Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

UVCG: Leveraging Temporal Consistency for Universal Video Protection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tiny, imperceptible frame perturbations that make a video's latent sequence track a target video can block text-guided AI editing, across models and pipelines.

desk verdict A sensible extension of image protection to video via target-latent alignment, with real qualitative results but an unverified central mechanism and a thin baseline set. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17746 v1 pith:JAGUVXBD submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CV cs.AI

KaiZhou Li , Jindong Gu , Xinchun Yu , Junjie Cao , Yansong Tang , Xiao-Ping Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords videoprotectionadversarialperturbationslatentdiffusionmodelseditingtemporalconsistencyprojectedgradientdescenttransferabilityimmunization
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

This paper sets out to stop text-guided AI video editing from being used to manipulate real videos. It claims that a defender can 'immunize' a video by adding tiny, imperceptible perturbations to every frame, chosen so that the editing model's encoder maps the frame sequence onto the latent sequence of a different target video. Because the misalignment is continuous across frames, editing pipelines that rely on inter-frame consistency cannot correct it, and the resulting edited videos become visibly distorted and poorly matched to the attacker's text prompt. The paper further claims that the protection transfers across several versions of latent diffusion models and across multiple editing pipelines, and that a perturbation-reuse scheme makes the protection computationally affordable. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that video-level misdirection in latent space, rather than per-frame image noise, is the right lever for video content protection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the latent trajectory of a target video, $\hat Z = [\hat z_1,\dots,\hat z_m]$, obtained by encoding target frames with the same LDM encoder $E$. UVCG uses projected gradient descent to solve $\min_{\delta_i} \|E(x_i+\delta_i) - \hat z_i\|_2^2$ subject to $\|\delta_i\|_\infty \le \epsilon$, with the optimized perturbation of the previous frame used as the initialization for the next frame. This carries the argument because it converts a per-frame adversarial objective into a sequence-level one: the protected frames form a continuous but incorrect latent path, which is what the editing pipeline's temporal-consistency mechanisms cannot repair.

What would settle it

Run a UVCG-immunized video through an editing pipeline whose upstream encoder is from a different family, or whose diffusion process is regularized to preserve the original latent path (e.g., strong content-preservation guidance); if the resulting edits match the no-immunization output in prompt consistency and perceptual similarity, the central claim that the latent offset is irreversible fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that protecting a video from malicious text-guided editing reduces to a single optimization: for each frame $x_i$, find a small perturbation $\delta_i$ (bounded by $\|\delta_i\|_\infty \le \epsilon$) that makes the encoder output $E(x_i+\delta_i)$ close to the latent vector $\hat z_i$ of the corresponding frame of a chosen target video. Solving this with projected gradient descent produces a video whose frames map continuously onto the target video's latent trajectory. The editing pipeline then 'recognizes' the wrong content, so the generation step produces videos that are inconsistent with the intended prompt. The paper reports that this works under different latent diffusion model versions and across TokenFlow, Text2Video-Zero, Tune-A-Video, and FateZero, with an 87% protection success rate in a user study and a GPU time of about 8% of the reference image-protection method.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the misalignment created in the encoder's latent space surviving everything the editing pipeline does afterward (denoising, cross-attention, and decoding); if the pipeline can correct or ignore that offset, the protected video will edit like the original, and the protection disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Malicious edits to immunized videos will be visibly corrupted or poorly matched to the prompt, while random noise at the same budget barely changes editing behavior.
  • The protection transfers across Stable Diffusion v1.4 and v2.1 and across TokenFlow, Text2Video-Zero, Tune-A-Video, and FateZero, so a defender does not need to know the attacker's exact model version.
  • Perturbation reuse cuts the immunization runtime to about 8.3% of the reference image-based method and keeps memory usage at 17 GB, making the defense feasible on consumer GPUs.
  • Target-video choice matters: selecting a video from the same semantic category, or one with simple content and a clear subject, improves protection and transferability.
  • The protection is weaker when the attacker applies simple semantic edits, such as day-to-night conversion, to videos with complex content, a limitation the paper acknowledges.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same continuous-latent-misalignment recipe could protect other sequential media, such as audio or 3D scenes, whose editors rely on temporal or spatial consistency; this is an extension the paper does not test.
  • An ensembled version that optimizes perturbations against several encoder families at once would likely harden the defense against black-box attackers who use a different autoencoder; UVCG currently assumes a defender-side encoder in the same family as the attacker's.
  • A targeted adversary could probe the mechanism by adding a content-preservation regularizer to the editing pipeline; whether the latent offset then survives is an open empirical question.
  • The reported 87% protection rate rests on a small user study with 15 responses, so the true field protection rate needs a larger, preregistered evaluation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UVCG, a method to protect videos from malicious text-guided editing by LDM-based diffusion pipelines. The method adds small per-frame perturbations, optimized via PGD, to make the encoder map the protected video to the latent sequence of a selected target video. A perturbation-reuse strategy is introduced to reduce GPU cost, and two target-selection heuristics are suggested. The method is evaluated on four LDM-based editing pipelines (TokenFlow, Text2Video-Zero, Tune-A-Video, FateZero) using two Stable Diffusion versions, with quantitative consistency/similarity scores, a user study, and runtime comparisons against Photoguard and PRIME. The paper claims effectiveness, transferability, and efficiency, but the evidence is incomplete and contains a central algorithmic inconsistency.

Significance. If correct, UVCG would be a contribution to the emerging area of protecting videos from AI-powered editing, addressing a real gap left by image-based methods. The idea of using a continuous target latent sequence to preserve temporal consistency under perturbation is novel and is qualitatively supported by the appearance of target-content artifacts in edited videos. The perturbation-reuse strategy is a practical efficiency contribution, and the paper reports a large reduction in GPU time relative to Photoguard. However, the central causal claim—that encoder-aligned latents persist through inversion, denoising, and decoding—is not directly tested, and the quantitative results are modest and lack comparison with the closest video-protection baseline. The paper would be significantly strengthened by mechanistic evaluation and additional baselines.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Algorithm 1] The objective in Eq. (2) is a minimization of ||E(x_i + δ_i) − ẑ_i||², but the PGD update in Algorithm 1 (line 12) uses a plus sign, δ_t = clip(δ_t + α · sign[∇_x L]), which performs gradient ascent on the loss. This maximizes the distance to the target latent instead of minimizing it, contradicting the stated goal of aligning the protected video to the target video. The algorithm as written cannot embed the target content. Please correct the sign (change '+' to '−') or revise Eq. (2) to a maximization, and clarify which formulation was actually used in the experiments.
  2. [Section 3.2] The central mechanism of UVCG is that the target-aligned latent sequence persists through the editing pipeline's inversion, denoising, and decoding stages, thereby forcing the pipeline to work on 'misaligned continuous outputs.' The paper does not provide direct evidence for this persistence. The final edited videos could also be explained by any perturbation that broadly disrupts the encoder, including simple noise with the same budget, if the perturbation is strong enough. To support the claim, add an experiment that traces the latent sequence at each stage: measure the distance between the intermediate latents (after inversion and after denoising) and the target latents, and compare against a control perturbation optimized in a different direction (e.g., maximizing distance from the original latent with the same budget).
  3. [Table 1 / §4.3] The quantitative evidence for protection effectiveness is weak. For TokenFlow, prompt consistency drops only slightly (0.3231 to 0.2887, about 11% relative) and frame consistency from 0.9656 to 0.9492; for Text2Video-Zero, prompt consistency drops from 0.3224 to 0.3019. No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, and the dataset of 40 videos is modest. The only protection baseline is random noise with the same budget; PRIME, the closest prior video-protection method, appears only in the runtime comparison (Figure 5) and is not evaluated for protection effectiveness in Table 1. Please add PRIME to the effectiveness comparison and report variance across videos.
  4. [Section 4 / title] The 'universal' claim is stronger than what the experiments support. All four editing pipelines (TokenFlow, Text2Video-Zero, Tune-A-Video, FateZero) are LDM-based and rely on the same VAE encoder family, and the transferability experiments vary only the Stable Diffusion version (v1.4 vs v2.1). The threat model in Section 3.1 assumes the defender has no knowledge of the attacker's model version, but the method's generality to non-LDM editing methods or to different encoder families is not demonstrated. Please either moderate the 'universal' and 'broadly applicable' wording or broaden the evaluation to include editing methods that do not use LDM/VAE encoders.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The sentence 'the alignment between video content and text descriptions dropped from 0.32 to 0.28 and 0.30' would be clearer if it referenced Table 1 directly and gave the exact values for each immunization model.
  2. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'use Equation 2 as the loss function of Equation 1' is confusing because Eq. (1) is written for gradient ascent. Please clarify the sign convention and the direction of optimization.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The condition 'if i > 0' is always true for i starting at 1; it should be 'if i > 1' or the loop should handle the first frame explicitly.
  4. [Table 1] The arrow markers in the similarity-score columns are ambiguous: SSIM and PSNR are higher-is-better, but LPIPS and VMAF have different orderings. The caption states that a lower similarity score indicates a greater difference between immune and non-immune edits, but the reader has to infer the intended direction for each metric. Please clarify.
  5. [Section 4.4] The user study reports only 15 valid responses. Please state the number of annotations per video and report inter-annotator agreement or another measure of reliability.
  6. [References] Reference [3] appears twice (once with ICCV and once with CVPR); only one should be kept. Also, the caption of Figure 7 says 'Text2Video-zero' but the figure is about Tune-A-Video; please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (2) is an attack objective, not a fitted prediction; the reported metrics are external to the optimization.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: select a target video, encode its frames to latents with the LDM encoder E, and use PGD to minimize ||E(x_i + delta_i) - z_hat_i||_2^2 under an l-infinity bound (Eq. 2). By construction this makes the protected video's latent sequence approximate the target video's latent sequence, so editing pipelines that re-encode the input video will operate on target-like latents. The further step that this 'thereby inhibits generation consistent with the intended textual prompts' is not equivalent to Eq. (2) by definition; it depends on how inversion, denoising, cross-attention, and decoding respond, and the paper supports it with experiments (prompt and frame consistency, similarity scores, and a user study). No fitted constant is renamed as a prediction: PGD steps, epsilon = 15/255, and step size 2/255 are fixed hyperparameters. The target-selection heuristics in Section 3.3 are post-hoc experimental observations, not parameters fitted to the reported metrics. The only self-citation is reference [8], a position paper by co-author Jindong Gu used to motivate general security concerns; it is not load-bearing. The main weakness is an untested assumption that the induced latent misalignment persists through the editing pipeline's inversion/denoising stages; that is a correctness and robustness risk, not circularity. Accordingly no circular step is identified and the derivation is self-contained relative to external evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of a differentiable encoder and a compatible latent space across pipelines. No new entities are introduced. The hyperparameters epsilon, T, and step size are chosen manually and are not supported by a sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon (l_inf perturbation budget) = 15/255
    Chosen in Section 4.1; controls the imperceptibility and strength of the attack, directly affects all results.
  • PGD iterations T = 200
    Section 4.1; determines how accurately the latent alignment is solved. No convergence analysis or sensitivity study.
  • PGD step size = 2/255
    Section 4.1; with T=200 gives a total capacity of 400/255, so clip to epsilon matters. Not justified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LDM encoder E is differentiable, accessible, and its gradients are usable for computing perturbations (Section 3.2, Eq. 2).
    UVCG is a white-box attack on the encoder; if the attacker uses a different or proprietary encoder, the gradient signal is unavailable.
  • domain assumption Attacker pipelines are built on LDM variants whose encoders map pixels to a latent space with similar structure to SD-v1.4/SD-v2.1 (Section 4.1).
    Transferability relies on latent-space compatibility; the paper tests only SD-v1.4 and SD-v2.1.
  • domain assumption Perturbations bounded by 15/255 are visually imperceptible (Section 4.1, and user study Table 2).
    No perceptibility metric is reported; the paper simply asserts it.
  • ad hoc to paper The target-video selection heuristics (semantic similarity or simple content) are sufficient to ensure good protection (Section 3.3).
    These rules are derived from experimental observations, not from a theory, and the limitation section admits they fail for complex content with simple edits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UVCG: Leveraging Temporal Consistency for Universal Video Protection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JAGUVXBD

@misc{pith2026241117746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UVCG: Leveraging Temporal Consistency for Universal Video Protection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JAGUVXBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17746}
}
read the original abstract

The security risks of AI-driven video editing have garnered significant attention. Although recent studies indicate that adding perturbations to images can protect them from malicious edits, directly applying image-based methods to perturb each frame in a video becomes ineffective, as video editing techniques leverage the consistency of inter-frame information to restore individually perturbed content. To address this challenge, we leverage the temporal consistency of video content to propose a straightforward and efficient, yet highly effective and broadly applicable approach, Universal Video Consistency Guard (UVCG). UVCG embeds the content of another video(target video) within a protected video by introducing continuous, imperceptible perturbations which has the ability to force the encoder of editing models to map continuous inputs to misaligned continuous outputs, thereby inhibiting the generation of videos consistent with the intended textual prompts. Additionally leveraging similarity in perturbations between adjacent frames, we improve the computational efficiency of perturbation generation by employing a perturbation-reuse strategy. We applied UVCG across various versions of Latent Diffusion Models (LDM) and assessed its effectiveness and generalizability across multiple LDM-based editing pipelines. The results confirm the effectiveness, transferability, and efficiency of our approach in safeguarding video content from unauthorized modifications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17746 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Framework. An attacker can modify the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Right: Overview of UVCG. When applying UVCG, our goal is to map the continuous representations of original video to the continuous representations of target video. Left: Feature Transfer. The top represents the feature space of the target video, while the bottom represents the feature space of the original video. By adding continuous perturbations, we guide the feature space of the original video towards that of the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Protection Effectiveness on Tokenflow. The base model used for editing the video on the left is SD-v2.1, while the one used for the right-side video is SD-v1.5. First row: The original video. Second row: The target video. Third row: The immunized video. Fourth row: editing results without immunization. Fifth row: Editing results after applying UVCG with SD-v1.4 as the protection model. Sixth row: Editing results aft… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Protection Effectiveness on Text2Video-zero. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Instruct-pix2pix[3]. First row: The original video. Second row: The target video. Third row: The immunized video. Fourth row: editing results without immunization. Fi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GPU time consumption. Protecting a frame video on an NVIDIA RTX A6000 takes 20,500 seconds with Photoguard, 1,700 seconds with PRIME[14], and 2,100 seconds with UVCG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The protection effectiveness of UVCG on simple editing semantics (e.g., transitioning from day to night, which corresponds to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Protection Effectiveness on Tune-A-Video[31]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Stable Diffusion￾v1.4. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results afte…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Protection Effectiveness on Tune-A-Video[31]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Stable Diffusion￾v1.4. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results afte…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Protection Effectiveness on Fatezero[24]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Stable Diffusion-v1.4. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results after ap…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Protection Effectiveness on Fatezero[24]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Stable Diffusion-v1.4. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results after a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Protection Effectiveness on Fatezero[24]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Stable Diffusion-v1.4. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results after a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Protection Effectiveness on Tokenflow[5]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Stable Diffusion-v2.1. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results after a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Protection Effectiveness on Tokenflow[5]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Stable Diffusion-v2.1. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results after a…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Protection Effectiveness on Text2Video-zero[12]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Instruct￾pix2pix[3]. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results af…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Protection Effectiveness on Text2Video-zero[12]. The base model employed for editing in Text2Video-zero is Instruct￾pix2pix[3]. First row: the original video. Second row: the target video. Third row: editing results without immunization. Fourth row: editing results af…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    iedit: Lo- calised text-guided image editing with weak supervision

    Rumeysa Bodur, Erhan Gundogdu, Binod Bhattarai, Tae- Kyun Kim, Michael Donoser, and Loris Bazzani. iedit: Lo- calised text-guided image editing with weak supervision. In ICCV, pages 7426–7435, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In ICCV, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In CVPR, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 7, 6

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Structure 8 and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models

    Patrick Esser, Johnathan Chiu, Parmida Atighehchian, Jonathan Granskog, and Anastasis Germanidis. Structure 8 and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models. In ICCV, pages 7346–7356, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion features for consistent video editing

    Michal Geyer, Omer Bar-Tal, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion features for consistent video editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10373, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 6

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. NeurIPS, 27,

  7. [7]

    Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples

    Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572, 2014. 2

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Responsible generative ai: What to generate and what not

    Jindong Gu. Responsible generative ai: What to generate and what not. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05783, 2024. 1

    arXiv 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Diff-privacy: Diffusion-based face privacy pro- tection

    Xiao He, Mingrui Zhu, Dongxin Chen, Nannan Wang, and Xinbo Gao. Diff-privacy: Diffusion-based face privacy pro- tection. IEEE TCSVT, 2024. 1

    2024

  2. [10]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. NeurIPS, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 1

    2020

  3. [11]

    Diffattack: Eva- sion attacks against diffusion-based adversarial purification

    Mintong Kang, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. Diffattack: Eva- sion attacks against diffusion-based adversarial purification. NeurIPS, 36, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  4. [12]

    Text2video-zero: Text- to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators

    Levon Khachatryan, Andranik Movsisyan, Vahram Tade- vosyan, Roberto Henschel, Zhangyang Wang, Shant Navasardyan, and Humphrey Shi. Text2video-zero: Text- to-image diffusion models are zero-shot video generators. In ICCV, pages 15954–15964, 2023. 1, 2, 5, 6

    2023

  5. [13]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes

    Diederik P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. 1

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Prime: Protect your videos from malicious editing

    Guanlin Li, Shuai Yang, Jie Zhang, and Tianwei Zhang. Prime: Protect your videos from malicious editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01239, 2024. 3, 7

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In In- ternational conference on machine learning , pages 19730– 19742, 2023. 5

    2023

  8. [16]

    Mist: Towards improved adversarial examples for diffusion models

    Chumeng Liang and Xiaoyu Wu. Mist: Towards improved adversarial examples for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12683, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adversarial example does good: Preventing paint- ing imitation from diffusion models via adversarial exam- ples

    Chumeng Liang, Xiaoyu Wu, Yang Hua, Jiaru Zhang, Yim- ing Xue, Tao Song, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. Adversarial example does good: Preventing paint- ing imitation from diffusion models via adversarial exam- ples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04578, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Inter-frame accelerate attack against video interpolation models

    Junpei Liao, Zhikai Chen, Liang Yi, Wenyuan Yang, Baoyuan Wu, and Xiaochun Cao. Inter-frame accelerate attack against video interpolation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06540, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control

    Shaoteng Liu, Yuechen Zhang, Wenbo Li, Zhe Lin, and Jiaya Jia. Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8599–8608, 2024. 1

    2024

  12. [20]

    Delving into transferable adversarial examples and black- box attacks

    Yanpei Liu, Xinyun Chen, Chang Liu, and Dawn Song. Delving into transferable adversarial examples and black- box attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02770, 2016. 2

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Towards deep learning models resis- tant to adversarial attacks

    Aleksander Madry. Towards deep learning models resis- tant to adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06083,

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Transferability in machine learning: from phenomena to black-box attacks using adversarial samples

    Nicolas Papernot, Patrick McDaniel, and Ian Goodfellow. Transferability in machine learning: from phenomena to black-box attacks using adversarial samples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.07277, 2016. 2

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00675, 2017

    Jordi Pont-Tuset, Federico Perazzi, Sergi Caelles, Pablo Ar- bel´aez, Alex Sorkine-Hornung, and Luc Van Gool. The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00675, 2017. 5

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fatezero: Fus- ing attentions for zero-shot text-based video editing

    Chenyang Qi, Xiaodong Cun, Yong Zhang, Chenyang Lei, Xintao Wang, Ying Shan, and Qifeng Chen. Fatezero: Fus- ing attentions for zero-shot text-based video editing. In ICCV, pages 15932–15942, 2023. 2, 3, 4

    2023

  17. [25]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

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

    2021

  18. [26]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 10684– 10695, 2022. 1

    2022

  19. [27]

    Raising the cost of malicious ai-powered image editing

    Hadi Salman, Alaa Khaddaj, Guillaume Leclerc, Andrew Ilyas, and Aleksander Madry. Raising the cost of malicious ai-powered image editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06588,

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by{Text-to-Image} models

    Shawn Shan, Jenna Cryan, Emily Wenger, Haitao Zheng, Rana Hanocka, and Ben Y Zhao. Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by{Text-to-Image} models. In USENIX, pages 2187–2204, 2023. 3

    2023

  21. [29]

    Image information and visual quality

    Hamid R Sheikh and Alan C Bovik. Image information and visual quality. ICIP, 15(2):430–444, 2006. 6

    2006

  22. [30]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. ICIP, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 6

    2004

  23. [31]

    Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation

    Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Stan Weixian Lei, Yuchao Gu, Yufei Shi, Wynne Hsu, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In ICCV, pages 7623–7633, 2023. 1, 2, 6, 3

    2023

  24. [32]

    Cross: Diffusion model makes controllable, robust and se- cure image steganography

    Jiwen Yu, Xuanyu Zhang, Youmin Xu, and Jian Zhang. Cross: Diffusion model makes controllable, robust and se- cure image steganography. NeurIPS, 36, 2024. 1

    2024

  25. [33]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR, pages 586–595,

  26. [34]

    Sine: Single image editing with text-to-image diffusion models

    Zhixing Zhang, Ligong Han, Arnab Ghosh, Dimitris N Metaxas, and Jian Ren. Sine: Single image editing with text-to-image diffusion models. In ICCV, pages 6027–6037,

  27. [35]

    Understanding and improving adversarial attacks on latent diffusion model

    Boyang Zheng, Chumeng Liang, Xiaoyu Wu, and Yan Liu. Understanding and improving adversarial attacks on latent diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04687, 2023. 1 9 UVCG: Leveraging Temporal Consistency for Universal Video Protection Supplementary Material

    2023

  28. [36]

    Latent Diffusion Model Latent Diffusion Models (LDMs)[26] represent a novel class of generative models that integrate the principles of diffusion processes[10] and variational autoencoders (V AEs)[13]. Unlike traditional diffusion models that oper- ate directly on high-dimensi...

  29. [37]

    Figure 9, figure 10 and figure 11 showcase video protection results using our method on Fatezero

    Additional Results Figure 7 and figure 8 showcase examples of video protec- tion results using our method on Tune-A-Video. Figure 9, figure 10 and figure 11 showcase video protection results using our method on Fatezero. Figure 12 adn figure 13 provides additional examples of ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.