pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08735 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-09 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

CollabVR: Collaborative Video Reasoning with Vision-Language and Video Generation Models

Joowon Kim , Seungho Shin , Joonhyung Park , Eunho Yang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 02:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords collaborative video reasoningvision-language modelsvideo generation modelsvisual reasoningclosed-loop frameworktest-time scalingchain-of-frames
0
0 comments X

The pith

Step-level checks by a vision-language model on each clip generated by a video model improve visual reasoning over single-pass and scaling baselines.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Recent video generation models can create short coherent clips but drift and accumulate errors on multi-step goal-directed tasks because they lack built-in diagnostic reasoning. CollabVR places a vision-language model in a closed loop at the level of single steps so that it plans the next action, reviews the clip the generator just produced, and inserts a diagnosis of any detected failure into the prompt for the following step. Experiments on Gen-ViRe and VBVR-Bench show that this collaboration raises success rates for both open-source and closed-source generators above single inference, Pass@k, and earlier test-time scaling methods at the same compute cost, with the largest gains on the most difficult tasks. The gains remain even when the generator has already been fine-tuned for reasoning, indicating that the step-level supervision is additive rather than redundant.

Core claim

CollabVR couples a vision-language model and a video generation model in a closed loop at step-level granularity: the VLM plans the immediate next action, the VGM generates the corresponding short clip, and the VLM inspects that clip to diagnose failures before folding the diagnosis into the next action prompt. On two visual reasoning benchmarks this procedure improves both open- and closed-source VGMs over single-inference, Pass@k sampling, and prior test-time scaling baselines at matched compute, with the biggest lifts on the hardest tasks and additional gains on top of a reasoning-fine-tuned VGM.

What carries the argument

The step-level closed-loop collaboration where the VLM plans the next action, the VGM renders a short clip, and the VLM diagnoses errors in the clip to repair the subsequent prompt.

If this is right

  • Improves performance of both open-source and closed-source VGMs over single-inference, Pass@k, and prior test-time scaling baselines at matched compute.
  • Delivers the largest gains on the hardest tasks.
  • Produces further improvements when applied on top of a reasoning-fine-tuned VGM.
  • The step-level VLM supervision is orthogonal to and stackable with reasoning-oriented fine-tuning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same pattern of immediate diagnostic feedback could be applied to other generative tasks where short-horizon models drift over long sequences.
  • If the VLM inspection can be automated or distilled, the framework might scale to real-time applications such as robotic planning.
  • This highlights an alternative to full model retraining by using one model type to compensate for the limitations of another at inference time.

Load-bearing premise

The vision-language model can accurately inspect the generated short clips and produce reliable diagnoses that repair failures without introducing new errors.

What would settle it

Run the method and a matched-compute single-inference baseline on a new long-horizon benchmark while separately measuring how often the VLM's clip diagnoses are correct; if diagnosis accuracy is low, the performance edge should disappear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08735 by Eunho Yang, Joonhyung Park, Joowon Kim, Seungho Shin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: VLM as planner, VGM as simulator. A VLM is strong at reasoning but weak at visual simulation, while a VGM simulates short clips but lacks reasoning, causing long-horizon drift and mid-clip simulation errors. CollabVR couples them in a closed loop where the VLM plans progressively and diagnoses each generated clip, turning failures into correctable signals. Abstract Recent Thinking with Video approaches use… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance–Cost trade￾off on Gen-ViRe [20]. Pass@k resam￾pling plateaus quickly with cost and VideoTPO [4] trades extra budget for modest improvement, while CollabVR reaches markedly higher score at lower budget on both models [32, 7]. Recent progress in visual reasoning has largely centered on the Thinking with Images paradigm, in which Vision￾Language Models (VLMs) reason through visual interme￾diate st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overall pipeline of CollabVR. A persistent VLM plans one action at a time and, after observing each generated clip, decides whether to accept, re-generate, or re-plan. Module 1 adaptively determines the step count, and Module 2 verifies each clip and folds the verifier’s diagnosis into the next action prompt to repair the failure. 33, 12], but these systems optimize visual or physical quality, treat the vi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pre-planning vs. Progressive planning on Gen-ViRe with VBVR-Wan2.2 (Module 1 only). Progressive planning achieves a +13% relative gain over pre-planning at matched cost. this section motivates its two design choices, progressive planning (Section 3.2) and collaborative reasoning (Section 3.3). 3.2 VLM-Driven Progressive Planning A naive extension of Chain-of-Thought to video is pre-planning [12] (Figure 4a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on various visual reasoning tasks from Gen-ViRe and VBVR-Bench. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Human-annotated distribution of step counts N for the benchmarks. Qualitative results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of maximum plan￾ning steps Nmax on Gen-ViRe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Per-category ∆ over Pass@1 on Gen￾ViRe (VBVR-Wan2.2). Module configurations follow Section 4.3. Category-wise module effectiveness and lim￾itation. CollabVR does not behave uniformly across reasoning types. Section 4.3 attributed module dominance to a benchmark’s N profile. Here we examine the finer-grained role of each reasoning category ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Human-annotated analysis of planning, verification, and evolution. (a) Distribution of human-annotated step counts N. (b) Plan-depth match per VLM: exact-match accuracy (left axis) and mean absolute error (MAE) (right axis). (c) Verification agreement: F1 score on a balanced 1:1 split. (d) Evolution quality: mean human rating on a three-point scale. orthogonal to test-time orchestration, and we view reason… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Trace through one full CollabVR loop on a multi-step bookshelf task (VBVR-Wan2.2). Within-step prompt evolution (M2) corrects C1 in Step 1, after which across-step progressive planning (M1) advances to Step 2, sharing the same per-clip verifier. A.3 Verifier Output Examples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Per-trial user-study UI. The participant sees the task prompt and the input image, watches three blinded videos, and answers a forced-choice preference and a confidence rating. The condition→label mapping is randomized per task per participant. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Human preference share on the user study (n=40 participants, 16 tasks; Equal responses excluded). Each row is a 100%-stacked bar restricted to the listed conditions. CollabVR is the dominant choice in all three views. B.2 Effect of Per-Step Attempt Budget M M = 1 (4.5s) M = 2 (6.1s) M = 3 (7.5s) M = 4 (8.6s) M = 5 (9.7s) Per-Step Attempt Budget M 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 Score 0.688 0.722 0.734 0.741… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Per-step attempt budget M on VBVR￾Bench (VBVR-Wan2.2, M2-only). Score grows monotonically with M, but per-step gains drop below 1% beyond M=3 while cost continues to scale nearly linearly. Effect of attempt budget M. We sweep the per-step attempt budget M ∈ {1, . . . , 5} on VBVR-Bench with VBVR-Wan2.2 under the M2-only configuration ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Per-category ∆ over Pass@1 on VBVR-Bench (VBVR-Wan2.2). Module configu￾rations follow Section 4.3; per-category overall is the sample-count-weighted mean of the In-Domain and Out-of-Domain entries (categories carry 115, 70, 150, 65, 100 samples with different ID/OOD splits). We mirror the per-category ∆ analysis of Sec￾tion 4.4 on VBVR-Bench ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative gains scale with planner-predicted step count N on VBVR-Bench. For each task we show the input image, GT last frame, single-shot VBVR-Wan2.2 output, and VBVR￾Wan2.2+CollabVR output, with two representative tasks grouped under each of N=1, N=2, and N=3. D Additional Qualitative Results D.1 Examples by Step Count N We organize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: CollabVR generalizes to Cosmos-Predict-2.5 on VBVR-Bench. Each two-row block contrasts Cosmos-Predict-2.5 alone (top) with Cosmos-Predict-2.5+CollabVR (bottom) over a six￾frame sequence (first → last frame). 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: CollabVR works across open- and closed-source VGMs on Gen-ViRe. Each two-row block contrasts the base VGM (top) with +CollabVR (bottom); the upper two tasks use VBVR￾Wan2.2 and the lower two use Veo 3.1. D.2 Examples by VGM CollabVR is VGM-agnostic and applies to a range of generators beyond VBVR-Wan2.2. Generalization to another open-source VGM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Verifier VLM choice shapes the recovery loop on a single VBVR-Bench trace (VBVR￾Wan2.2 as the VGM). The same prompt is verified by Qwen3.5-9B (top, false-accept), Qwen3.5-27B (middle, evolution with a coarse positional cue), and Gemini 2.5 Pro (bottom, evolution that explicitly excludes the distractor). 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Final +CollabVR outputs track verifier capability across VBVR-Bench tasks (VBVR￾Wan2.2 as the VGM). Each row shows the last frame produced when the verifier is Qwen3.5-9B, Qwen3.5-27B, or Gemini 2.5 Pro, with the input image and GT last frame at the top. D.3 Examples by VLM The verifier-quality gaps quantified in Section 4.4 translate into qualitatively distinct recovery behav￾iors that propagate to the f… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Two distinct ceilings limit full CollabVR on VBVR-Bench. Case 1: the VLM verifier fails to detect the issue, so no recovery is triggered. Case 2: the VLM diagnoses the failure and evolves the prompt correctly, but the VGM cannot execute the fine-grained operation. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Partial re-generation from fτ outper￾forms full re-generation on a maze task. Full re￾generation is run for four independent attempts (left); partial re-generation reuses the correct prefix up to the first failing frame (right). We additionally explore a recovery design spe￾cific to navigation-style tasks: on rejection, the VGM is re-invoked from the first failing frame fτ rather than re-rolling from scra… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent "Thinking with Video" approaches use Video Generation Models (VGMs) for visual reasoning by producing temporally coherent Chain-of-Frames as reasoning artifacts. Even strong VGMs, however, exhibit two recurring failure modes on goal-directed tasks: long-horizon drift on multi-step tasks and mid-clip simulation errors that compound. Both stem from the absence of explicit reasoning built upon the VGM's short-horizon visual prior, a role naturally filled by Vision-Language Models (VLMs), but where to place the VLM is non-trivial: upfront plans commit before any frame is generated and post-hoc critiques over whole videos intervene too late. We propose VLM-VGM Collaborative Video Reasoning (CollabVR), a closed-loop framework that couples the VLM with the VGM at step-level granularity: the VLM plans the immediate next action, inspects the clip the VGM generates, and folds the verifier's diagnosis directly into the next action prompt to repair detected failures. On Gen-ViRe and VBVR-Bench, CollabVR improves both open-source and closed-source VGMs over single-inference, Pass@$k$, and prior test-time scaling baselines at matched compute, with the largest gains on the hardest tasks. It also yields further improvements on top of a reasoning-fine-tuned VGM, indicating that step-level VLM supervision is orthogonal to and stackable with reasoning-oriented fine-tuning. We provide video samples and additional qualitative results at our project page: https://joow0n-kim.github.io/collabvr-project-page.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CollabVR, a closed-loop collaborative framework for video reasoning that interleaves a VLM for step-level planning and diagnosis with a VGM for short-clip generation. The VLM plans the immediate next action, the VGM produces a clip, and the VLM inspects the result to fold failure diagnoses into the subsequent prompt, aiming to mitigate long-horizon drift and mid-clip simulation errors. The authors claim that this yields consistent gains over single-inference, Pass@k, and prior test-time scaling baselines on Gen-ViRe and VBVR-Bench at matched compute (largest on hardest tasks) and stacks with reasoning fine-tuning of the VGM.

Significance. If the gains are attributable to the step-level feedback loop rather than extra inference or prompt engineering, the work would be significant for hybrid VLM-VGM reasoning systems. It offers a concrete mechanism to leverage the VLM's reasoning strengths without upfront commitment or post-hoc whole-video critique, and the reported orthogonality to fine-tuning suggests a path for combining test-time collaboration with training-based improvements. The absence of supporting experimental details in the provided description, however, limits assessment of whether these benefits are realized.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental Results (Gen-ViRe and VBVR-Bench evaluations)] The central empirical claim (improvements over Pass@k and test-time scaling at matched compute, especially on hardest tasks) is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the abstract and available description supply no ablation studies isolating the closed-loop VLM diagnosis step, no statistical significance tests, and no error analysis of diagnosis accuracy or false-positive repair rates. Without these, attribution to the collaborative mechanism versus additional VLM calls remains unverified.
  2. [Method (closed-loop collaboration description)] The framework's effectiveness rests on the assumption that VLM inspection of short clips produces accurate, corrective diagnoses that repair VGM failures without introducing or compounding errors in subsequent planning steps. No quantitative breakdown of diagnosis accuracy, cases of error amplification, or comparison of repair success versus failure modes is provided, which directly affects the claim that the loop mitigates mid-clip simulation errors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for acknowledging the potential significance of step-level VLM-VGM collaboration. We address the two major comments below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested analyses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central empirical claim (improvements over Pass@k and test-time scaling at matched compute, especially on hardest tasks) is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the abstract and available description supply no ablation studies isolating the closed-loop VLM diagnosis step, no statistical significance tests, and no error analysis of diagnosis accuracy or false-positive repair rates. Without these, attribution to the collaborative mechanism versus additional VLM calls remains unverified.

    Authors: We agree that explicit isolation of the closed-loop diagnosis is necessary to strengthen attribution. While our Pass@k and test-time scaling baselines already control for total VLM calls and compute, we will add a dedicated ablation that disables the diagnosis/repair feedback (replacing it with neutral prompts) while preserving the same VLM call budget. We will also report statistical significance via multiple random seeds and include an error analysis of diagnosis accuracy plus false-positive repair rates, obtained through human annotation of sampled trajectories. These additions will appear in the revised main paper and appendix. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The framework's effectiveness rests on the assumption that VLM inspection of short clips produces accurate, corrective diagnoses that repair VGM failures without introducing or compounding errors in subsequent planning steps. No quantitative breakdown of diagnosis accuracy, cases of error amplification, or comparison of repair success versus failure modes is provided, which directly affects the claim that the loop mitigates mid-clip simulation errors.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative support for the diagnosis step is essential. In the revision we will add a new analysis subsection (and corresponding appendix tables) that reports: (i) overall diagnosis accuracy on short clips, (ii) frequency of error amplification (misdiagnosis leading to worse downstream steps), and (iii) repair success rates broken down by failure mode (long-horizon drift versus mid-clip simulation errors). The numbers will be derived from manual inspection of a stratified sample of Gen-ViRe and VBVR-Bench trajectories. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical framework on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical closed-loop collaboration framework between VLM and VGM, evaluated on Gen-ViRe and VBVR-Bench with comparisons to single-inference, Pass@k, and test-time scaling baselines at matched compute. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions derived from inputs, or self-referential definitions appear in the abstract or described method. The central mechanism (step-level VLM planning, generation, inspection, and prompt update) is presented as a procedural architecture rather than a derivation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. Results are framed as experimental improvements on external benchmarks, making the derivation self-contained against independent evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical systems contribution; the abstract contains no mathematical derivations, fitted constants, background axioms, or newly postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5589 in / 1206 out tokens · 44320 ms · 2026-05-12T02:13:06.025359+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Video generation models as world simulators

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, et al. Video generation models as world simulators. https:// openai.com/index/video-generation-models-as-world-simulators/ , 2024. Ope- nAI Technical Report

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling

    Bradley Brown, Jordan Juravsky, Ryan Ehrlich, Ronald Clark, Quoc V . Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini. Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21787, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    MMGR: Multi-modal generative reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14691, 2025

    Zefan Cai, Haoyi Qiu, Tianyi Ma, Haozhe Zhao, Gengze Zhou, et al. MMGR: Multi-modal generative reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14691, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    TiViBench: Benchmarking think-in-video reasoning for video generative models

    Harold Haodong Chen, Disen Lan, Wen-Jie Shu, Qingyang Liu, Zihan Wang, et al. TiViBench: Benchmarking think-in-video reasoning for video generative models. InComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2026

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    Can test-time scaling improve world founda- tion model? InConference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2025

    Wenyan Cong, Hanqing Zhu, Peihao Wang, et al. Can test-time scaling improve world founda- tion model? InConference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities

    Gemini Team, Google DeepMind. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reason- ing, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Google DeepMind. Veo 3.1. Technical report, Google DeepMind, January

    work page

  8. [8]

    Released January 13, 2026

    URL https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/ai/ veo-3-1-ingredients-to-video/. Released January 13, 2026

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    Thinkmorph: Emergent properties in multimodal interleaved chain-of-thought reasoning

    Jiawei Gu, Yunzhuo Hao, Huichen Will Wang, Linjie Li, Michael Qizhe Shieh, Yejin Choi, Ranjay Krishna, and Yu Cheng. ThinkMorph: Emergent properties in multimodal interleaved chain-of-thought reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.27492, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Are video models ready as zero-shot reasoners? an empirical study with the MME-CoF benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26802, 2025

    Ziyu Guo, Xinyan Chen, Renrui Zhang, Ruichuan An, Yu Qi, et al. Are video models ready as zero-shot reasoners? an empirical study with the MME-CoF benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26802, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Scaling image and video generation via test-time evolutionary search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17618, 2025

    Haoran He, Jiajun Liang, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Di Zhang, Kun Gai, and Ling Pan. Scaling image and video generation via test-time evolutionary search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17618, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Smith, and Ranjay Krishna

    Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Xingyu Fu, Dan Roth, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Ranjay Krishna. Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    VChain: Chain-of-visual-thought for reasoning in video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05094, 2025

    Ziqi Huang, Ning Yu, Gordon Chen, et al. VChain: Chain-of-visual-thought for reasoning in video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05094, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Self-refining video sampling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18577, 2026

    Sangwon Jang, Taekyung Ki, Jaehyeong Jo, Saining Xie, Jaehong Yoon, and Sung Ju Hwang. Self-refining video sampling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18577, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Self-correcting LLM-controlled diffusion models

    Tsung-Wei Ke, Fahim Tajwar, et al. Self-correcting LLM-controlled diffusion models. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Imagine while reasoning in space: Multimodal visualization-of-thought

    Chengzu Li, Wenshan Wu, Huanyu Zhang, et al. Imagine while reasoning in space: Multimodal visualization-of-thought. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Thinking in frames: How visual context and test-time scaling empower video reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21037, 2026

    Chengzu Li, Zanyi Wang, Jiaang Li, Yi Xu, Han Zhou, et al. Thinking in frames: How visual context and test-time scaling empower video reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21037, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Beyond the last frame: Process-aware evaluation for generative video reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24952, 2026

    Yifan Li, Yukai Gu, Yingqian Min, Zikang Liu, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Min Yang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Minghui Qiu. Beyond the last frame: Process-aware evaluation for generative video reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24952, 2026. 10

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    VideoDirectorGPT: Consistent multi- scene video generation via LLM-guided planning

    Han Lin, Abhay Zala, Jaemin Cho, and Mohit Bansal. VideoDirectorGPT: Consistent multi- scene video generation via LLM-guided planning. InConference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Video- T1: Test-time scaling for video generation

    Fangfu Liu, Hanyang Wang, Yimo Cai, Kaiyan Zhang, Xiaohang Zhan, and Yueqi Duan. Video- T1: Test-time scaling for video generation. InInternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Can world simulators reason? Gen-ViRe: A generative visual reasoning benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13853, 2025

    Xinxin Liu, Zhaopan Xu, Ming Li, Kai Wang, Yong Jae Lee, and Yuzhang Shang. Can world simulators reason? Gen-ViRe: A generative visual reasoning benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13853, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    V-ReasonBench: Toward unified reasoning benchmark suite for video generation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16668, 2025

    Yang Luo, Xuanlei Zhao, Baijiong Lin, Lingting Zhu, Liyao Tang, Yuqi Liu, Ying-Cong Chen, Shengju Qian, Xin Wang, and Yang You. V-ReasonBench: Toward unified reasoning benchmark suite for video generation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16668, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Inference-time scaling for diffusion models beyond scaling denoising steps

    Nanye Ma, Shangyuan Tong, Haolin Jia, et al. Inference-time scaling for diffusion models beyond scaling denoising steps. InComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Whiteboard-of-thought: Thinking step- by-step across modalities

    Sachit Menon, Richard Zemel, and Carl V ondrick. Whiteboard-of-thought: Thinking step- by-step across modalities. InEmpirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Movie Gen: A Cast of Media Foundation Models

    Meta AI. Movie Gen: A cast of media foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13720, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    World Simulation with Video Foundation Models for Physical AI

    NVIDIA Cosmos Team. World simulation with video foundation models for physical ai, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.00062

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026. URL https: //qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling LLM test-time compute op- timally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Openthinkimg: Learning to think with images via visual tool reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08617, 2025

    Zhaochen Su, Linjie Li, Mingyang Song, Yunzhuo Hao, Zhengyuan Yang, et al. Open- ThinkIMG: Learning to think with images via visual tool reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08617, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Thinking with Images for Multimodal Reasoning: Foundations, Methods, and Future Frontiers

    Zhaochen Su, Peng Xia, Hangyu Guo, et al. Thinking with images for multimodal reasoning: Foundations, methods, and future frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23918, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Thinking with video: Video generation as a promising multimodal reasoning paradigm

    Jingqi Tong, Yurong Mou, Hangcheng Li, Mingzhe Li, Yongzhuo Yang, et al. Thinking with video: Video generation as a promising multimodal reasoning paradigm. InComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2026

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Wan: Open and Advanced Large-Scale Video Generative Models

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    A very big video reasoning suite

    Maijunxian Wang, Ruisi Wang, Juyi Lin, et al. A very big video reasoning suite.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.20159, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    VideoAgent: Long-form video understanding with large language model as agent

    Xiaohan Wang, Yuhui Zhang, Orr Zohar, and Serena Yeung-Levy. VideoAgent: Long-form video understanding with large language model as agent. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Video models are zero-shot learners and reasoners

    Thaddäus Wiedemer, Yuxuan Li, Paul Vicol, Shixiang Shane Gu, Nick Matarese, Kevin Swersky, Been Kim, Priyank Jaini, and Robert Geirhos. Video models are zero-shot learners and reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20328, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    PhyT2V: LLM-guided iterative self-refinement for physics-grounded text-to-video generation

    Qiyao Xue, Xiangyu Yin, Boyuan Yang, et al. PhyT2V: LLM-guided iterative self-refinement for physics-grounded text-to-video generation. InComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025. 11

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Reasoning via video: The first evaluation of video models’ reasoning abilities through maze-solving tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15065, 2025

    Cheng Yang, Haiyuan Wan, Yiran Peng, Xin Cheng, Zhaoyang Yu, et al. Reasoning via video: The first evaluation of video models’ reasoning abilities through maze-solving tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15065, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Mastering text-to-image diffusion: Recaptioning, planning, and generating with multimodal LLMs

    Ling Yang, Zhaochen Yu, Chenlin Meng, Minkai Xu, Stefano Ermon, and Bin Cui. Mastering text-to-image diffusion: Recaptioning, planning, and generating with multimodal LLMs. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    UniSim: Learning interactive real-world simulators

    Mengjiao Yang, Yilun Du, Kamyar Ghasemipour, et al. UniSim: Learning interactive real-world simulators. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    VLIPP: Towards physically plausible video generation with vision and language informed physical prior

    Xindi Yang, Baolu Li, Yiming Zhang, et al. VLIPP: Towards physically plausible video generation with vision and language informed physical prior. InInternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2025

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

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

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, et al. CogVideoX: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025. 12 Appendix A Implementation Details A.1 Hyperparameters Pipeline budget.We set Nmax=3 planning steps and M=3 per-step generation attempts as the defaultCollabVRconfigurati...

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Each step must describe ONE clear visual action that a video generation model can simulate in 6 seconds.,→

    work page

  43. [43]

    Only plan the NEXT IMMEDIATE step

    DO NOT plan the entire task at once. Only plan the NEXT IMMEDIATE step

    work page

  44. [44]

    Describe the action in terms of VISIBLE MOTION and CHANGE -- what should move, where, and how.,→

    work page

  45. [45]

    Include the EXACT target state: what the frame should look like when this step is done.,→

    work page

  46. [46]

    task_complete

    If the task appears to be already complete based on the current image, set "task_complete" to true.,→ Output (strict JSON): { "observation": "Brief description of what you see in the current image", "remaining_goal": "What still needs to happen to complete the task", "task_complete": false, "instruction": "Detailed video generation prompt for the next ste...

    work page

  47. [47]

    Did the intended motion/transformation START to happen in the correct direction?,→

    work page

  48. [48]

    Is the result CONSISTENT with the planned action (even if incomplete)?

    work page

  49. [49]

    good_fraction

    Were there FUNDAMENTAL errors (wrong direction, wrong object, completely wrong action, scene collapse)?,→ What is NOT a rejection reason: - Action happened but didn't fully complete (partial progress is fine) - Minor rendering artifacts or small imprecisions - The final task goal is not yet reached (planner's job) On Rejection -- estimate "good_fraction" ...

    work page