quanjian Song , Hewei Wang , Jinfeng Xu This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords videoeditingimage-to-videogenerationopticalflowdiffusionmodelstemporalconsistencynon-rigidmotionshapealignmentflow-conditioned
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

FlowV2V tries to establish that video editing can be treated as a flow-driven image-to-video generation problem: edit the first frame with any convenient image editor, then let a generative model propagate the edit to all remaining frames under the control of optical flow that has been reshaped to match the edited object. The point is that depth maps, which previous first-frame methods use as the motion condition, cannot represent non-rigid motion such as face rotation, expression changes, or multi-object deformation. On the DAVIS-EDIT benchmark the reported numbers support the method: a 13.67% improvement in DOVER and a 50.66% reduction in warping error over existing state-of-the-art, together with better handling of portrait and multi-object cases. The paper also identifies the boundary of the claim: the final video quality is capped by the generative capability of the image-to-video backbone.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the iterative motion propagation (IMP) routine plus the shape-consistent flow calibration network. IMP builds the pseudo optical flow sequence by assuming the average flow over the edited object region equals the average flow over the original object region, then uses the source video's optical flow to warp the edited-region mask forward frame by frame. The calibration network, modeled on ProPainter, removes flow regions that would mislead the generation, and a flow-driven adapter injects the calibrated flow into Stable Video Diffusion so the edited first frame propagates along the desired motions.

What would settle it

A controlled synthetic test would settle the load-bearing assumption: render a video of an object moving with known optical flow, edit the first frame into a differently shaped object, then compare FlowV2V's pseudo flow to the true motion of the edited object. If the pseudo flow diverges as soon as the edited shape rotates or moves differently from the source object, the average-flow premise is falsified; the paper's own admitted failures on occluded objects and lighting changes are natural real-world approximations of this test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a shape-aligned pseudo optical flow sequence, not depth, is the right condition for propagating an edited first frame through time. The pipeline first edits the first frame, then computes RAFT optical flow on the source video, averages the flow inside the source object mask, and paints that average flow into the edited object's mask. Warping the edited mask forward with the source flow lets the same operation be repeated for every frame, producing a full pseudo flow sequence; a shape-consistent flow calibration network removes redundant regions, and a flow-conditioned Stable Video Diffusion model generates the edited video. The net effect, as measured on DAVIS-EDIT, is a substantial jump in temporal consistency and sample quality, with the largest gains on the subset where the edited object changes shape significantly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the edited object inherits the average motion of the original object region, and that the edited mask can be tracked by warping with the source video's flow; this premise fails when the edited object rotates, occludes, or moves differently from the source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Non-rigid video edits such as face rotation, expression changes, and multi-object replacement become tractable in a first-frame-based pipeline without per-video tuning.
  • The choice of first-frame editor becomes modular: text, instruction, and reference-image prompts all plug into the same flow-driven propagation, so the method inherits each editor's strengths.
  • If the reported DAVIS-EDIT numbers hold, depth-conditioned propagation may be superseded for shape-changing edits, and warping error can be cut by roughly half.
  • The upper bound on output quality is set by the image-to-video backbone, so the method improves automatically as stronger generation models appear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not pursue: weight the flow transfer by per-pixel confidence or rigidity, which could repair the admitted failures in textureless regions, occlusions, and lighting changes.
  • If the flow-transfer assumption is the bottleneck, evaluating the method on videos with object-independent motion (an object that rotates while translating, or masks that lose track under occlusion) should show the pseudo flow drifting exactly where the assumption breaks.
  • The reported inference time of about 2.5 minutes at 512x512 suggests the same paradigm could be applied to interactive draft editing, where the first frame is edited by the user and the flow-driven propagation is rerun on demand.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. FlowV2V is presented as a video-editing pipeline that casts the task as flow-driven image-to-video generation. The method first edits the first frame (FFE), then iteratively propagates the source video's optical flow inside the source object mask (IMP) to obtain a pseudo flow sequence aligned with the edited object, refines this sequence with a flow-calibration network (SCFC), and finally conditions a Stable Video Diffusion-based I2V model on the calibrated flow (FD-I2V). The method is evaluated on the DAVIS-EDIT benchmark against several existing video-editing methods, with the abstract reporting improvements of 13.67% on DOVER and 50.66% on warping error. The paper also includes ablations on the first-frame editor and the type of control signal.

Significance. If the proposed method truly handles non-rigid motion as claimed, it would address a known limitation of depth-based video editing (StableV2V) by using optical flow as a richer control signal. The pipeline is pragmatic and built from off-the-shelf components, and the paper includes a reasonably broad comparison and ablations. However, the central mechanism for non-rigid motion transfer is not convincingly supported, and the quantitative claims suffer from missing uncertainty measures and a potential metric-coupling issue. The idea of using flow with shape alignment is interesting, but the current evidence is not sufficient to substantiate the headline claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3)] The pseudo flow inside the edited object mask is set to a single constant vector per frame—the average flow over the source mask. This removes all spatial variation of the flow field within the object, including the rotational and shear components that define non-rigid motion. Consequently, the described mechanism cannot by itself transfer non-rigid motions such as the face rotation and multi-object articulation highlighted in Figures 1 and 4. The paper relies on SCFC (Sec. 3.3) to refine the pseudo flow, but SCFC is trained on ground-truth flow corrupted by random mask dropping (supp. A), where missing regions are zeroed out rather than filled with a constant average. It is not demonstrated that SCFC can recover a spatially varying flow field from a constant-valued input, since the deformation information is not present in the input. Supplementary Section D discusses RAFT estimation errors on textureless regions, occlusion, and lighting, but does not address this structural information loss. Without additional evidence, the central claim of non-rigid motion editing is unsupported.
  2. [Table 1] The headline improvement figures in the abstract (13.67% on DOVER, 50.66% on warping error) are not directly traceable to the numbers in Table 1, and all results are point estimates over 50 videos with no confidence intervals or significance tests. For example, the DOVER improvement over StableV2V in the text-based setting is about 13.9% on DAVIS-EDIT-S but only about 8.7% on DAVIS-EDIT-C, so the reported single percentage is not representative of the results as presented. More importantly, the warping error (WE) metric may be computed using the same RAFT optical flow that FlowV2V uses as control; the paper does not specify how WE is defined. If WE is evaluated by warping generated frames with the source video's RAFT flow, then FlowV2V is partially self-scoring because its output is explicitly conditioned on that flow. Please clarify the exact definition of WE and provide per-set results, error bars, or statistical tests to support the comparative claims.
  3. [Eqs. (3)-(4)] The mask propagation step in Eq. (4) warps binary masks with optical flow. Standard bilinear warping will produce fractional values, which conflicts with the statement that the masks are binary-valued. The paper does not specify whether nearest-neighbor sampling, thresholding, or some other discretization is used. If nearest-neighbor is used, masks may be inaccurate at object boundaries; if bilinear, the masks become soft and the subsequent average computation in Eq. (3) and the iterative propagation are affected. This technical detail is important for reproducibility and should be clarified in the main text or supplementary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting inconsistencies: 'Hardamard' should be 'Hadamard' in Sec. 3.2; 'psuedo' should be 'pseudo'; the dataset name appears as 'DA VIS-EDIT' in most places but 'DAVIS-EDIT' in the abstract and sometimes 'DA VIS-Edit'; 'I2Edit' in Sec. 5.1 should be 'I2VEdit'; 'WAN' in Sec. 2 should be 'Wan'; and 'Step-Video3' is likely 'Step-Video-Ti2V'.
  2. [Table 1 and Sec. 4] The table includes results under both 512×512 and the original aspect ratio (marked with '*'), yet the abstract reports only a single set of improvement numbers without specifying which setting they refer to. The differences are substantial (e.g., DOVER 77.20 vs. 71.77 on DAVIS-EDIT-S for FlowV2V), so the abstract should clarify the setting to avoid misleading readers.
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'we adopt a pre-trained image segmentation model (i.e., SAM) to obtain a binary mask sequence M = {M_i} and the first frame mask \hat{M}_1 from the input video V and the edited first frame \hat{I}_1' is ambiguous: it should be clarified that SAM is applied per frame to obtain the source masks, and only the edited first frame mask is obtained by segmenting \hat{I}_1, with subsequent edited masks propagated via flow.
  4. [Sec. 5.2] The ablation studies are qualitative only. To support the claim that the flow-based condition is superior to depth or edge, quantitative results on a subset of DAVIS-EDIT would be more convincing. Similarly, the effect of the first-frame editor is described qualitatively without quantitative metrics.
  5. [Sec. 5.1] A user study is announced in Sec. 4 ('we conduct a user study to measure the human preferences'), but no user-study results appear anywhere in the paper or the supplementary. Please either add the results or remove the mention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FlowV2V's pseudo-flow control is explicitly computed from source flow and external pretrained models, not from a fitted parameter or self-cited theorem.

full rationale

FlowV2V's derivation chain is a heuristic pipeline: Eq. (2) computes source optical flow with RAFT; Eq. (3) defines the pseudo flow for the edited first frame as the source-average flow inside the edited mask and the original flow outside; Eq. (4) propagates masks by warping with source flow; Eq. (5) calibrates the flow with a network trained on YouTube-VOS under random mask corruption. Each stage is explicitly constructed from source-video quantities and external pretrained models, not from the target edited video. The statement in Sec. 3.2 that 'the average flow values in both regions are theoretically the same' is a stated modeling assumption, not a conclusion forced by an equation, and the pseudo flow is a control signal rather than a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. The SCFC network's reconstruction loss is computed against ground-truth flow on an external dataset, so it is not fit to the benchmark outputs. No load-bearing self-citation appears: reference [28] (UniVST) involves a co-author but is peripheral in Related Works and is not used to justify the method. The paper does not invoke a self-authored uniqueness theorem or import an ansatz via self-citation. The only circularity-adjacent concern is that the reported warping error might, depending on implementation, be computed with the same flow control used in generation, but the paper does not specify the WE computation, so this cannot be substantiated as a self-definitional metric from the text. Verdict: no significant circularity.

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

No scalar fitted parameters are introduced; all learned components are pretrained or trained on external datasets. The heuristic parameters (average flow transfer, mask warping, RAFT iteration count) are modeling choices rather than fitted constants. The pseudo flow is a derived signal, not an invented physical entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Average optical flow within the original object region equals the average flow within the edited object region.
    Sec. 3.2, Shape-Aware Flow Deformation. The entire pseudo-flow construction transfers F1 from M1 to bM1 under this equality; if edited shape changes motion statistics, the control signal is wrong.
  • domain assumption Edited-object masks in later frames can be obtained by warping the first-frame edited mask with the original video's optical flow.
    Eq. (4) in Sec. 3.2. This assumes the edit deforms along the same pixel trajectories as the source object, which is exactly the shape-alignment premise being tested and is violated under occlusion or topological changes.
  • domain assumption RAFT flow is accurate enough for both mask propagation and evaluation.
    Sec. 3.2 uses RAFT for flow and masks; supplementary Sec. D admits failures on textureless regions, occlusion, and lighting changes, which directly undermines this assumption in the very cases the method targets.
  • domain assumption A flow-conditioned SVD adapter can propagate edited first-frame content when given refined optical flow.
    FD-I2V (Sec. 3.4) reuses the MOFA-Video adapter style; the paper does not derive or verify this capability independently, it relies on pretrained behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consistent Video Editing as Flow-Driven Image-to-Video Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YO4KDRAQ

@misc{pith2026250607713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consistent Video Editing as Flow-Driven Image-to-Video Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YO4KDRAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07713}
}
read the original abstract

With the prosper of video diffusion models, down-stream applications like video editing have been significantly promoted without consuming much computational cost. One particular challenge in this task lies at the motion transfer process from the source video to the edited one, where it requires the consideration of the shape deformation in between, meanwhile maintaining the temporal consistency in the generated video sequence. However, existing methods fail to model complicated motion patterns for video editing, and are fundamentally limited to object replacement, where tasks with non-rigid object motions like multi-object and portrait editing are largely neglected. In this paper, we observe that optical flows offer a promising alternative in complex motion modeling, and present FlowV2V to re-investigate video editing as a task of flow-driven Image-to-Video (I2V) generation. Specifically, FlowV2V decomposes the entire pipeline into first-frame editing and conditional I2V generation, and simulates pseudo flow sequence that aligns with the deformed shape, thus ensuring the consistency during editing. Experimental results on DAVIS-EDIT with improvements of 13.67% and 50.66% on DOVER and warping error illustrate the superior temporal consistency and sample quality of FlowV2V compared to existing state-of-the-art ones. Furthermore, we conduct comprehensive ablation studies to analyze the internal functionalities of the first-frame paradigm and flow alignment in the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07713 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Qualitative comparisons of non-rigid motion editing (top), including face rotation, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of our proposed FlowV2V video editing pipeline. It consists of a first-frame editor, an iterative motion propagator, a shape-consistent flow calibration module, a reference encoder capturing multi-scale features from the source image, and a trainable SVD encoder initialized from SVD, serving as the final spatial-temporal feature merger in generation guidance. modules into pre-trained image d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of FlowV2V with state-of-the-art methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Here, we particularly compare FlowV2V with depth-guided (StableV2V) and latent features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results for the ablation study of different first-frame inputs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results for the ablation study of different condition types. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: More results under the facial image editing scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: More results under the video style transfer scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: More results under the rotation-based editing scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: More results under the multi-object editing scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More results under the instruction-based editing scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: More results under the text-based (left) and image-based (right) editing scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. O-DisCo-Edit: Object Distortion Control for Unified Realistic Video Editing

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A video editor trained on randomly distorted objects, then steered by adaptive noise at inference, is claimed to surpass dedicated and unified editors across eight tasks with far less training.

  2. WorldWander: Bridging Egocentric and Exocentric Worlds in Video Generation

    cs.CV 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A bidirectional egocentric-to-exocentric video translation framework trained with in-context attention on a new synthetic+real dataset, with evaluation flaws around reference leakage and missing direct baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agar- wal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In ICML, volume 139, pages 8748–8763, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Stable Video Diffusion: Scaling Latent Video Diffusion Models to Large Datasets

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Do- minik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, Varun Jampani, and Robin Rombach. Stable Video Diffusion: Scaling Latent Video Diffusion Models to Large Datasets. arXiv, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Paint by Example: Exemplar-based Image Editing with Diffusion Models

    Binxin Yang, Shuyang Gu, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Xuejin Chen, Xiaoyan Sun, Dong Chen, and Fang Wen. Paint by Example: Exemplar-based Image Editing with Diffusion Models. In CVPR, pages 18381–18391, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    FLATTEN: Optical FLow-guided ATTENtion for Consistent Text-to-Video Editing

    Yuren Cong, Mengmeng Xu, Christian Simon, Shoufa Chen, Jiawei Ren, Yanping Xie, Juan- Manuel Pérez-Rúa, Bodo Rosenhahn, Tao Xiang, and Sen He. FLATTEN: Optical FLow-guided ATTENtion for Consistent Text-to-Video Editing. In ICLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Duygu Ceylan, Chun-Hao Paul Huang, and Niloy J. Mitra. Pix2Video: Video Editing using Image Diffusion. In ICCV, pages 23149–23160, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    I2V-Adapter: A General Image-to-Video Adapter for Diffusion Models

    Xun Guo, Mingwu Zheng, Liang Hou, Yuan Gao, Yufan Deng, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, Yufan Liu, Weiming Hu, Zhengjun Zha, Haibin Huang, and Chongyang Ma. I2V-Adapter: A General Image-to-Video Adapter for Diffusion Models. In SIGGRAPH, page 112, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    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. In ICLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Id-animator: Zero-shot Identity-Preserving Human Video Generation

    Xuanhua He, Quande Liu, Shengju Qian, Xin Wang, Tao Hu, Ke Cao, Keyu Yan, and Jie Zhang. Id-animator: Zero-shot Identity-Preserving Human Video Generation. arXiv, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models. In ICLR, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. In NeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross B

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloé Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Dollár, and Ross B. Girshick. Segment Anything. In ICCV, pages 3992–4003, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models, 2025

    Weijie Kong, Qi Tian, Zijian Zhang, Rox Min, Zuozhuo Dai, Jin Zhou, Jiangfeng Xiong, Xin Li, Bo Wu, Jianwei Zhang, Kathrina Wu, Qin Lin, Junkun Yuan, Yanxin Long, Aladdin Wang, Andong Wang, Changlin Li, Duojun Huang, Fang Yang, Hao Tan, Hongmei Wang, Jacob Song, Jiawang Bai, J...

    2025

  5. [13]

    AnyV2V: A Tuning-Free Framework For Any Video-to-Video Editing Tasks.arXiv, 2024

    Max Ku, Cong Wei, Weiming Ren, Harry Yang, and Wenhu Chen. AnyV2V: A Tuning-Free Framework For Any Video-to-Video Editing Tasks.arXiv, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    StableV2V: Stablizing Shape Consistency in Video-to-Video Editing

    Chang Liu, Rui Li, Kaidong Zhang, Yunwei Lan, and Dong Liu. StableV2V: Stablizing Shape Consistency in Video-to-Video Editing. arXiv, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    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 CVPR, pages 8599–8608, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. In ICCV, pages 3813–3824, 2023. 10

    2023

  9. [17]

    Unflow: Unsupervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional census loss

    Simon Meister, Junhwa Hur, and Stefan Roth. Unflow: Unsupervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional census loss. In AAAI, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    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. In ICLR, pages 1–13, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    DreamBooth: Fine Tuning Text-to-Image Diffusion Models for Subject-Driven Generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. DreamBooth: Fine Tuning Text-to-Image Diffusion Models for Subject-Driven Generation. In CVPR, pages 22500–22510, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Mofa-video: Controllable image animation via generative motion field adaptions in frozen image-to-video diffusion model

    Muyao Niu, Xiaodong Cun, Xintao Wang, Yong Zhang, Ying Shan, and Yinqiang Zheng. Mofa-video: Controllable image animation via generative motion field adaptions in frozen image-to-video diffusion model. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 111–128, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    I2VEdit: First-Frame-Guided Video Editing via Image-to-Video Diffusion Models

    Wenqi Ouyang, Yi Dong, Lei Yang, Jianlou Si, and Xingang Pan. I2VEdit: First-Frame-Guided Video Editing via Image-to-Video Diffusion Models. arXiv, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    V ASE: Object-Centric Appearance and Shape Manipulation of Real Videos

    Elia Peruzzo, Vidit Goel, Dejia Xu, Xingqian Xu, Yifan Jiang, Zhangyang Wang, Humphrey Shi, and Nicu Sebe. V ASE: Object-Centric Appearance and Shape Manipulation of Real Videos. arXiv, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Click to Move: Controlling Video Generation with Sparse Motion

    Pierfrancesco Ardino and Marco De Nadai and Bruno Lepri and Elisa Ricci and Stéphane Lathuilière. Click to Move: Controlling Video Generation with Sparse Motion. In ICCV, pages 14729–14738, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    The 2017 DA VIS Challenge on Video Object Segmentation.arXiv, 2018

    Jordi Pont-Tuset, Federico Perazzi, Sergi Caelles, Pablo Arbeláez, Alex Sorkine-Hornung, and Luc Van Gool. The 2017 DA VIS Challenge on Video Object Segmentation.arXiv, 2018

    2017

  17. [25]

    High- Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High- Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models. In CVPR, pages 10674–10685, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    CCEdit: Creative and Controllable Video Editing via Diffusion Models

    Ruoyu Feng, Wenming Weng, Yanhui Wang, Yuhui Yuan, Jianmin Bao, Chong Luo, Zhibo Chen, and Baining Guo. CCEdit: Creative and Controllable Video Editing via Diffusion Models. arXiv, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    I2VGen-XL: High-Quality Image-to-Video Synthesis via Cascaded Diffusion Models

    Shiwei Zhang, Jiayu Wang, Yingya Zhang, Kang Zhao, Hangjie Yuan, Zhiwu Qin, Xiang Wang, Deli Zhao, and Jingren Zhou. I2VGen-XL: High-Quality Image-to-Video Synthesis via Cascaded Diffusion Models. arXiv, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    UniVST: A Unified Framework for Training-free Localized Video Style Transfer

    Quanjian Song, Mingbao Lin, Wengyi Zhan, Shuicheng Yan, Liujuan Cao, and Rongrong Ji. UniVST: A Unified Framework for Training-free Localized Video Style Transfer. arXiv, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    RAFT: Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms for Optical Flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. RAFT: Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms for Optical Flow. In ECCV, pages 402–419, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. InstructPix2Pix: Learning to Follow Image Editing Instructions. In CVPR, pages 18392–18402, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    FVD: A New Metric for Video Generation

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphaël Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. FVD: A New Metric for Video Generation. In ICLR Workshop, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models, 2025

    Team Wan, 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, Pande...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers. In ICCV, pages 4172–4182, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Exploring Video Quality Assessment on User Generated Contents from Aesthetic and Technical Perspectives

    Haoning Wu, Erli Zhang, Liang Liao, Chaofeng Chen, Jingwen Hou, Annan Wang, Wenxiu Sun, Qiong Yan, and Weisi Lin. Exploring Video Quality Assessment on User Generated Contents from Aesthetic and Technical Perspectives. In ICCV, pages 20087–20097, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    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 ICCV, pages 7589–7599, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Latte: Latent Diffusion Transformer for Video Generation

    Xin Ma, Yaohui Wang, Gengyun Jia, Xinyuan Chen, Ziwei Liu, Yuan-Fang Li, Cunjian Chen, and Yu Qiao. Latte: Latent Diffusion Transformer for Video Generation. arXiv, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    PEEKABOO: Interactive Video Generation via Masked-Diffusion

    Yash Jain, Anshul Nasery, Vibhav Vineet, and Harkirat Behl. PEEKABOO: Interactive Video Generation via Masked-Diffusion. arXiv, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Space-Time Diffusion Features for Zero-Shot Text-Driven Motion Transfer

    Danah Yatim, Rafail Fridman, Omer Bar-Tal, Yoni Kasten, and Tali Dekel. Space-Time Diffusion Features for Zero-Shot Text-Driven Motion Transfer. In CVPR, pages 8466–8476, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    StableDrag: Stable Dragging for Point-based Image Editing

    Yutao Cui, Xiaotong Zhao, Guozhen Zhang, Shengming Cao, Kai Ma, and Limin Wang. StableDrag: Stable Dragging for Point-based Image Editing. arXiv, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Flow-Guided Transformer for Video Inpainting

    Kaidong Zhang, Jingjing Fu, and Dong Liu. Flow-Guided Transformer for Video Inpainting. In ECCV, volume 13678, pages 74–90, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Metaxas, and Licheng Yu

    Zhixing Zhang, Bichen Wu, Xiaoyan Wang, Yaqiao Luo, Luxin Zhang, Yinan Zhao, Peter Vajda, Dimitris N. Metaxas, and Licheng Yu. A VID: Any-Length Video Inpainting with Diffusion Model. In CVPR, pages 7162–7172, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Shangchen Zhou, Chongyi Li, Kelvin C. K. Chan, and Chen Change Loy. ProPainter: Improving Propagation and Transformer for Video Inpainting. In ICCV, pages 10443–10452, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    black- swan

    Bojia Zi, Shihao Zhao, Xianbiao Qi, Jianan Wang, Yukai Shi, Qianyu Chen, Bin Liang, Kam- Fai Wong, and Lei Zhang. CoCoCo: Improving Text-Guided Video Inpainting for Better Consistency, Controllability and Compatibility. arXiv, 2024. 12 Technical Appendices and Supplementary Ma...

    2024

Pith tools

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