Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

When Distillation Breaks Motion Control: Restoring Generative Trajectories for Fast Video Generators

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Distilled video generators can be given reference-motion control at inference time by re-noising their predictions onto a full-diffusion teacher's trajectory.

desk verdict A useful test-time distillation trick for motion control on fast video generators, but the core interpolation derivation is sloppy and the evaluation is too self-contained to fully trust. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19348 v2 pith:VBLDUAVY submitted 2025-06-24 cs.CV

Jintao Rong , Xin Xie , Xinyi Yu , Linlin Ou , Xinyu Zhang , Chunhua Shen , Dong Gong This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords test-timedistillationmotioncustomizationdistilledvideodiffusionmodelsteacherguidanceadaptiveaccelerationtraining-freemethodstemporalattentionmapsgeneration
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 tackles a practical mismatch: motion customization, which copies a reference video's movement into a generated video, was developed for full diffusion models that denoise in many small steps, and it fails when applied to the new distilled few-step video generators. It argues the failure is structural, because distillation collapses many denoising steps into a few and changes the denoising behavior, so the dense intermediate states that motion-score guidance relies on no longer exist. To fix this, the paper proposes MotionEcho, a training-free inference framework in which a slow, high-quality diffusion teacher supervises the fast student: the student's predicted clean endpoint is re-noised onto the teacher's dense trajectory, the teacher applies motion-guided denoising there, and its clean prediction is blended with the student's. The claim is that this restores accurate motion control on distilled generators in a handful of student steps, with an adaptive schedule deciding when teacher help is worth the extra compute.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is teacher-forced endpoint blending: the student's coarse one-step prediction is re-noised onto the teacher's fine-grained denoising schedule, the teacher performs motion-guided refinement there, and the teacher's refined clean prediction is averaged into the student's endpoint through Equation (5). The second mechanism is the adaptive acceleration policy, which decides per student step whether teacher guidance is worth running and how many inner teacher denoising iterations to spend, based on motion-loss thresholds and a maximum iteration cap.

What would settle it

Measure, at a fixed student step and across many prompts, the distribution of teacher-guided clean latents versus student-only clean latents (for example, per-channel mean and variance or a latent FID). If after re-noising the teacher predictions lie far from the student's latent manifold, the interpolation in Eq. (5) should systematically distort generations; additionally, an ablation that replaces the teacher's motion-guided prediction with the teacher's unguided prediction at the same re-noised point should erase the reported motion-fidelity gain if the claimed mechanism is what causes it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that existing training-free motion-customization methods, such as MotionClone, are incompatible with distilled video generators not because the motion loss is weak but because the generative trajectory has changed: the distilled model's large denoising intervals omit the dense intermediate states that temporal-attention motion guidance needs, and its denoising behavior no longer matches the teacher's. MotionEcho addresses this with test-time distillation. At each student step, the student predicts a clean latent $\hat z^\psi_{0\leftarrow t_{i+1}}$; this latent is re-noised to an intermediate teacher timestep $t_s$, the teacher runs motion-guided denoising down to $t_i$, and the teacher's one-step clean prediction $\hat z^\theta_{0\leftarrow t_i}$ is linearly blended with the student's prediction, $\hat z^{\mathrm{new}}_{0\leftarrow t_{i+1}} = (1-\lambda)\hat z^\psi_{0\leftarrow t_{i+1}} + \lambda \hat z^\theta_{0\leftarrow t_i}$, before updating the student latent. An adaptive scheduler triggers teacher guidance only when a moving-average motion loss exceeds a threshold and truncates the teacher's internal loop when its motion loss drops below a second threshold. The paper reports that on TurboBench this yields the best motion fidelity and FID among compared methods with a 16-step T2V-Turbo-V2 student running in 13 seconds, versus 114 seconds for MotionClone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a teacher's cleaned-up version of the student's output, obtained after re-noising, is a trustworthy correction that can simply be averaged with the student's prediction; if the two predictions live in incompatible parts of the latent space, the blend would inject systematic bias instead of fixing motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training-free motion customization becomes feasible on 4-16 step distilled video generators, not just full-diffusion models.
  • The teacher-student recipe transfers across base-model pairs, with T2V-Turbo-V2 guided by VideoCrafter2 and AnimateDiff-Lightning guided by AnimateDiff, so the approach is not tied to one architecture.
  • At 16 student steps the reported inference cost is 13 seconds versus 114 seconds for MotionClone on the same benchmark, while motion fidelity and FID improve; at 8 or 4 steps the method remains competitive.
  • Because guidance is activated only when the student's motion loss is high, most runs do not pay the full teacher cost, which is why distilled efficiency is mostly preserved.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bottleneck is schedule granularity rather than the specific motion loss, the same re-noise-and-blend correction could apply to other test-time controls on few-step generators, such as depth, pose, or identity guidance.
  • The method's reliance on hybrid reference-noise initialization suggests that motion control on fast generators may generally need some preservation of the reference's temporal dynamics, not just endpoint adjustment.
  • The hand-set thresholds $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ could be learned or made adaptive per step, which would remove the main manual tuning burden and potentially widen the operating range.
  • Since the teacher correction is applied at inference, one could attempt to distill these corrections back into the student's weights during use, converting test-time distillation into an online self-improvement loop.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. MotionEcho is a training-free, inference-time framework for motion customization on distilled (few-step) text-to-video diffusion models. The paper argues that existing training-free motion guidance, such as MotionClone, fails on distilled models because large denoising steps discard the dense intermediate states that score guidance requires. The proposed method lets a slow, high-quality teacher diffusion model supervise the student's sampling trajectory: the student's one-step clean-latent prediction is re-noised onto the teacher's schedule, the teacher performs motion-guided denoising, and the resulting teacher clean-latent prediction is blended with the student's prediction via Eq. (5). An adaptive strategy decides when to invoke the teacher and how many inner steps to use, aiming to preserve the student's speed. Experiments are reported on T2V-Turbo-V2 (teacher VideoCrafter2) and AnimateDiff-Lightning (teacher AnimateDiff), with quantitative tables, ablations, qualitative comparisons, and a user study, claiming improved motion fidelity, text alignment, and FID at substantially lower inference time than applying MotionClone directly to the full teacher.

Significance. If validated, this is a practically relevant contribution: it targets a real gap, namely that training-free motion customization methods designed for full diffusion models fail on few-step distilled generators, and it reports large computational savings (e.g., 13 s versus 114 s for MotionClone in Table 1). The paper is also honest about limitations and provides a reasonable set of ablations, qualitative results across two student/teacher pairs, and a user study. The central claim is plausible. However, the core update rule in Eq. (5) has an arithmetically inconsistent derivation, the validity of linearly blending teacher and student clean-latent predictions is asserted rather than verified, and the empirical protocol is weakened by test-set hyperparameter tuning, single-run metrics without error bars, and no released code. The motion-fidelity metric is an external Co-Tracker-based score rather than the motion energy being optimized, so the method is not circular in the narrow sense, but the reported margins still need a stronger evaluation protocol to support the 'significantly improves' claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (5)] The stated update is inconsistent with the defined loss. With ℓ_distill = ||zhat^ψ_{0←t_{i+1}} − zhat^θ_{0←t_i}||², the gradient with respect to zhat^ψ is 2(zhat^ψ − zhat^θ), so zhat^ψ − λ∇ℓ gives (1−2λ)zhat^ψ + 2λzhat^θ, not the reported (1−λ)zhat^ψ + λzhat^θ. The manuscript does not introduce a ½ factor or reparameterize λ. Since λ is the central teacher-guidance strength and is ablated in Table 4, the exact teacher weight used in the experiments is ambiguous. Please correct the derivation, explicitly define the loss with the appropriate prefactor, and state the effective λ used for each reported configuration.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Algorithm 1, lines 19-30] The method assumes that after renoising the student endpoint onto the teacher's schedule and applying teacher motion guidance, the teacher's clean-latent prediction zhat^θ can be linearly blended with the student's zhat^ψ via Eq. (5) and remain a valid clean latent for the student's next sampling step. No distributional argument or empirical check is provided that the teacher and student estimates occupy compatible regions of latent space, nor that the blend does not inject systematic bias when the two models operate on different schedule granularities. Because Table 3 attributes a large part of the gain to this interpolation, please add quantitative evidence that the blended latent is plausible (e.g., per-step reconstruction error or latent-space FID/CLIP before and after blending, or a study of failure cases), or provide a theoretical justification for the linear combination.
  3. [Algorithm 1, lines 20-28] The inner teacher denoising loop is not well-defined at its endpoint. If the loop reaches n = t − Δt_s without triggering the truncation condition on line 23, the else branch on line 26 updates z^θ_{n−Δt_t} = z^θ_{t−2Δt_s}, so no latent at the interval endpoint t − Δt_s is ever produced; line 29 then computes zhat^θ_{0←t−Δt_s} from a state that is either undefined or outside the intended interval. Only the truncation branch on line 24 sets the endpoint latent. Please correct the loop bounds or the final update so that the teacher always returns a prediction at the intended sub-interval endpoint, and clarify whether the loop is meant to be inclusive or exclusive of t − Δt_s.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, Appendix B.3, Tables 1-3] The empirical protocol leaves the reported numbers vulnerable to selection on the test set. Appendix B.3 states that the hyperparameters (including λ, η, k, δ1, δ2, and related budget parameters) are determined via grid search, and the search is carried out on the same TurboBench and AnimateBench benchmarks used for final evaluation. In addition, Tables 1-3 report single-run metrics without error bars or significance tests, and the benchmarks are small (66 video-edit pairs derived from 22 unique videos; 15 videos on AnimateBench). Please provide a clear validation/evaluation split, report variance across multiple runs or seeds, and state how the thresholds were selected without access to the test set.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, motion loss definition] The motion loss G_m is missing a closing parenthesis or bracket: the expression ||M_ref_{tα} · (A(z_ref_{tα}) − A(z_{t_i+1})||² is unbalanced. Please fix the notation so that the norm applies to the full difference term.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 19] The notation 'Select inner teacher step s ∈ (t, t−Δt_s)' is confusing because the interval is written in decreasing order; it should be s ∈ (t−Δt_s, t) or stated as 's between t−Δt_s and t'.
  3. [Tables 1-2 and figure captions] Numerical precision is inconsistent (e.g., 0.9420 vs. 0.925 in Table 1), and several captions contain typos, such as 'ContolVideo' and 'Contol-A-Video' in Figure 16. Please proofread the final version.
  4. [Title consistency] The arXiv listing title is 'When Distillation Breaks Motion Control: Restoring Generative Trajectories for Fast Video Generators' while the manuscript body uses 'Training-Free Motion Customization for Distilled Video Generators with Adaptive Test-Time Distillation'; please ensure the published version uses one consistent title.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the teacher-student interpolation is asserted rather than derived from its stated loss, and the reported motion-fidelity gains are externally benchmarked; the main issues are an arithmetic inconsistency in Eq. (5) and benchmark-level hyperparameter tuning, neither of which is an input-output tautology.

full rationale

The load-bearing step is Eq. (5) and Algorithm 1 line 30, where the student endpoint is replaced by (1-λ)ẑψ + λẑθ. This is not equivalent to its stated input ℓ_distill: the gradient of ||ẑψ − ẑθ||^2 with respect to ẑψ is 2(ẑψ − ẑθ), which would give (1−2λ)ẑψ + 2λẑθ unless a 1/2 factor or a reparameterized λ is assumed. Thus the interpolation is an asserted update, not a forced consequence of the score-distillation loss; this is a derivation gap rather than circularity. The motion-fidelity metric is external (Co-Tracker trajectories) and distinct from the optimized temporal-attention loss G_m, so the reported gains are not self-scored. The teacher endpoint ẑθ and the student endpoint ẑψ are both motion-guided, but blending them does not reduce by construction to the input. Hyperparameters λ, η, δ₁, δ₂, and k are selected by grid search on the same benchmarks (Supp. B.3), which is a risk of optimistic evaluation rather than circular derivation. The only self-citation (Ref. [45], by two of the present authors) appears in related work and is not load-bearing. The stated limitation (no looped quality check) does not affect circularity. Overall, the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs.

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

The central claim depends on several tuned hyperparameters and domain assumptions about how teacher guidance transfers to a distilled student. No new physical or structural entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Teacher guidance strength lambda = 0.3 (selected by grid search, Table 4)
    Controls the blend between teacher and student clean-latent predictions; chosen on the TurboBench evaluation set.
  • Motion guidance strength eta = 1000 (selected by grid search, Table 5)
    Scales the gradient of the motion loss; higher values improve motion fidelity but hurt text alignment, and the value is tuned on TurboBench.
  • Noise blend scaling factor k = 0.01 in B.2 for camera motion; 0.3 best in Table 7 for object and hybrid motion
    Balances inverted reference noise and random noise; different values are reported for different motion types.
  • Step-wise guidance threshold delta1 = 380-420 for T2V-Turbo-V2, 360-400 for AnimateDiff-Lightning
    Activation threshold on the moving-average motion loss; tuned per model and per motion type.
  • Dynamic truncation threshold delta2 = 380 for T2V-Turbo-V2, 360 for AnimateDiff-Lightning
    Early-stop threshold for teacher inner denoising; set alongside delta1.
  • Teacher guidance schedule ratio tau = not reported
    Controls which fraction of student steps receive teacher guidance; appears in Algorithm 1 but no value is given in the implementation details.
  • Maximum teacher inner steps Nmax and window size W = not reported
    Upper bound on teacher denoising iterations and the motion-loss window; both are algorithm inputs without stated values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Teacher model VideoCrafter2 or AnimateDiff can provide valid motion-aligned clean latents when renoised from student predictions.
    Equation (5) and Algorithm 1 lines 19-30 assume teacher-guided denoising from a renoised student endpoint improves the student trajectory; if teacher and student latents are misaligned, interpolation would be invalid.
  • domain assumption Temporal attention maps of noisy latents encode motion in a way that transfers across objects and scenes.
    The motion loss Gm in Eq. (3) and Sec. 4.1 follows MotionClone; the paper relies on this for both teacher and student guidance.
  • domain assumption DDIM inversion and hybrid noise initialization provide useful motion priors from the reference video.
    Sec. 4.2 and B.2 set z_psi_T = sqrt(k) z_ref_T + sqrt(1-k) epsilon_T, assuming inverted reference latents carry temporal dynamics useful for the student.
  • domain assumption The Co-Tracker based Motion Fidelity Score reflects human perception of motion transfer.
    Metrics in Sec. 5.1 use this score without an independent validation against user-perceived motion quality beyond one user study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Distillation Breaks Motion Control: Restoring Generative Trajectories for Fast Video Generators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBLDUAVY

@misc{pith2026250619348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Distillation Breaks Motion Control: Restoring Generative Trajectories for Fast Video Generators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBLDUAVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19348}
}
read the original abstract

Training-free motion customization imposes motion patterns from reference videos onto video generators through test-time computation. Most existing methods target full diffusion models, requiring many denoising steps and high computational cost. With the rise of efficient distilled models, a natural question arises: can test-time motion customization be applied directly to distilled generators with their accelerated sampling and efficiency gains? However, our analysis reveals that existing training-free techniques fail on distilled models. Distillation fundamentally alters the denoising dynamics that prior test-time guidance relies on, and the large denoising steps of distilled generators discard the dense intermediate states that score guidance requires, rendering existing motion control strategies incompatible with fast generation. To address this limitation, we propose MotionEcho, a novel training-free test-time distillation framework that enables motion customization for distilled video generators. The key idea is to correct the student model's sampling trajectory with restricted usage of a high-quality diffusion teacher at inference time. Teacher supervises the student's denoising by re-noising the student's endpoint onto its dense trajectory to form a motion-aligned clean endpoint, then interpolating it with the student's, while an adaptive scheduling mechanism determines when and how much teacher guidance is needed. As a result, MotionEcho restores generative trajectories for distilled video generators via lightweight, adaptive test-time teacher guidance, enabling accurate motion control without compromising generation efficiency. Extensive experiments on multiple distilled video generation models demonstrate that our method significantly improves motion fidelity and visual quality while retaining the efficiency advantages of distilled generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MotionEcho enables training-free, reference-based motion customization for fast distilled video generators (e.g., T2V-TurboV2 [1], top; Animatediff-Lightning [2], bottom) via adaptive, efficient test-time distillation guided by a teacher model. It delivers high-quality motion control across diverse motion types while maintaining efficiency. Abstract Distilled video generation models offer fast and efficient synthesi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of MotionEcho. (a) We visualize motion representations from key temporal attention maps of the denoising U-Net. Our method yields better alignment with the reference, capturing more coherent and consistent motion patterns. (b) Illustration of the test-time distillation process with teacher guidance. Compared to directly combining motion control with the distilled model (gray path), our method more effective… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pipeline of MotionEcho. Given a reference video, motion priors are extracted to initialize the student model with a motion-preserving noisy latent. During inference, the teacher (top) and student (bottom) models perform motion customization using motion loss gradients. Teacher guidance is applied via prediction interpolation at sub-interval endpoints. The student then generates the final video in a few steps with hi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons on VideoCrafter2-based methods. Our method enables unified object, camera, and hybrid motion transfer with high motion fidelity and low inference time. Reference Ours (MC+AD-L 8steps) A island, on the ocean, sunny day Robot, walks in the street …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons on AnimateDiff-based methods. Our methods enables the effective transfer of object and camera motion. the models by their abbreviations in parentheses. During inference, VideoCrafter2 [42] (VC2) is employed as the teacher model to provide guidan…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: User study results. 5.2 Comparison with Existing Methods To verify the effectiveness of our approach, we compare MotionEcho with training-based and training￾free models. The former comprises ControlVideo [12], Control-A-Video [13], MotionDirector [9], MotionInverison […
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the ablation study results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: More results of our method (MotionClone+T2V-Turbo-V2) in object motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: More results of our method (MotionClone+T2V-Turbo-V2) in camera motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: More qualitative results generated by our method under different motion customization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More results of our method (MotionClone+AnimateDiff-Lightning) in camera and object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization of motion representation. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Additional comparison results in camera motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Additional comparison results in hybrid motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Additional comparison results in hybrid motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Additional comparison results in hybrid motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Additional comparison results in object motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Additional comparison results in object motion customization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The screenshot of human preference investigation: Which video better fits the target text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The screenshot of human preference investigation: Which video is more consistent across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The screenshot of human preference investigation: Which video better reproduces the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The screenshot of human preference investigation: Which video is more visually appeal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_22.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T2v-turbo-v2: Enhancing video generation model post-training through data, reward, and conditional guidance design

    Jiachen Li, Qian Long, Jian Zheng, Xiaofeng Gao, Robinson Piramuthu, Wenhu Chen, and William Yang Wang. T2v-turbo-v2: Enhancing video generation model post-training through data, reward, and conditional guidance design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05677, 2024

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Animatediff-lightning: Cross-model diffusion distillation

    Shanchuan Lin and Xiao Yang. Animatediff-lightning: Cross-model diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12706, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Video diffusion models

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

    2022

  4. [4]

    Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high-quality video generation

    Haoxin Chen, Menghan Xia, Yingqing He, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Shaoshu Yang, Jinbo Xing, Yaofang Liu, Qifeng Chen, Xintao Wang, et al. Videocrafter1: Open diffusion models for high-quality video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19512, 2023

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Veo.Placeholder Journal, 2024

    Abhishek Sharma, Adams Yu, Ali Razavi, Andeep Toor, Andrew Pierson, Ankush Gupta, Austin Waters, Aäron van den Oord, Daniel Tanis, Dumitru Erhan, Eric Lau, Eleni Shaw, Gabe Barth-Maron, Greg Shaw, Han Zhang, Henna Nandwani, Hernan Moraldo, Hyunjik Kim, Irina Blok, Jakob Bauer, Jeff Donahue, Junyoung Chung, Kory Mathewson, Kurtis David, Lasse Espeholt, Mar...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Video generation models as world simulators, 2024

    OpenAI. Video generation models as world simulators, 2024. Sora technical report

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    T2v-turbo: Breaking the quality bottleneck of video consistency model with mixed reward feedback

    Jiachen Li, Weixi Feng, Tsu-Jui Fu, Xinyi Wang, Sugato Basu, Wenhu Chen, and William Yang Wang. T2v-turbo: Breaking the quality bottleneck of video consistency model with mixed reward feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18750, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Vmc: Video motion customization using temporal attention adaption for text-to-video diffusion models

    Hyeonho Jeong, Geon Yeong Park, and Jong Chul Ye. Vmc: Video motion customization using temporal attention adaption for text-to-video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9212–9221, 2024. 10

    work page 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Motiondirector: Motion customization of text-to-video diffusion models

    Rui Zhao, Yuchao Gu, Jay Zhangjie Wu, David Junhao Zhang, Jia-Wei Liu, Weijia Wu, Jussi Keppo, and Mike Zheng Shou. Motiondirector: Motion customization of text-to-video diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 273–290. Springer, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Motion inversion for video customization

    Luozhou Wang, Ziyang Mai, Guibao Shen, Yixun Liang, Xin Tao, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, Yijun Li, and Yingcong Chen. Motion inversion for video customization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20193, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation

    Yabo Zhang, Yuxiang Wei, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wangmeng Zuo, and Qi Tian. Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13077, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Controlvideo: conditional control for one-shot text-driven video editing and beyond

    Min Zhao, Rongzhen Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. Controlvideo: conditional control for one-shot text-driven video editing and beyond. Science China Information Sciences, 68(3):132107, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Control-a-video: Controllable text-to-video diffusion models with motion prior and reward feedback learning

    Weifeng Chen, Yatai Ji, Jie Wu, Hefeng Wu, Pan Xie, Jiashi Li, Xin Xia, Xuefeng Xiao, and Liang Lin. Control-a-video: Controllable text-to-video diffusion models with motion prior and reward feedback learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13840, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Motionclone: Training-free motion cloning for controllable video generation

    Pengyang Ling, Jiazi Bu, Pan Zhang, Xiaoyi Dong, Yuhang Zang, Tong Wu, Huaian Chen, Jiaqi Wang, and Yi Jin. Motionclone: Training-free motion cloning for controllable video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05338, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8466–8476, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Videolcm: Video latent consistency model

    Xiang Wang, Shiwei Zhang, Han Zhang, Yu Liu, Yingya Zhang, Changxin Gao, and Nong Sang. Videolcm: Video latent consistency model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09109, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high-resolution images with few-step inference

    Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high-resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

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

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

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

    2020

  15. [23]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

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

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10741, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Flux.1-schnell, 2024

    Black Forest Labs. Flux.1-schnell, 2024. Accessed: 2024-08-17. 11

    2024

  18. [26]

    Scaling rectified flow transform- ers for high-resolution image synthesis

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

    2024

  19. [27]

    Itercomp: Iterative composition-aware feedback learning from model gallery for text-to-image generation

    Xinchen Zhang, Ling Yang, Guohao Li, Yaqi Cai, Jiake Xie, Yong Tang, Yujiu Yang, Mengdi Wang, and Bin Cui. Itercomp: Iterative composition-aware feedback learning from model gallery for text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07171, 2024

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

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

    2022

  21. [29]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Improving image generation with better captions

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

    2023

  23. [31]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

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

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Introducing gen-3 alpha: A new frontier for video generation, 2024

    Runway Research. Introducing gen-3 alpha: A new frontier for video generation, 2024. Runway Gen-3 technical report

    2024

  25. [33]

    3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation

    Ozgun Ciccek, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Soeren S Lienkamp, Thomas Brox, and Olaf Ronneberger. 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Gree...

    2016

  26. [34]

    Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J

    Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Gritsenko, Diederik P. Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J. Fleet, and Tim Salimans. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation

    Yingqing He, Tianyu Yang, Yong Zhang, Ying Shan, and Qifeng Chen. Latent video diffusion models for high-fidelity long video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13221, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    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, p...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Magicvideo: Efficient video generation with latent diffusion models

    Daquan Zhou, Weimin Wang, Hanshu Yan, Weiwei Lv, Yizhe Zhu, and Jiashi Feng. Magicvideo: Efficient video generation with latent diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11018, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Advancing high-resolution video-language representation with large-scale video transcriptions

    Hongwei Xue, Tiankai Hang, Yanhong Zeng, Yuchong Sun, Bei Liu, Huan Yang, Jianlong Fu, and Baining Guo. Advancing high-resolution video-language representation with large-scale video transcriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog...

    2022

  32. [41]

    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

    2023 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffusion models

    Haoxin Chen, Yong Zhang, Xiaodong Cun, Menghan Xia, Xintao Wang, Chao Weng, and Ying Shan. Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7310–7320, 2024

    2024

  34. [43]

    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

  35. [44]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023

    2023

  36. [45]

    Training-free motion-guided video generation with enhanced temporal consistency using motion consistency loss

    Xinyu Zhang, Zicheng Duan, Dong Gong, and Lingqiao Liu. Training-free motion-guided video generation with enhanced temporal consistency using motion consistency loss. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07563, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

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

    2022 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Freedom: Training- free energy-guided conditional diffusion model

    Jiwen Yu, Yinhuai Wang, Chen Zhao, Bernard Ghanem, and Jian Zhang. Freedom: Training- free energy-guided conditional diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23174–23184, 2023

    2023

  39. [48]

    Tfg: Unified training-free guidance for diffusion models

    Haotian Ye, Haowei Lin, Jiaqi Han, Minkai Xu, Sheng Liu, Yitao Liang, Jianzhu Ma, James Zou, and Stefano Ermon. Tfg: Unified training-free guidance for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15761, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Animatelcm: Computation-efficient personalized style video gener- ation without personalized video data

    Fu-Yun Wang, Zhaoyang Huang, Weikang Bian, Xiaoyu Shi, Keqiang Sun, Guanglu Song, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Animatelcm: Computation-efficient personalized style video gener- ation without personalized video data. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Technical Communications, pages 1–5. 2024

    2024

  41. [50]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Freetraj: Tuning-free trajectory control in video diffusion models

    Haonan Qiu, Zhaoxi Chen, Zhouxia Wang, Yingqing He, Menghan Xia, and Ziwei Liu. Freetraj: Tuning-free trajectory control in video diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16863, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Freenoise: Tuning-free longer video diffusion via noise rescheduling

    Haonan Qiu, Menghan Xia, Yong Zhang, Yingqing He, Xintao Wang, Ying Shan, and Ziwei Liu. Freenoise: Tuning-free longer video diffusion via noise rescheduling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15169, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [53]

    The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation

    Jordi Pont-Tuset, Federico Perazzi, Sergi Caelles, Pablo Arbeláez, Alex Sorkine-Hornung, and Luc Van Gool. The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00675, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval

    Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Gül Varol, and Andrew Zisserman. Frozen in time: A joint video and image encoder for end-to-end retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 1728–1738, 2021

    2021

  46. [55]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pa...

    2021

  47. [56]

    Cotracker: It is better to track together

    Nikita Karaev, Ignacio Rocco, Benjamin Graham, Natalia Neverova, Andrea Vedaldi, and Christian Rupprecht. Cotracker: It is better to track together. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 18–35. Springer, 2024

    2024

  48. [57]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium

    Naresh Babu Bynagari. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Asian J. Appl. Sci. Eng, 8(1):25–34, 2019. 14 Training-Free Motion Customization for Distilled Video Generators with Adaptive Test-Time Distillation Supplementary Material ...

    2019

Pith tools

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