Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Video models learn to reason frame-by-frame with targeted data and reasoning tokens

2026-07-10 01:32 UTC pith:CREGZARQ

load-bearing objection Solid dataset and reasoning-token exploration for video reasoning, but a training-schedule confound undermines the token ablation claims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08763 v1 pith:CREGZARQ submitted 2026-07-09 cs.CV cs.AI

OpenCoF: Learning to Reason Through Video Generation

Xinyan Chen , Ziyu Guo , Renrui Zhang , Dongzhi Jiang , Hongsheng Li This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords reasoningvideomodeldatasetgenerationsupervisiontemporalacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that video generation models can be taught to reason—not just produce visually plausible footage—by training them on a curated dataset of 17,312 reasoning videos spanning 11 task families (chess, sudoku, physics motion, maze navigation, tangram, etc.) and by adding dedicated reasoning tokens to the model architecture. The central claim is that Chain-of-Frame (CoF) reasoning—where a model works through a problem by generating temporally connected frames that show each step—requires two things: broad temporal supervision from diverse reasoning tasks, and explicit architectural mechanisms for organizing intermediate reasoning state. The authors fine-tune the Wan2.2 video generator on their OpenCoF-17K dataset and show gains across four external reasoning benchmarks. They then introduce two complementary token designs: Visual Reasoning Tokens (vt), inserted into the visual latent sequence to capture low-level spatial cues through self-attention, and Textual Reasoning Tokens (tt), appended to the text-conditioning sequence to supply high-level semantic priors through cross-attention. Through attention analysis, they show that vt specializes in boundary states and localized visual planning while tt provides steadier semantic constraints, with each dominating different reasoning sub-dimensions in a way consistent with its design.

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that a video generation model, when fine-tuned on diverse reasoning-specific video data, begins to exhibit transferable Chain-of-Frame reasoning on external benchmarks it was never trained on—and that this reasoning can be further improved by giving the model explicit architectural channels to maintain intermediate reasoning state. The two token designs (vt and tt) are not interchangeable capacity boosts but specialize along predictable axes: visual tokens dominate planning and spatial stability tasks while textual tokens dominate instruction alignment and structural reasoning. The attention analysis reveals that these tokens participate non-uniformly across Di

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is a pair of learnable token designs grafted onto a standard Diffusion Transformer (DiT) video generator. Visual Reasoning Tokens (vt) are randomly initialized, prepended to the flattened visual latent sequence before the first DiT block, participate in bidirectional self-attention with all visual tokens, and are discarded after the final block. Textual Reasoning Tokens (tt) are prepended to the text-conditioning sequence, enter only as additional key/value context in cross-attention (never as queries), are never refreshed by the visual stream, and persist through the output readout. The dataset itself is constructed via four pipelines: instance-based rendering (structured

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that performance gains on the four external benchmarks reflect genuine reasoning capability transfer rather than superficial pattern matching or distribution overlap between training and evaluation tasks. The relatively small absolute gains on some benchmarks (e.g., RULER-Bench +1.0 overall) and the lack of per-task training/evaluation separation within task families leave open whether the model learns transferable reasoning or task-specific heuristics.

What would settle it

If the gains on the external benchmarks were shown to correlate primarily with surface-level distribution overlap (e.g., shared visual templates, similar prompt structures, or common rendering pipelines between OpenCoF-17K training tasks and benchmark evaluation tasks) rather than with reasoning skill transfer, the core claim would be undermined. A concrete test: evaluate on a benchmark whose task families share no structural overlap with any of the 11 training families and check whether gains persist.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If CoF reasoning transfers across task families as the paper suggests, then the path to more capable video reasoning models may run through curated multi-task supervision rather than pure scale—paralleling how diverse reasoning data drove language model capabilities.
  • The complementary specialization of vt and tt implies that combining both token types in a single model could yield further gains, which the authors identify as future work but do not test.
  • The attention patterns showing vt active at temporal boundaries (initial and final frames) and tt active across later frames suggest a natural division of labor that could inform how future architectures structure reasoning state in generative models.
  • The finding that doubling token count from 16 to 32 does not uniformly improve performance suggests reasoning tokens are not generic capacity but task-specific structures, which constrains how one should scale such mechanisms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces OpenCoF, a framework for improving Chain-of-Frame (CoF) reasoning in video generation models. It contributes: (1) the OpenCoF-17K dataset, comprising 17,312 videos across 11 task families constructed via four curation pipelines; (2) Wan-CoF, a LoRA fine-tuned variant of Wan2.2-I2V-A14B trained on this dataset; and (3) an exploration of two reasoning-token designs—Visual Reasoning Tokens (vt) and Textual Reasoning Tokens (tt)—inserted into the DiT architecture to provide dedicated channels for intermediate reasoning state. The authors evaluate on four external video-reasoning benchmarks (MME-CoF, Gen-ViRe, VIPER, RULER-Bench) and report gains over the baseline, with further improvements from the reasoning-token variants. Attention analyses examine how vt and tt operate across depth, denoising steps, space, and time.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important question: whether video generation models can be explicitly trained and architecturally augmented to perform multi-step reasoning. The construction of a diverse, multi-pipeline reasoning video dataset (OpenCoF-17K) and its open release are valuable contributions to the community. The reasoning-token exploration, while preliminary, is a principled attempt to move beyond implicit reasoning in visual latents. The attention analyses provide useful qualitative insights into how learnable tokens interact with the DiT computation graph. The commitment to open-sourcing data, models, and code strengthens the work's reproducibility and impact.

major comments (3)
  1. Section A.2 / Tables 2-5: The reasoning-token variants (Wan-CoF_vt, Wan-CoF_tt) are trained for 5 epochs, while the data-only baseline (Wan-CoF) is trained for 2 epochs. The stated rationale is to give 'additional reasoning-token parameters more updates to converge.' However, since the reasoning tokens add only Nr=Nt=16 learnable parameters—a tiny fraction of total model capacity—it is unclear whether 5 epochs are genuinely necessary for these tokens to converge, or whether the extended training itself accounts for the performance gains. Without a Wan-CoF baseline trained for 5 epochs without reasoning tokens, the delta between Wan-CoF and Wan-CoF_vt/tt cannot be cleanly attributed to the token mechanisms versus extended optimization. This control is load-bearing for the claim that the token designs are responsible for the improvements. Please add this control or provide a principled, ab
  2. Table 5 (RULER-Bench): The overall gain from Wan-CoF over the baseline is +1.0 (55.8 to 56.8), and the Visual Consistency dimension actually degrades (-4.0). The Humanity sub-domain shows a large drop in Instruction Following (-13.9). While the paper acknowledges that some 'non-positive cells sit within evaluation noise,' the marginal absolute gains on this benchmark raise the question of whether the improvements are practically meaningful or within measurement variance. Please provide confidence intervals or multiple-seed variance estimates for at least the headline metrics, and clarify whether the RULER-Bench gains are statistically significant.
  3. Section 3.2: The out-of-distribution analysis claims that per-category gains 'appear to align with the types of supervision provided by OpenCoF-17K.' However, this alignment is argued post hoc and qualitatively. For instance, the paper claims that 'structured-grid tasks (e.g., Chess, Sudoku, Maze) correlate with Gen-ViRe Algorithmic & Logical (+0.147),' but it is unclear how strong this correlation is or whether it could arise from superficial distribution overlap rather than genuine reasoning transfer. A more rigorous test would involve leave-one-task-family-out ablations (training on 10 families, evaluating on the held-out family's corresponding benchmark dimensions) to demonstrate that gains are not driven by task-specific heuristics. Without such an ablation, the transfer claim remains under-supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. Section 2.1: The dataset is described as comprising '17,312 videos across 11 task families,' but the VBVR family alone accounts for 7,750 (44.8%). This heavy imbalance is not discussed in terms of its potential impact on training dynamics or benchmark transfer. A brief comment on whether this imbalance was intentional or whether class balancing was considered would be helpful.
  2. Figure 4: The figure caption states 'Overview of the first three curation pipelines in OpenCoF-17K,' but the figure content is dense and the text labels within the diagram are small. Consider enlarging key labels or splitting into sub-figures for readability.
  3. Section 4.1, Eq. (1): The notation z_0 = [r^v_1, ..., r^v_{N_r}, x_1, ..., x_M] is clear, but it would help to explicitly state that the reasoning tokens are discarded after the final DiT block (mentioned in the text but not in the equation) to avoid confusion about whether they contribute to the output prediction.
  4. Table 6: The ablation on reasoning token count (n=16 vs. n=32) is informative, but the rationale for why n=16 outperforms n=32 on most benchmarks is not discussed. A brief hypothesis (e.g., overfitting risk with more parameters, or interference with existing attention patterns) would strengthen the analysis.
  5. Section 6 (Conclusion): The limitation that 'vt and tt are investigated separately' is noted, but the paper does not discuss whether combining them is expected to be complementary or conflicting given their different spatial/temporal attention patterns (Section 4.3). A brief forward-looking comment on this would be valuable.
  6. References: Several arXiv preprints are cited with future dates (e.g., [11] arXiv:2605.15198, [30] arXiv:2603.20194, [42] arXiv:2602.20159). If these are accepted/published by the time of camera-ready, please update with venue information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found — empirical study evaluated on independent external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is entirely empirical: construct a dataset, fine-tune a model, evaluate on external benchmarks, then add reasoning tokens and evaluate again. There is no mathematical derivation that could reduce to its inputs by construction. The training data (OpenCoF-17K) and evaluation data (MME-CoF, Gen-ViRe, VIPER, RULER-Bench) are explicitly separate, and Section 3.2 frames the evaluation as out-of-distribution. While some authors overlap with the MME-CoF benchmark paper [10], MME-CoF is used as one of four evaluation tools, not as a load-bearing theoretical premise — the other three benchmarks are from independent groups. The reasoning-token designs (vt, tt) are architectural additions whose effects are measured empirically on external benchmarks, not derived results that could be circular. The training-epoch confound (2 vs. 5 epochs) flagged by the skeptic is a legitimate experimental design concern but falls under correctness risk, not circularity: the paper does not define the token gains in terms of the epoch count or vice versa. No step in the argument reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces two new architectural entities (vt, tt) with empirical but not theoretical justification. The free parameters are standard ML hyperparameters. The core axioms are domain assumptions about video reasoning that the paper provides evidence for but does not independently prove.

free parameters (6)
  • LoRA rank = 32
    Chosen hyperparameter for fine-tuning; not derived from first principles.
  • Learning rate = 2e-5
    Standard hyperparameter selection; no derivation provided.
  • Number of visual reasoning tokens (Nr) = 16
    Selected empirically; ablation in Table 6 shows n=32 is worse, but only two values tested.
  • Number of textual reasoning tokens (Nt) = 16
    Selected empirically; same ablation as above.
  • Training epochs (Wan-CoF) = 2
    Chosen without systematic justification.
  • Training epochs (Wan-CoFvt, Wan-CoFtt) = 5
    Stated as giving 'more updates to converge' but no convergence analysis provided.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Video generation models can serve as a substrate for reasoning, where reasoning unfolds through temporally connected frames (Chain-of-Frame).
    Foundational premise of the paper (Section 1). Not independently proven; the paper's results provide partial evidence.
  • domain assumption Diverse temporal supervision across multiple task families improves generalizable CoF reasoning rather than overfitting to specific domains.
    Assumed in Section 3.2; supported by transfer to external benchmarks but not conclusively proven given small gains.
  • ad hoc to paper Learnable tokens inserted into visual or text sequences can serve as dedicated channels for organizing intermediate reasoning state.
    The design choice of prepending learnable tokens (Eqs. 1-2) is introduced without theoretical justification for why this specific placement or mechanism should capture reasoning state.
  • domain assumption Performance on MME-CoF, Gen-ViRe, VIPER, and RULER-Bench validly measures video reasoning capability.
    The paper relies entirely on these benchmarks for evaluation. Their validity as reasoning measures is assumed, not established by this paper.
invented entities (2)
  • Visual Reasoning Tokens (vt) independent evidence
    purpose: Learnable tokens prepended to the visual latent sequence to capture low-level visual cues and organize spatial-temporal reasoning state.
    Falsifiable: the tokens' attention patterns (Figure 8-9) and benchmark performance (Tables 2-5) provide empirical evidence of their function. However, the mechanism by which they 'organize reasoning state' is inferred from attention patterns, not directly proven.
  • Textual Reasoning Tokens (tt) independent evidence
    purpose: Learnable tokens appended to the text-conditioning sequence to provide high-level semantic priors through cross-attention.
    Same as above: falsifiable through performance and attention analysis, but the 'reasoning state' interpretation is an inference from attention patterns.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 21289 in / 2843 out tokens · 235908 ms · 2026-07-10T01:32:26.648247+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Reasoning has become a core capability for large models, especially when reliable decisions require understanding logical consequences. Recent video generation models offer a reasoning path distinct from previous Chain-of-Thought (CoT): reasoning can unfold through temporally connected frames, known as Chain-of-Frame (CoF) reasoning. However, existing video generators are primarily trained on general video corpora, still lacking diverse supervision and dedicated designs for CoF reasoning. To address this gap, we introduce OpenCoF, a framework comprising the OpenCoF-17K dataset, a reasoning video dataset spanning 11 task families, and Wan-CoF, a fine-tuned video model for studying whether diverse temporal supervision improves CoF behavior. Across four video reasoning benchmarks, Wan-CoF achieves considerable gains over the Wan2.2-I2V-A14B baseline. Building on this, we empirically explore more advanced designs for CoF capabilities, i.e., equipping the model with visual and textual reasoning tokens. This mechanism respectively captures low-level visual cues and high-level semantic priors for spatial and temporal reasoning. Through performance comparisons and attention analysis, we examine how these tokens contribute across model depth, denoising steps, space, and time. Our results suggest that stronger video reasoning requires both broad temporal supervision and explicit mechanisms for organizing intermediate reasoning state. We open-source the dataset, model, and code to facilitate future research on reasoning-oriented video generation.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Lumiere: A space-time diffusion model for video generation

    Omer Bar-Tal, Hila Chefer, Omer Tov, Charles Herrmann, Roni Paiss, Shiran Zada, Ariel Ephrat, Junhwa Hur, Guanghui Liu, Amit Raj, et al. Lumiere: A space-time diffusion model for video generation. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

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

    Zefan Cai, Haoyi Qiu, Tianyi Ma, Haozhe Zhao, Gengze Zhou, Kung-Hsiang Huang, Parisa Kordjamshidi, Minjia Zhang, Wen Xiao, Jiuxiang Gu, et al. Mmgr: Multi-modal generative reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14691, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

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

    Harold Haodong Chen, Disen Lan, Wen-Jie Shu, Qingyang Liu, Zihan Wang, Sirui Chen, Wenkai Cheng, Kanghao Chen, Hongfei Zhang, Zixin Zhang, et al. Tivibench: Benchmarking think-in-video reasoning for video generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13704, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    MINT-CoT: Enabling Interleaved Visual Tokens in Mathematical Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    Xinyan Chen, Renrui Zhang, Dongzhi Jiang, Aojun Zhou, Shilin Yan, Weifeng Lin, and Hongsheng Li. Mint-cot: Enabling interleaved visual tokens in mathematical chain-of-thought reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05331, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    UniMax: Fairer and more Effective Language Sampling for Large-Scale Multilingual Pretraining

    Hyung Won Chung, Noah Constant, Xavier Garcia, Adam Roberts, Yi Tay, Sharan Narang, and Orhan Firat. Unimax: Fairer and more effective language sampling for large-scale multilingual pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09151, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

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

    Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, 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]

    G-LLaVA: Solving Geometric Problem with Multi-Modal Large Language Model

    Jiahui Gao, Renjie Pi, Jipeng Zhang, Jiacheng Ye, Wanjun Zhong, Yufei Wang, Lanqing Hong, Jianhua Han, Hang Xu, Zhenguo Li, et al. G-llava: Solving geometric problem with multi-modal large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11370, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Seedance 1.0: Exploring the Boundaries of Video Generation Models

    Yu Gao, Haoyuan Guo, Tuyen Hoang, Weilin Huang, Lu Jiang, Fangyuan Kong, Huixia Li, Jiashi Li, Liang Li, Xiaojie Li, et al. Seedance 1.0: Exploring the boundaries of video generation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09113, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Veo-3 technical report

    Google DeepMind. Veo-3 technical report. Technical report, Google DeepMind, May 2025. URL https: //storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/veo/Veo-3-Tech-Report.pdf

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Are video models ready as zero-shot reasoners? an empirical study with the mme-cof benchmark

    Ziyu Guo, Xinyan Chen, Renrui Zhang, Ruichuan An, Yu Qi, Dongzhi Jiang, Xiangtai Li, Manyuan Zhang, Hongsheng Li, and Pheng-Ann Heng. 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]

    ATLAS: Agentic or Latent Visual Reasoning? One Word is Enough for Both

    Ziyu Guo, Rain Liu, Xinyan Chen, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Atlas: Agentic or latent visual reasoning? one word is enough for both.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15198, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Ruler-bench: Probing rule-based reasoning abilities of next-level video generation models for vision foundation intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02622, 2025

    Xuming He, Zehao Fan, Hengjia Li, Fan Zhuo, Hankun Xu, Senlin Cheng, Di Weng, Haifeng Liu, Can Ye, and Boxi Wu. Ruler-bench: Probing rule-based reasoning abilities of next-level video generation models for vision foundation intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02622, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    DeepEyesV2: Toward Agentic Multimodal Model

    Jack Hong, Chenxiao Zhao, ChengLin Zhu, Weiheng Lu, Guohai Xu, and Xing Yu. Deepeyesv2: Toward agentic multimodal model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05271, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.Iclr, 1(2):3, 2022

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

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:139348–139379, 2024

    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.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:139348–139379, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    MME-CoT: Benchmarking Chain-of-Thought in Large Multimodal Models for Reasoning Quality, Robustness, and Efficiency

    Dongzhi Jiang, Renrui Zhang, Ziyu Guo, Yanwei Li, Yu Qi, Xinyan Chen, Liuhui Wang, Jianhan Jin, Claire Guo, Shen Yan, et al. Mme-cot: Benchmarking chain-of-thought in large multimodal models for reasoning quality, robustness, and efficiency.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09621, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022. 15

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    HunyuanVideo: A Systematic Framework For Large Video Generative Models

    Weijie Kong, Qi Tian, Zijian Zhang, Rox Min, Zuozhuo Dai, Jin Zhou, Jiangfeng Xiong, Xin Li, Bo Wu, Jianwei Zhang, et al. Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03603, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Kling ai: Next-generation ai creative studio.https://klingai.com/, June 2024

    Kuaishou Technology. Kling ai: Next-generation ai creative studio.https://klingai.com/, June 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Imagine while Reasoning in Space: Multimodal Visualization-of-Thought

    Chengzu Li, Wenshan Wu, Huanyu Zhang, Yan Xia, Shaoguang Mao, Li Dong, Ivan Vulić, and Furu Wei. Imagine while reasoning in space: Multimodal visualization-of-thought.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07542, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Thinking in frames: How visual context and test-time scaling empower video reasoning

    Chengzu Li, Zanyi Wang, Jiaang Li, Yi Xu, Han Zhou, Huanyu Zhang, Ruichuan An, Dengyang Jiang, Zhaochong An, Ivan Vulić, 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

  22. [22]

    Viper: Process-aware evaluation for generative video reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24952, 2025

    Yifan Li, Yukai Gu, Yingqian Min, Zikang Liu, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Min Yang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Minghui Qiu. Viper: Process-aware evaluation for generative video reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24952, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts

    Pan Lu, Hritik Bansal, Tony Xia, Jiacheng Liu, Chun yue Li, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Hao Cheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. Mathvista: Evaluating math reasoning in visual contexts with gpt-4v, bard, and other large multimodal models.ArXiv, abs/2310.02255, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    V-reasonbench: Toward unified reasoning benchmark suite for video generation models

    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

  26. [26]

    Sit: Exploring flow and diffusion-based generative models with scalable interpolant transformers

    Nanye Ma, Mark Goldstein, Michael S Albergo, Nicholas M Boffi, Eric Vanden-Eijnden, and Saining Xie. Sit: Exploring flow and diffusion-based generative models with scalable interpolant transformers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23–40. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    MM-Eureka: Exploring the Frontiers of Multimodal Reasoning with Rule-based Reinforcement Learning

    Fanqing Meng, Lingxiao Du, Zongkai Liu, Zhixiang Zhou, Quanfeng Lu, Daocheng Fu, Tiancheng Han, Botian Shi, Wenhai Wang, Junjun He, et al. Mm-eureka: Exploring the frontiers of multimodal reasoning with rule-based reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07365, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Sora 2 system card

    OpenAI. Sora 2 system card. Technical report, OpenAI, September 2025. URLhttps://cdn.openai.com/pdf/ 50d5973c-c4ff-4c2d-986f-c72b5d0ff069/sora_2_system_card.pdf

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4195–4205, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Mme-cof-pro: Evaluating reasoning coherence in video generative models with text and visual hints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20194, 2026

    Yu Qi, Xinyi Xu, Ziyu Guo, Siyuan Ma, Renrui Zhang, Xinyan Chen, Ruichuan An, Ruofan Xing, Jiayi Zhang, Haojie Huang, et al. Mme-cof-pro: Evaluating reasoning coherence in video generative models with text and visual hints.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20194, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Seedance 1.5 pro: A Native Audio-Visual Joint Generation Foundation Model

    Team Seedance, Heyi Chen, Siyan Chen, Xin Chen, Yanfei Chen, Ying Chen, Zhuo Chen, Feng Cheng, Tianheng Cheng, Xinqi Cheng, et al. Seedance 1.5 pro: A native audio-visual joint generation foundation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13507, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Seedance 2.0: Advancing Video Generation for World Complexity

    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: Advancing video generation for world complexity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14148, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought reasoning

    Hao Shao, Shengju Qian, Han Xiao, Guanglu Song, Zhuofan Zong, Letian Wang, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Visual cot: Advancing multi-modal language models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought reasoning. Advancesin Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:8612–8642, 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Image editing in gemini just got a major upgrade

    David Sharon and Nicole Brichtova. Image editing in gemini just got a major upgrade. The Keyword (Google Blog), August 26 2025. URL https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gemini/ updated-image-editing-model/. 16

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer

    Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer.arXiv preprintarXiv:1701.06538, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding.Neurocomputing, 568:127063, 2024

    Jianlin Su, Murtadha Ahmed, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Wen Bo, and Yunfeng Liu. Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding.Neurocomputing, 568:127063, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Thinking with Video: Video Generation as a Promising Multimodal Reasoning Paradigm

    Jingqi Tong, Yurong Mou, Hangcheng Li, Mingzhe Li, Yongzhuo Yang, Ming Zhang, Qiguang Chen, Tianyi Liang, Xiaomeng Hu, Yining Zheng, et al. Thinking with video: Video generation as a promising multimodal reasoning paradigm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04570, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Attention is all you need.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale

    Homer Rich Walke, Kevin Black, Tony Z Zhao, Quan Vuong, Chongyi Zheng, Philippe Hansen-Estruch, An- dre Wang He, Vivek Myers, Moo Jin Kim, Max Du, et al. Bridgedata v2: A dataset for robot learning at scale. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1723–1736. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Wan: Open and Advanced Large-Scale Video Generative Models

    Team Wan, Ang Wang, Baole Ai, Bin Wen, Chaojie Mao, Chen-Wei Xie, Di Chen, Feiwu Yu, Haiming Zhao, Jianxiao Yang, Jianyuan Zeng, Jiayu Wang, Jingfeng Zhang, Jingren Zhou, Jinkai Wang, Jixuan Chen, Kai Zhu, Kang Zhao, Keyu Yan, Lianghua Huang, Mengyang Feng, Ningyi Zhang, Pandeng Li, Pingyu Wu, Ruihang Chu, Ruili Feng, Shiwei Zhang, Siyang Sun, Tao Fang, T...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    A very big video reasoning suite.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.20159, 2026

    Maijunxian Wang, Ruisi Wang, Juyi Lin, Ran Ji, Thaddäus Wiedemer, Qingying Gao, Dezhi Luo, Yaoyao Qian, Lianyu Huang, Zelong Hong, et al. A very big video reasoning suite.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.20159, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advancesin neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Video models are zero-shot learners and reasoners

    ThaddäusWiedemer, YuxuanLi, PaulVicol, ShixiangShaneGu, NickMatarese, KevinSwersky, BeenKim, 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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    HunyuanVideo 1.5 Technical Report

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Visual planning: Let’s think only with images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11409, 2025

    Yi Xu, Chengzu Li, Han Zhou, Xingchen Wan, Caiqi Zhang, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vulić. Visual planning: Let’s think only with images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11409, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    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, Jiayi Zhang, Junchi Yu, Xinlei Yu, Xiawu Zheng, Dongzhan Zhou, 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

  48. [48]

    R1-onevision: Advancing generalized multimodal reasoning through cross-modal formalization

    Yi Yang, Xiaoxuan He, Hongkun Pan, Xiyan Jiang, Yan Deng, Xingtao Yang, Haoyu Lu, Dacheng Yin, Fengyun Rao, Minfeng Zhu, et al. R1-onevision: Advancing generalized multimodal reasoning through cross-modal formalization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2376–2385, 2025

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Mathverse: Does your multi-modal llm truly see the diagrams in visual math problems? ECCV 2024, 2024

    Renrui Zhang, Dongzhi Jiang, Yichi Zhang, Haokun Lin, Ziyu Guo, Pengshuo Qiu, Aojun Zhou, Pan Lu, Kai-Wei Chang, Peng Gao, et al. Mathverse: Does your multi-modal llm truly see the diagrams in visual math problems? ECCV 2024, 2024

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    DeepEyes: Incentivizing "Thinking with Images" via Reinforcement Learning

    Ziwei Zheng, Michael Yang, Jack Hong, Chenxiao Zhao, Guohai Xu, Le Yang, Chao Shen, and Xing Yu. Deepeyes: Incentivizing" thinking with images" via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14362, 2025. 17 Appendix Overview We organize our supplementary material as follows. •Additional Implementation Details –Backbone and LoRA Setup –Model Variants...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025