Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

VideoArgus: Agentic Rubric-Grounded Unified Evaluation for Video Generation and Editing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VideoArgus claims that one output-blind, sample-specific rubric per input, reused across candidate videos, agrees with human rankings better than benchmark-specific evaluators in five video generation and editing tasks.

desk verdict VideoArgus is a genuinely useful, well-engineered evaluation framework with a released frozen benchmark, but its headline 'all five tasks' claim currently outruns the evidence because the significance tests live in a missing appendix and the TSV2V row has only 10 inputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05485 v1 pith:2RRHSUY2 submitted 2026-08-06 cs.CV

Ziyun Zeng , Zixuan Wang , Yongsheng Yu , Hang Hua , Jiebo Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords videogenerationevaluationeditingrubric-groundedsample-specificrubricshumanalignmentVLM-basedtext-to-videoimage-to-video
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that video generation and editing models can be evaluated under one protocol across five settings by generating a rubric once per input and reusing it for every candidate video. It claims this output-blind, sample-specific rubric leads to higher within-input correlation with human judgments than the task-specific evaluators used by existing benchmarks, and it releases a 1,026-instance benchmark with frozen rubrics so comparisons are reproducible. If the claim holds, researchers can compare text-to-video, image-to-video, subject-to-video, and editing models on a single evidence-grounded scale instead of stitching together task-specific scores. The paper also reports that rankings remain stable when the rubric-generation or evaluation model is swapped, and that removing specialized visual tools weakens agreement with human rankings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the output-blind, sample-specific rubric $R_i = G_{\text{rubric}}(x_i)$, generated once from the input instance $x_i$ and frozen before any candidate video is seen. Each rubric decomposes the input into criteria carrying a dimension label, a concrete requirement, a hard or soft constraint type, an importance weight, an integer $0$-$10$ scoring rule, expected failure modes, an optional hard cap, and an evidence plan naming which reference inputs, entities, and tools to use. During evaluation, the plan is executed by a unified tool interface that dispatches criterion-specific VLM QA plus specialized tools such as tracking, visual similarity, OCR, depth analysis, and flicker detection; a criterion judge returns a score and rationale, and the final score is the importance-weighted base score $B(\hat{V})$ capped by activated hard criteria, $S(\hat{V})=(1-\alpha)B(\hat{V})+\alpha\min(B(\hat{V}),\kappa(\hat{V}))$ with $\alpha=0.5$. This structure is what keeps the evaluation specification identical across competing outputs, prevents the rubric from adapting to a particular model's strengths or failures, and produces per-criterion diagnostic reports.

What would settle it

Re-run the within-input Spearman comparison on a TSV2V set of at least 100 inputs drawn from several benchmarks; if the margin over the source evaluator shrinks to zero or reverses once confidence intervals are computed, the 'across all five tasks' claim is refuted. A complementary check is to compare VideoArgus rubrics with human-written rubrics on the same inputs and score a held-out set with both; if generated rubrics miss criteria that human raters cite, rubric coverage is the weak link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that evaluation content should be derived from the input rather than fixed by the benchmark: one output-blind rubric per input, containing on average 11.9 criteria with explicit scoring rules and evidence plans, recovers human within-instance model rankings better than the corresponding benchmark-specific evaluators on all five settings. The paper instantiates this at scale in VideoArgus-Bench with 1,026 curated inputs and frozen rubrics, evaluates 55 model-task pairs, and shows that the ranking advantage holds for VideoArgus-Full over VideoArgus-VLM, that specialized tools contribute complementary evidence, and that rankings stay largely stable when the rubric generator or evaluation VLM is replaced.

Load-bearing premise

The entire cross-task claim rests on the assumption that the 1,260 human-scored videos, including only 10 subject-plus-text editing inputs from one source, represent each task well enough to conclude that VideoArgus beats every task-specific evaluator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any new input receives a one-time rubric, and all candidate videos for it are judged by exactly the same criteria, so model comparisons are not affected by rubric drift across outputs.
  • Because the rubrics are pre-generated and frozen, VideoArgus-Bench provides a reproducible common protocol for ranking models on all five generation and editing tasks.
  • Specialized visual tools contribute complementary evidence: removing them lowers within-instance ranking agreement on all five tasks.
  • Rankings stay largely stable when the rubric generator or evaluation VLM is replaced, so the protocol does not hinge on one underlying model.
  • Each evaluation yields per-criterion rationales and a diagnostic report, localizing which concrete requirement a candidate video fails.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the alignment result reproduces beyond the released benchmark, sample-specific rubrics could become the default replacement for fixed dimension batteries in video evaluation, and the same output-blind rubric protocol could transfer to image or audio generation evaluation.
  • The frozen-rubric design creates an audit trail: model performance can be re-measured over time on identical specifications, making regressions in later model versions detectable without re-annotating human judgments.
  • The paper leaves implicit whether rubric granularity itself drives the alignment gain; an ablation holding criterion count constant while varying specificity would test that.
  • Because rubric generation is a one-time API cost and evaluation runs on local compute, the marginal cost of evaluating additional models is small, which invites studying whether cheaper rubric generators preserve the alignment gains at scale.
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. The paper introduces VideoArgus, a unified rubric-grounded evaluation framework for five video generation and editing settings (T2V, TI2V, TS2V, TV2V, TSV2V). For each input instance, a rubric-generation step (Eq. 2) produces an output-blind, sample-specific rubric with criteria, scoring rules, failure modes, and evidence plans; the evaluation stage executes those plans with VLM QA and specialized visual tools and aggregates the resulting criterion scores using importance weighting and hard-criterion caps (Eqs. 3-7). The authors construct VideoArgus-Bench (1,026 inputs with frozen rubrics), evaluate 55 model-task pairs, and report a human-alignment study on 210 external inputs / 1,260 videos in which VideoArgus-Full is claimed to achieve higher within-input Spearman and Kendall correlations than the corresponding source benchmark evaluators on all five tasks. They also report tool ablations and backbone-consistency analyses.

Significance. VideoArgus's core design is attractive and well motivated: rubrics are generated from the input only, reused across candidate outputs, and released frozen for the benchmark, which avoids fitting the evaluation specification to specific outputs and makes comparisons reproducible. The human-alignment set is drawn from external benchmark inputs, and Table 4 indicates that the generated rubrics are substantially finer-grained than human-written rubrics (11.68 vs. 4.98 criteria per input). If the headline claim is fully supported, the framework plus VideoArgus-Bench would be a valuable unified evaluation standard with interpretable diagnostic output. The main weaknesses are evidential: the TSV2V comparison rests on only 10 input instances, and the paper defers all confidence intervals and paired tests to an appendix that is not present in this version. The universal 'across all five tasks' claim is therefore not yet established by the evidence in the manuscript, although the central design appears sound and the gaps are fixable.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.3, Table 3] The universal claim 'across all five tasks' rests in part on the TSV2V row, which contains only 10 input instances from EditVerseBench. Each within-instance Spearman correlation is computed from six model outputs, so the macro-average is a mean of 10 coarse estimates; the reported gap (R-ρ 0.686 vs. 0.749, R-τ 0.587 vs. 0.829) could plausibly be driven by one or two instances. Section 5.3 states that bootstrap confidence intervals and paired tests are 'reported in the appendix,' but this version contains no appendix. Please provide the intervals and paired-test results in the main text or in an appendix that is actually included, and either strengthen or qualify the abstract's 'across all five tasks' claim until that statistical support is present.
  2. [5.1, Table 3] The agreement-metric paragraph excludes instances with undefined correlations due to constant scores but does not report how many instances are excluded for each method and task. Table 3's caption asserts that all methods are correlated on 'an identical set of videos,' but if the source evaluator produces constant scores on some inputs while VideoArgus does not, the two methods are compared on different subsets; excluding the source evaluator's degenerate cases could change the comparison. Please report per-method exclusion counts and rerun the comparison on the common subset of instances.
  3. [Eq. (7), §5.1] The paper does not state whether design constants—α=0.5 in Eq. (7), the importance-weight mapping w_i ∈ {1,2,3}, the frame-sampling configuration (4 fps / 24 frames), and the tool set—were fixed before the authors inspected the human-alignment results. Because these choices affect the final score and hence the reported correlations, the claim that the human-alignment set is 'separate' is only meaningful if they were not tuned on it. Please state the selection procedure explicitly, or if any tuning occurred, report validation on a further held-out set.
minor comments (5)
  1. [5.1] The pooled Spearman correlation P-ρ is reported in Table 3 but never defined; please define it alongside R-ρ and R-τ.
  2. [Table 4] The column header 'Human Induced' appears to be a typo for 'Human-written'; please correct it.
  3. [5.2] The sentence 'Table 2 report the mean VideoArgus score' should read 'Table 2 reports'; please fix the subject-verb agreement.
  4. [5.1] The phrase 'ranked ties' is ambiguous; please specify whether tied scores were preserved as tied ranks or resolved by a secondary rule before correlation computation.
  5. [5.6] The sentence 'this corresponds to 0.206–0.266 per case' omits the currency unit; please add 'USD' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: VideoArgus's central human-alignment result is an external comparison with an output-blind, frozen rubric procedure.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: rubrics are generated once from input instances only (Eq. 2), frozen, and reused; criterion scores are produced by evidence-grounded judges and aggregated via Eqs. 3-7; agreement is measured against human judgments from 15 annotators on an external 1,260-video alignment set, using each source benchmark's own released evaluator. Nowhere is a parameter fitted to the human-alignment set: alpha=0.5 in Eq. 7 is fixed, and no tuning of rubric prompts, importance weights, or tool invocations on the alignment set is reported. The comparison is therefore not forced by construction. Self-citations in Sections 2 and 5 are contextual (model names, prior work, and unrelated dental papers) and do not carry the central claim. Section 5.3's deferral of bootstrap confidence intervals to a missing appendix and the 10-instance TSV2V row are statistical-evidence concerns, not circularity. Consequently, no circular step can be quoted with a specific reduction; the framework's design is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The evaluation claims rest on VLM reliability, annotator reliability, and fixed design choices. No new physical or external entities are introduced; the rubric is an internal evaluation artifact, not an independent entity with falsifiable predictions outside the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • aggregation weight alpha = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (7) to balance the base score and the hard-cap penalty; the human-alignment comparison depends on this value.
  • importance weights w_i = low/medium/high = 1/2/3
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2; these weights change the aggregated Scores and therefore the ranking comparisons.
  • frame sampling configuration = 4 fps, 24 frames; up to 48 frames at 8 fps for dense probes; up to 12 frames for judgment
    Chosen in Section 5.1; sampling density determines what visual evidence the VLM and tools can use, and the paper does not ablate this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rubric-generation and evaluation LLMs, when grounded with tool evidence, produce criterion judgments that are valid proxies for the visual requirements.
    The whole evaluation procedure rests on VLM QA reliability and the grounding assumption; see Section 3.2, Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption The 15 annotators' averaged scores on the 1,260-video set are a reliable gold standard for human preference.
    Section 5.1 describes trained annotators but reports no inter-annotator agreement statistics.
  • domain assumption Within-instance macro-averaged Spearman correlation is the appropriate primary metric, and excluding instances with constant scores is non-informative rather than selective.
    Section 5.1 defines R-rho and states that instances with undefined correlations are excluded; this exclusion rule could affect the comparison.
  • domain assumption The source benchmarks' evaluators are run as intended and are fair baselines.
    Section 5.1 says the prescribed evaluator with released metrics, prompts, judge model, and aggregation is used, but the paper does not provide implementation details for verification.
  • standard math Standard statistical definitions of Spearman and Kendall correlations are correct and appropriate here.
    Correlation formulas are standard background for the agreement metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VideoArgus: Agentic Rubric-Grounded Unified Evaluation for Video Generation and Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RRHSUY2

@misc{pith2026260805485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VideoArgus: Agentic Rubric-Grounded Unified Evaluation for Video Generation and Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RRHSUY2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05485}
}
read the original abstract

Evaluating generated videos remains challenging because existing benchmarks rely on fixed evaluation content, cover only a subset of generation and editing settings, and provide limited evidence for their scores. We introduce VideoArgus, a unified rubric-grounded framework covering five video generation and editing settings. For each input instance, VideoArgus generates an output-blind, sample-specific rubric once and reuses it to evaluate all corresponding candidate videos. The rubric defines concrete criteria, scoring rules, failure modes, and evidence plans, which guide criterion-specific VLM QA and visual tools to produce evidence-grounded criterion scores, rationales, and a diagnostic report. We further construct VideoArgus-Bench, containing 1,026 curated input instances built from 653 high-quality images and 416 high-quality videos, with all benchmark rubrics pre-generated, frozen, and released. On a separate 1,260-video human-alignment set, VideoArgus achieves higher within-input Spearman and Kendall correlations with human judgments than the corresponding benchmark-specific evaluators across all five tasks. Model rankings also remain largely consistent across different rubric-generation and evaluation-VLM backbones. All code and data are released. Visit our project page: https://zzzmyyzeng.github.io/VideoArgus

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05485 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of VideoArgus-Bench. Left: representative input instances from the five supported tasks—T2V, TI2V, TS2V, TV2V, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of VideoArgus. An input instance consists of a text prompt and optional image, subject, or video conditions. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example VideoArgus report for a TSV2V output by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wan2.2-V ACE-Fun-A14B, 2025

    Alibaba PAI. Wan2.2-V ACE-Fun-A14B, 2025. 6

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Introducing Claude Opus 4.8, 2026

    Anthropic. Introducing Claude Opus 4.8, 2026. 7, 8

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Sana-video: Efficient video generation with block linear diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24695, 2025

    Junsong Chen, Yuyang Zhao, Jincheng Yu, Ruihang Chu, Junyu Chen, Shuai Yang, Xianbang Wang, Yicheng Pan, Daquan Zhou, Huan Ling, et al. Sana-video: Efficient video generation with block linear diffusion transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24695, 2025. 6

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Ivebench: Modern benchmark suite for instruction-guided video editing assessment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11647, 2025

    Yinan Chen, Jiangning Zhang, Teng Hu, Yuxiang Zeng, Zhu- cun Xue, Qingdong He, Chengjie Wang, Yong Liu, Xiaobin Hu, and Shuicheng Yan. Ivebench: Modern benchmark suite for instruction-guided video editing assessment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11647, 2025. 3

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Magref: Masked guid- ance for any-reference video generation with subject disen- tanglement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23742, 2025

    Yufan Deng, Yuanyang Yin, Xun Guo, Yizhi Wang, Ja- cob Zhiyuan Fang, Shenghai Yuan, Yiding Yang, Angtian Wang, Bo Liu, Haibin Huang, et al. Magref: Masked guid- ance for any-reference video generation with subject disen- tanglement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23742, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Gemini 3.1 Pro: Model card, 2026

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3.1 Pro: Model card, 2026. 7, 8

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Veo 3 Model Card

    Google DeepMind. Veo 3 Model Card. Technical report, Google DeepMind, 2026. 6

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Ltx-video: Realtime video latent diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00103,

    Yoav HaCohen, Nisan Chiprut, Benny Brazowski, Daniel Shalem, Dudu Moshe, Eitan Richardson, Eran Levin, Guy Shiran, Nir Zabari, Ori Gordon, et al. Ltx-video: Realtime video latent diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00103,

    arXiv

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Openve-3m: A large-scale high-quality dataset for instruction-guided video editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07826, 2025

    Haoyang He, Jie Wang, Jiangning Zhang, Zhucun Xue, Xingyuan Bu, Qiangpeng Yang, Shilei Wen, and Lei Xie. Openve-3m: A large-scale high-quality dataset for instruction-guided video editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.07826, 2025. 3, 6

    2025

  2. [10]

    Hunyuancustom: A multimodal-driven architecture for customized video gener- ation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04512, 2025

    Teng Hu, Zhentao Yu, Zhengguang Zhou, Sen Liang, Yuan Zhou, Qin Lin, and Qinglin Lu. Hunyuancustom: A multimodal-driven architecture for customized video gener- ation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04512, 2025. 6

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Promptcap: Prompt-guided task- aware image captioning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09699,

    Yushi Hu, Hang Hua, Zhengyuan Yang, Weijia Shi, Noah A Smith, and Jiebo Luo. Promptcap: Prompt-guided task- aware image captioning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09699,

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Mmcomposition: Revisiting the compositionality of pre-trained vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09733, 2024

    Hang Hua, Yunlong Tang, Ziyun Zeng, Liangliang Cao, Zhengyuan Yang, Hangfeng He, Chenliang Xu, and Jiebo Luo. Mmcomposition: Revisiting the compositionality of pre-trained vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09733, 2024

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Mmigbench: Towards comprehensive and explainable evaluation of multi-modal image generation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19415, 3, 2025

    Hang Hua, Ziyun Zeng, Yizhi Song, Yunlong Tang, Liu He, Daniel Aliaga, Wei Xiong, and Jiebo Luo. Mmigbench: Towards comprehensive and explainable evaluation of multi-modal image generation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19415, 3, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Step-video-ti2v technical re- port: A state-of-the-art text-driven image-to-video genera- tion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11251, 2025

    Haoyang Huang, Guoqing Ma, Nan Duan, Xing Chen, Changyi Wan, Ranchen Ming, Tianyu Wang, Bo Wang, Zhiying Lu, Aojie Li, et al. Step-video-ti2v technical re- port: A state-of-the-art text-driven image-to-video genera- tion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11251, 2025. 6

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Vbench: Comprehensive bench- mark suite for video generative models

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

    2024

  8. [16]

    Vace: All-in-one video creation and editing

    Zeyinzi Jiang, Zhen Han, Chaojie Mao, Jingfeng Zhang, Yulin Pan, and Yu Liu. Vace: All-in-one video creation and editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 17191–17202, 2025. 3

    2025

  9. [17]

    Editverse: Unifying image and video editing and generation with in-context learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20360, 2025

    Xuan Ju, Tianyu Wang, Yuqian Zhou, He Zhang, Qing Liu, Nanxuan Zhao, Zhifei Zhang, Yijun Li, Yuanhao Cai, Shaoteng Liu, et al. Editverse: Unifying image and video editing and generation with in-context learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20360, 2025. 3, 6

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Anyv2v: A tuning-free framework for any video-to- video editing tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14468, 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 preprint arXiv:2403.14468, 2024. 6

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kling AI Launches 3.0 Model, Ush- ering in an Era Where Everyone Can Be a Director, 2026

    Kuaishou Technology. Kling AI Launches 3.0 Model, Ush- ering in an Era Where Everyone Can Be a Director, 2026. 6

    2026

  12. [20]

    Skyreels-v3 technique report

    Debang Li, Zhengcong Fei, Tuanhui Li, Yikun Dou, Zheng Chen, Jiangping Yang, Mingyuan Fan, Jingtao Xu, Jiahua Wang, Baoxuan Gu, et al. Skyreels-v3 technique report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.17323, 2026. 2, 6

    2026

  13. [21]

    Five-bench: A fine-grained video editing benchmark for evaluating emerging diffusion and rectified flow models

    Minghan Li, Chenxi Xie, Yichen Wu, Lei Zhang, and Mengyu Wang. Five-bench: A fine-grained video editing benchmark for evaluating emerging diffusion and rectified flow models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 16672–16681, 2025. 3

    2025

  14. [22]

    Bindweave: Subject-consistent video generation via cross-modal integration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00438, 2025

    Zhaoyang Li, Dongjun Qian, Kai Su, Qishuai Diao, Xi- angyang Xia, Chang Liu, Wenfei Yang, Tianzhu Zhang, and Zehuan Yuan. Bindweave: Subject-consistent video generation via cross-modal integration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.00438, 2025. 2

  15. [23]

    Videoxum: Cross- modal visual and textural summarization of videos.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 26:5548–5560, 2023

    Jingyang Lin, Hang Hua, Ming Chen, Yikang Li, Jenhao Hsiao, Chiuman Ho, and Jiebo Luo. Videoxum: Cross- modal visual and textural summarization of videos.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 26:5548–5560, 2023. 3

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kiwi-edit: Versatile video edit- ing via instruction and reference guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02175, 2026

    Yiqi Lin, Guoqiang Liang, Ziyun Zeng, Zechen Bai, Yanzhe Chen, and Mike Zheng Shou. Kiwi-edit: Versatile video edit- ing via instruction and reference guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02175, 2026. 6

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Phantom: Subject-consistent video generation via cross- modal alignment

    Lijie Liu, Tianxiang Ma, Bingchuan Li, Zhuowei Chen, Ji- awei Liu, Gen Li, Siyu Zhou, Qian He, and Xinglong Wu. Phantom: Subject-consistent video generation via cross- modal alignment. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision, pages 14951–14961,

  18. [26]

    Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and eval- uating large video generation models

    Yaofang Liu, Xiaodong Cun, Xuebo Liu, Xintao Wang, Yong Zhang, Haoxin Chen, Yang Liu, Tieyong Zeng, Raymond Chan, and Ying Shan. Evalcrafter: Benchmarking and eval- uating large video generation models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern re...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Step-video-t2v technical re- port: The practice, challenges, and future of video founda- tion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10248, 2025

    Guoqing Ma, Haoyang Huang, Kun Yan, Liangyu Chen, Nan Duan, Shengming Yin, Changyi Wan, Ranchen Ming, Xi- 9 aoniu Song, Xing Chen, et al. Step-video-t2v technical re- port: The practice, challenges, and future of video founda- tion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10248, 2025. 2, 6

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Towards world simulator: Crafting physical commonsense-based benchmark for video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05363, 2024

    Fanqing Meng, Jiaqi Liao, Xinyu Tan, Wenqi Shao, Quan- feng Lu, Kaipeng Zhang, Yu Cheng, Dianqi Li, Yu Qiao, and Ping Luo. Towards world simulator: Crafting physical commonsense-based benchmark for video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05363, 2024. 3

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    GPT-5.6 system card, 2026

    OpenAI. GPT-5.6 system card, 2026. 7, 8

    2026

  22. [30]

    Omniweaving: Towards unified video generation with free-form composition and reasoning

    Kaihang Pan, Qi Tian, Jianwei Zhang, Weijie Kong, Jiangfeng Xiong, Yanxin Long, Shixue Zhang, Haiyi Qiu, Tan Wang, Zheqi Lv, et al. Omniweaving: Towards unified video generation with free-form composition and reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24458, 2026. 2, 6

    2026

  23. [31]

    Pixabay: Royalty-free images and videos.https: //pixabay.com, 2026

    Pixabay. Pixabay: Royalty-free images and videos.https: //pixabay.com, 2026. 6

    2026

  24. [32]

    Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-level coding in a 27B dense model, 2026

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-level coding in a 27B dense model, 2026. 7, 8

    2026

  25. [33]

    Seedance 2.0: Advanc- ing video generation for world complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14148, 2026

    Team Seedance, De Chen, Liyang Chen, Xin Chen, Ying Chen, Zhuo Chen, Zhuowei Chen, Feng Cheng, Tianheng Cheng, Yufeng Cheng, et al. Seedance 2.0: Advanc- ing video generation for world complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14148, 2026. 6

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    T2v-compbench: A comprehen- sive benchmark for compositional text-to-video generation

    Kaiyue Sun, Kaiyi Huang, Xian Liu, Yue Wu, Zihan Xu, Zhenguo Li, and Xihui Liu. T2v-compbench: A comprehen- sive benchmark for compositional text-to-video generation. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion Conference, pages 8406–8416, 2025. 3

    2025

  27. [35]

    Video-lmm post-training: A deep dive into video reasoning with large multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05034, 2025

    Yolo Y Tang, Jing Bi, Pinxin Liu, Zhenyu Pan, Zhangyun Tan, Qianxiang Shen, Jiani Liu, Hang Hua, Junjia Guo, Yun- zhong Xiao, et al. Video-lmm post-training: A deep dive into video reasoning with large multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05034, 2025. 3

  28. [36]

    Lucy edit: Open-weight text-guided video editing, 2025

    DecartAI Team. Lucy edit: Open-weight text-guided video editing, 2025. 6

    2025

  29. [37]

    Gemma 4 technical report, 2026

    Gemma Team. Gemma 4 technical report, 2026. 7, 8

    2026

  30. [38]

    Longcat-video techni- cal report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22200, 2025

    Meituan LongCat Team, Xunliang Cai, Qilong Huang, Zhuoliang Kang, Hongyu Li, Shijun Liang, Liya Ma, Siyu Ren, Xiaoming Wei, Rixu Xie, et al. Longcat-video techni- cal report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22200, 2025. 6

    2025

  31. [39]

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

    Team Wan, Ang Wang, Baole Ai, Bin Wen, Chaojie Mao, Chen-Wei Xie, Di Chen, Feiwu Yu, Haiming Zhao, Jianxiao Yang, et al. Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video gen- erative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314, 2025. 2, 6

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Refalign: Repre- sentation alignment for reference-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25743, 2026

    Lei Wang, YuXin Song, Ge Wu, Haocheng Feng, Hang Zhou, Jingdong Wang, Yaxing Wang, et al. Refalign: Repre- sentation alignment for reference-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25743, 2026. 2

    2026 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Groupdancer: Music to multi-people dance synthesis with style collaboration

    Zixuan Wang, Jia Jia, Haozhe Wu, Junliang Xing, Jinghe Cai, Fanbo Meng, Guowen Chen, and Yanfeng Wang. Groupdancer: Music to multi-people dance synthesis with style collaboration. InProceedings of the 30th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia, pages 1138–1146, 2022. 3

    2022

  34. [42]

    Dance- camera3d: 3d camera movement synthesis with music and dance

    Zixuan Wang, Jia Jia, Shikun Sun, Haozhe Wu, Rong Han, Zhenyu Li, Di Tang, Jiaqing Zhou, and Jiebo Luo. Dance- camera3d: 3d camera movement synthesis with music and dance. In2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7892–7901. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Dancecamanimator: Keyframe- based controllable 3d dance camera synthesis

    Zixuan Wang, Jiayi Li, Xiaoyu Qin, Shikun Sun, Songtao Zhou, Jia Jia, and Jiebo Luo. Dancecamanimator: Keyframe- based controllable 3d dance camera synthesis. InProceed- ings of the 32nd ACM international conference on multime- dia, pages 10200–10209, 2024. 3

    2024

  36. [44]

    Univideo: Unified understanding, generation, and editing for videos

    Cong Wei, Quande Liu, Zixuan Ye, Qiulin Wang, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Kun Gai, and Wenhu Chen. Univideo: Unified understanding, generation, and editing for videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08377, 2025. 2, 6

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Univbench: Towards unified evaluation for video founda- tion models

    Jianhui Wei, Xiaotian Zhang, Yichen Li, Yuan Wang, Yan Zhang, Ziyi Chen, Zhihang Tang, Wei Xu, and Zuozhu Liu. Univbench: Towards unified evaluation for video founda- tion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 25654–...

    2026

  38. [46]

    Hunyuanvideo 1.5 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.18870, 2025

    Bing Wu, Chang Zou, Changlin Li, Duojun Huang, Fang Yang, Hao Tan, Jack Peng, Jianbing Wu, Jiangfeng Xiong, Jie Jiang, et al. Hunyuanvideo 1.5 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.18870, 2025. 2, 6

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Omni-video 2: Scaling mllm-conditioned diffu- sion for unified video generation and editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08820, 2026

    Hao Yang, Zhiyu Tan, Jia Gong, Luozheng Qin, Hesen Chen, Xiaomeng Yang, Yuqing Sun, Yuetan Lin, Mengping Yang, and Hao Li. Omni-video 2: Scaling mllm-conditioned diffu- sion for unified video generation and editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08820, 2026. 2

    2026

  40. [48]

    Videocof: Unified video editing with temporal reasoner

    Xiangpeng Yang, Ji Xie, Yiyuan Yang, Yue Ma, Yan Huang, Min Xu, and Qiang Wu. Videocof: Unified video editing with temporal reasoner. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 37940–37949, 2026. 6

    2026

  41. [49]

    Videogen-eval: Agent-based system for video gen- eration evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23452, 2025

    Yuhang Yang, Ke Fan, Shangkun Sun, Hongxiang Li, Ailing Zeng, FeiLin Han, Wei Zhai, Wei Liu, Yang Cao, and Zheng- Jun Zha. Videogen-eval: Agent-based system for video gen- eration evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23452, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

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

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xi- aohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to- video diffusion models with an expert transformer. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, pages 83...

    2025

  43. [51]

    Omnipaint: Mastering object-oriented editing via disentan- gled insertion-removal inpainting

    Yongsheng Yu, Ziyun Zeng, Haitian Zheng, and Jiebo Luo. Omnipaint: Mastering object-oriented editing via disentan- gled insertion-removal inpainting. In2025 IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 17324–17334. IEEE, 2025. 3

    2025

  44. [52]

    Aurora: Uni- fied video editing with a tool-using agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18748, 2026

    Yongsheng Yu, Ziyun Zeng, Zhiyuan Xiao, Zhenghong Zhou, Hang Hua, Wei Xiong, and Jiebo Luo. Aurora: Uni- fied video editing with a tool-using agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18748, 2026. 2, 3, 6

    2026 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Opens2v- nexus: A detailed benchmark and million-scale dataset for subject-to-video generation.Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 38, 2026

    Shenghai Yuan, Xianyi He, Yufan Deng, Yang Ye, Jinfa Huang, Chongyang Ma, Jiebo Luo, Li Yuan, et al. Opens2v- nexus: A detailed benchmark and million-scale dataset for subject-to-video generation.Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 38, 2026. 2, 3, 6 10

    2026

  46. [54]

    Use of artificial intelligence to de- tect dental caries on intraoral photos.Quintessence interna- tional, 2025

    Ziyun Zeng, Ashwin Ramesh, Jinglong Ruan, Peirong Hao, N Al Jallad, Hoonji Jang, Oriana Ly-Mapes, Kevin Fiscella, Jin Xiao, and Jiebo Luo. Use of artificial intelligence to de- tect dental caries on intraoral photos.Quintessence interna- tional, 2025. 3

    2025

  47. [55]

    Automated detection and quanti- tative assessment of dental plaque in intraoral images.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 7(2):1–12, 2026

    Ziyun Zeng, Junyu Chen, Noha Rashwan, Nisreen Al Jallad, Jin Xiao, and Jiebo Luo. Automated detection and quanti- tative assessment of dental plaque in intraoral images.ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 7(2):1–12, 2026. 3

    2026

  48. [56]

    Mira: Multimodal iterative reasoning agent for image editing

    Ziyun Zeng, Hang Hua, and Jiebo Luo. Mira: Multimodal iterative reasoning agent for image editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9563–9573, 2026. 3

    2026

  49. [57]

    Mementogui: Learning agentic mul- timodal memory control for long-horizon gui agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18652, 2026

    Ziyun Zeng, Hang Hua, Bocheng Zou, Mu Cai, Rogerio Feris, and Jiebo Luo. Mementogui: Learning agentic mul- timodal memory control for long-horizon gui agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18652, 2026. 3

    2026 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Region-constraint in-context generation for instructional video editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17650, 2025

    Zhongwei Zhang, Fuchen Long, Wei Li, Zhaofan Qiu, Wu Liu, Ting Yao, and Tao Mei. Region-constraint in-context generation for instructional video editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17650, 2025. 6

    2025

  51. [59]

    Kaleido: Open-sourced multi-subject reference video generation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18573, 2025

    Zhenxing Zhang, Jiayan Teng, Zhuoyi Yang, Tiankun Cao, Cheng Wang, Xiaotao Gu, Jie Tang, Dan Guo, and Meng Wang. Kaleido: Open-sourced multi-subject reference video generation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18573, 2025. 2

    2025

  52. [60]

    Vbench-2.0: Advancing video generation benchmark suite for intrinsic faithfulness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21755, 2025

    Dian Zheng, Ziqi Huang, Hongbo Liu, Kai Zou, Yinan He, Fan Zhang, Lulu Gu, Yuanhan Zhang, Jingwen He, Wei- Shi Zheng, et al. Vbench-2.0: Advancing video generation benchmark suite for intrinsic faithfulness.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21755, 2025. 3 11

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.