Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Pathways on the Image Manifold: Image Editing via Video Generation

T0 review · 3 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 Frame2Frame shows that image editing can be recast as video generation, producing edits that preserve source content better than one-shot diffusion.

desk verdict Real new idea for image editing via video generation, but the SOTA claim outruns the evidence: the TEdBench advantage is a tie, the protocol is best-of-15-seeds with no variance, and the frame selector post-selects on the same caption the metric uses. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16819 v4 pith:PA6FIRIE submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Noam Rotstein , Gal Yona , Daniel Silver , Roy Velich , David Bensaïd , Ron Kimmel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords imageeditingvideogenerationimage-to-videodiffusiontemporalcaptionsframeselectiontext-guidedposeTEdBench
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 argues that text-based image editing should be reformulated as a temporal process: instead of asking a diffusion model to produce one edited image in a single step, the edit is generated as a short video that starts from the source image and gradually evolves into the requested scene. The authors build Frame2Frame, a three-stage pipeline that uses a vision-language model to write a temporal editing caption, a pretrained image-to-video diffusion model to realize that transition, and a second vision-language pass to pick the earliest frame that completes the edit. On the TEdBench benchmark and on a new pose-editing benchmark called PosEdit, they report that this video-based route matches or exceeds existing single-image editors in both edit accuracy and source preservation, and the same recipe extends without retraining to deblurring, denoising, outpainting, and relighting. The reason to care is practical: if the claim holds, hard edits that usually destroy the original image can be achieved by borrowing the temporal coherence that video models already learned.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Temporal Editing Caption, a rewritten prompt that turns a static edit request into a description of motion or change over time, produced by a vision-language model with in-context examples. Together with a pretrained image-to-video diffusion model (CogVideoX I2V-5B) that treats the source image as the first video frame, this caption creates a candidate trajectory of frames on the image manifold. The third mechanism is automated frame selection: sampled frames are assembled into a collage with the source image, and a vision-language model chooses the earliest frame that realizes the edit; this step matters because the optimal edit often occurs mid-sequence, not at the final frame.

What would settle it

Run Frame2Frame on a benchmark of prompts whose edits cannot be described as plausible continuous motion, such as 'a chair sawed in half', 'a photo of an open door', or 'two bananas', and measure with CLIP and human raters whether any generated frame satisfies the target prompt while remaining close to the source. The claim predicts these still succeed because the video model can realize physical and semantic transformations; a systematic failure on such prompts, where the earliest matching frame already drifts from the source, would refute the generality of the temporal reformulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the natural image manifold can be traversed by a pretrained image-to-video generator, and that a frame drawn from this traversal is a better edited image than the output of a single-step image diffusion edit. Concretely, the paper proposes replacing the target prompt with a Temporal Editing Caption, a one-sentence scenario of how the edit unfolds in time; feeding this caption together with the source frame to an image-to-video model; and then selecting the earliest generated frame that satisfies the edit while staying close to the source. On TEdBench the method reports LPIPS 0.22 and CLIP-I 0.89 against the source, tied with or better than the strongest baselines, with CLIP 0.63 edit accuracy; on PosEdit it is closer to the ground-truth target than LEDITS++ on both source and target similarity. The paper also visualizes the idea by projecting generated images into a 2D PCA subspace, showing that video generation moves along a semantic path between source and target clusters while one-shot editing jumps across the manifold and drops source details.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that a pretrained image-to-video model, prompted only with a rewritten caption, will actually generate a temporally coherent sequence that starts at the source image and reaches the requested edit; if the backbone fails to produce that transition, neither the captions nor the frame selector can recover a good edit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Edits that require structural changes, such as object pose or material transformations, can be delegated to video models instead of specialized image-editing fine-tuning.
  • The same pipeline, without task-specific training, extends to restoration-style tasks: deblurring, denoising, outpainting, and relighting, by choosing temporal captions that describe focus, noise removal, camera motion, or lighting change.
  • Frame selection becomes a user-facing control: the same generated video can serve multiple valid edits, with the chosen frame determining how far the transformation goes.
  • Because the source image is the first frame, identity and content preservation are enforced by construction, and later frames can be rejected to avoid drift.
  • The performance of the whole approach is tied to the quality of the image-to-video backbone, so improvements in video generation should transfer directly to image editing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit: editing quality should track video-generation benchmarks, so swapping in a better video model should improve edits with no change to the pipeline.
  • The temporal-caption step suggests a generative prompt strategy for any pairwise transformation task, such as image-to-image translation or style transfer, by describing the change as a short scene instead of a static description.
  • A natural stress test the paper only touches qualitatively is out-of-distribution edits; one can quantify how far from real-world video dynamics a caption can go before the video model stops producing a coherent path.
  • The early-frame selection rule encodes a prior that edits should be minimal; users who want maximal transformation could instead select the last coherent frame, making the pipeline a knob rather than a fixed method.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Frame2Frame (F2F), a three-stage pipeline for text-based image editing in which (1) a VLM (GPT-4o) converts the target caption into a temporal editing caption, (2) a pretrained image-to-video model (CogVideoX I2V-5B) generates a video starting from the source image, and (3) a VLM selects the best frame from the video as the final edit. The method is evaluated on TEdBench and a newly proposed PosEdit dataset (derived from UTD-MHAD), with additional qualitative results on denoising, deblurring, relighting, and outpainting. The central claim is that modeling editing as a temporal trajectory along the image manifold yields edits that better satisfy complex prompts while preserving source content, compared with single-step image diffusion editors.

Significance. The idea of reusing large pretrained video generators for image editing is timely and creatively combines video-world priors with an editing objective. The paper is generally well written, provides detailed prompts and ablations in the appendix, includes a human study, and introduces a new pose-editing benchmark with ground-truth target images. These are real strengths. However, the quantitative support for the headline 'state-of-the-art' claim is currently weak: Table 1 shows ties with existing methods on all three metrics, and the evaluation protocol of manually selecting the best of fifteen seeds per method, without reporting variance, makes the reported advantages unreliable. The contribution is potentially valuable, but the evidence needs strengthening before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1 (Evaluation Protocol)] The protocol states that for each method and source image, the authors 'manually select the best result from fifteen random seeds based on visual quality and edit accuracy.' This means the reported numbers are maxima over seeds, and the paper reports no variance or error bars. Table 1 shows F2F tying FlowEdit on LPIPS and CLIP-I and tying Imagic/LEDITS++ on CLIP; the abstract's claims of 'state-of-the-art' and 'significant improvements' therefore cannot be substantiated without per-seed statistics or statistical significance tests. Please report mean ± std over seeds and either remove the SOTA claim or demonstrate superiority.
  2. [§3.3 and Table S5] The frame-selection stage asks the VLM to choose the frame 'that best follows this edit fully and naturally' using the target caption c, and the main edit-accuracy metric is the CLIP score with that same caption. Table S5 shows that frame selection raises CLIP from 0.61 (last frame) to 0.63 (selected frame), so part of the reported edit accuracy can be attributed to metric-aligned post-selection rather than to the video generator's temporal pathway. To support the causal interpretation in Section 3.2, please evaluate a fixed-frame baseline (e.g., the last frame) or a selection procedure that does not have access to the target caption during selection, and report per-seed discrepancies.
  3. [Abstract / Table 1] The abstract claims 'state-of-the-art results' and 'significant improvements,' but Table 1 shows F2F at 0.22 LPIPS (equal to FlowEdit), 0.89 CLIP-I (equal to FlowEdit), and 0.63 CLIP (equal to Imagic and LEDITS++). No baseline is clearly outperformed on any metric. Given the selection protocol, these ties do not support the stated claims. Please either supply a statistical comparison with error bars or revise the claims to say that F2F is competitive with, rather than superior to, existing methods.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The ground-truth row reports CLIP score 0.61, while F2F achieves 0.64, exceeding the ground truth. This suggests the CLIP metric may not reflect true pose accuracy, and the evaluation would benefit from an additional pose-specific metric or a caveat.
  2. [§5.1] The claim that 'the same seed set is used across all methods' is ambiguous because different methods use different random processes; please clarify how seeds are matched across pipelines.
  3. [§5.3] Using the identical static prompt 'A person standing naturally with his arms relaxed at his sides' for all Pix2Pix-Zero tasks may disadvantage it on actions that imply large pose changes; a per-task description would be fairer.
  4. [Section 4] The description of the manifold visualization does not specify how the 2D PCA subspace was computed across the three sets (and noise samples) or how many images remained after manual filtering; please add details for reproducibility.
  5. [Section 2.2] The related work sentence 'These models, often termed ”world simulators” due to their emergent understanding of physical dynamics and temporal coherence.' is missing a verb; please correct the grammar.
  6. [Section 5.5] The results on denoising, deblurring, relighting, and outpainting are presented only qualitatively. A quantitative evaluation, even on a handful of examples, would strengthen the claim of broader applicability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Frame2Frame is an empirical pipeline whose reported results are not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and the main caveat is evaluation fairness rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters, no derivation in which an output equals an input by definition, no load-bearing self-citation, and no imported uniqueness theorem. The three pipeline stages (VLM temporal captioning, CogVideoX image-to-video generation, and VLM frame selection) are all applied at inference time using external pretrained models, and the metrics are computed on held-out prompts or against ground-truth targets. The one step that superficially resembles circularity is frame selection: the VLM in Section 3.3 is asked to choose the frame that "best follows this edit" using the target caption, and the TEdBench CLIP metric measures alignment with the same caption; Table S5 shows selection raises CLIP from 0.61 to 0.63, which is the same size as the reported CLIP gap versus FlowEdit in Table 1. However, this is a selection-and-evaluation fairness concern, not a circular derivation: the VLM selector is a learned proxy rather than the CLIP scorer, the frame-selection stage is an explicit part of the proposed method rather than a hidden fitted parameter, and the central editing claim is additionally supported by a human survey and by PosEdit ground-truth metrics. Self-citations in the references are not load-bearing for the core mechanism. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to the claim it actually demonstrates, with no circular step to report.

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

The method itself introduces no free parameters or new physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the capabilities of pretrained video and language models, and about the fairness of manual seed selection in evaluation.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CogVideoX I2V-5B, a pretrained image-to-video diffusion model, can generate temporally coherent and semantically accurate transitions from a static image under a temporal caption.
    Entire method rests on this unverified capability; Section 3.2 states the generation process G(Is, c~)=V without evidence that the backbone generalizes to arbitrary edit instructions.
  • domain assumption Edits correspond to continuous paths on the natural image manifold, and video generation traverses them while preserving identity.
    Section 4 presents this geometric framing via a PCA visualization of 200 FLUX-generated images, but it is illustrative, not a proof that video models follow such paths.
  • domain assumption The VLM (GPT-4o) reliably converts edit prompts into temporal captions and reliably selects the best frame.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.3 rely on proprietary model behavior; the paper provides ablations but no quantitative measure of VLM caption quality or selection accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper Manually selecting the best of fifteen random seeds per method is a fair and bias-free evaluation protocol.
    Section 5.1 introduces this protocol for all methods; it is a methodological assumption that is not defended and can inflate reported scores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pathways on the Image Manifold: Image Editing via Video Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PA6FIRIE

@misc{pith2026241116819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pathways on the Image Manifold: Image Editing via Video Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PA6FIRIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16819}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in image editing, driven by image diffusion models, have shown remarkable progress. However, significant challenges remain, as these models often struggle to follow complex edit instructions accurately and frequently compromise fidelity by altering key elements of the original image. Simultaneously, video generation has made remarkable strides, with models that effectively function as consistent and continuous world simulators. In this paper, we propose merging these two fields by utilizing image-to-video models for image editing. We reformulate image editing as a temporal process, using pretrained video models to create smooth transitions from the original image to the desired edit. This approach traverses the image manifold continuously, ensuring consistent edits while preserving the original image's key aspects. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on text-based image editing, demonstrating significant improvements in both edit accuracy and image preservation. Visit our project page at https://rotsteinnoam.github.io/Frame2Frame.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16819 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of Frame2Frame’s editing process. Temporal progression of our video-based approach. Starting from the source image (leftmost), frames illustrate the natural evolution toward the target edit (rightmost). Our method produces tempo￾rally coherent intermediate states while preserving fidelity to both the source content and the editing intent. ing edit accuracy and content preservation. In this paper, we pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Editing Manifold Pathway. Given an input image and target caption ”A happy person making a heart shape with their hands”, our method generates a continuous path on the natural image manifold. Each generated frame (indicated by black arrows) represents a plausible intermediate state between the source and target, maintaining temporal consistency throughout the transformation. As a result, in contrast to the competing… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Frame2Frame Overview. Given a source image and editing prompt, our pipeline proceeds in three steps. First, a Vision-Language Model generates a temporal caption describing the transformation. Next, this caption guides a video generator to create a natural progression of the edit. Finally, our frame se￾lection strategy identifies the optimal frame that best realizes the desired edit, producing the final image of the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative Results on TEdBench. Comparison with other methods across various editing tasks. Our approach consistently produces edits that better align with the target prompt while preserving the source image’s content and structure. For instance, in the teddy bear exa…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative Results on PosEdit. Comparison between our Frame2Frame method and LEDITS++ on human motion edit￾ing tasks. For each example, we show the source image, edited results from both methods, and the ground-truth target image. Our method better preserves subject i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Additional Vision Tasks. Qualitative results of our image-to-video-to-image editing approach on selected traditional tasks. method to leverage the video model’s learned temporal dy￾namics, achieving high-quality results without task-specific training. Full prompts are …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ByteMorph: Benchmarking Instruction-Guided Image Editing with Non-Rigid Motions

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A released 6.4 million pair dataset and 613 sample benchmark for instruction-guided image editing of non-rigid motions, plus a Flux.1-dev based baseline that outperforms open-source methods on the new benchmark.

  2. Motion Prompting: Controlling Video Generation with Motion Trajectories

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A single-stage ControlNet on the Lumiere video model, conditioned only on dense point tracks, generalizes to sparse and dense trajectory control for object, camera, and transferred motions.

  3. CoordFlow: Coordinate Flow for Pixel-wise Neural Video Representation

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CoordFlow represents videos as a soft-weighted blend of layers, each with its own similarity-motion compensation network, achieving state-of-the-art PSNR per bit among pixel-wise INR codecs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Magic fixup: Stream- lining photo editing by watching dynamic videos

    Hadi Alzayer, Zhihao Xia, Xuaner Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Jia-Bin Huang, and Michael Gharbi. Magic fixup: Stream- lining photo editing by watching dynamic videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13044, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023. 2

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dock- horn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22563–22575, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Ledits++: Limitless image editing using text-to-image models

    Manuel Brack, Felix Friedrich, Katharina Kornmeier, Linoy Tsaban, Patrick Schramowski, Kristian Kersting, and Apolin´ario Passos. Ledits++: Limitless image editing using text-to-image models. 2023. 5

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 2

    2023

  6. [6]

    Utd- mhad: A multimodal dataset for human action recognition utilizing a depth camera and a wearable inertial sensor

    Chen Chen, Roozbeh Jafari, and Nasser Kehtarnavaz. Utd- mhad: A multimodal dataset for human action recognition utilizing a depth camera and a wearable inertial sensor. In 2015 IEEE International conference on image processing (ICIP), pages 168–172. IEEE, 2015. 2, 6

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Panda-70m: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers

    Tsai-Shien Chen, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Willi Menapace, Ekaterina Deyneka, Hsiang-wei Chao, Byung Eun Jeon, Yuwei Fang, Hsin-Ying Lee, Jian Ren, Ming-Hsuan Yang, et al. Panda-70m: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13320–13331, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization

    Xi Chen, Lianghua Huang, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, Deli Zhao, and Hengshuang Zhao. Anydoor: Zero-shot object-level image customization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6593–6602, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Adversar- ial video generation on complex datasets

    Aidan Clark, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. Adversar- ial video generation on complex datasets. In ICCV, 2019. 2

    2019

  2. [10]

    Instructblip: Towards general- purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning,

    Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale Fung, and Steven Hoi. Instructblip: Towards general- purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning,

  3. [11]

    Ld- mvfi: Video frame interpolation with latent diffusion mod- els

    Duolikun Danier, Fan Zhang, and David Bull. Ld- mvfi: Video frame interpolation with latent diffusion mod- els. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024. 2

    2024

  4. [12]

    A survey on in-context learning

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, et al. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Structure and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models,

    Patrick Esser, Johnathan Chiu, Parmida Atighehchian, Jonathan Granskog, and Anastasis Germanidis. Structure and content-guided video synthesis with diffusion models,

  6. [14]

    Ques- tion aware vision transformer for multimodal reasoning

    Roy Ganz, Yair Kittenplon, Aviad Aberdam, Elad Ben Avra- ham, Oren Nuriel, Shai Mazor, and Ron Litman. Ques- tion aware vision transformer for multimodal reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13861–13871, 2024. 3

    2024

  7. [15]

    High-fidelity and freely controllable talking head video generation

    Yue Gao, Yuan Zhou, Jinglu Wang, Xiao Li, Xiang Ming, and Yan Lu. High-fidelity and freely controllable talking head video generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5609–5619, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    World models

    David Ha and J ¨urgen Schmidhuber. World models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ltx-video: Realtime video latent diffusion

    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

  10. [18]

    Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt-to-prompt im- age editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

  12. [20]

    Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey

    Yi Huang, Jiancheng Huang, Yifan Liu, Mingfu Yan, Jiaxi Lv, Jianzhuang Liu, Wei Xiong, He Zhang, Shifeng Chen, and Liangliang Cao. Diffusion model-based image editing: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17525, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    An edit friendly ddpm noise space: Inversion and manipulations

    Inbar Huberman-Spiegelglas, Vladimir Kulikov, and Tomer Michaeli. An edit friendly ddpm noise space: Inversion and manipulations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12469–12478, 2024. 2

    2024

  14. [22]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Hui- wen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6007–6017, 2023...

    2023

  15. [23]

    An image grid can be worth a video: Zero- shot video question answering using a vlm

    Wonkyun Kim, Changin Choi, Wonseok Lee, and Won- jong Rhee. An image grid can be worth a video: Zero- shot video question answering using a vlm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18406, 2024. 4, 12

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Flowedit: Inversion-free text-based editing using pre-trained flow models

    Vladimir Kulikov, Matan Kleiner, Inbar Huberman- Spiegelglas, and Tomer Michaeli. Flowedit: Inversion-free text-based editing using pre-trained flow models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08629, 2024. 5

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Vivid-1-to-3: Novel view synthesis with video diffusion models

    Jeong-gi Kwak, Erqun Dong, Yuhe Jin, Hanseok Ko, Shweta Mahajan, and Kwang Moo Yi. Vivid-1-to-3: Novel view synthesis with video diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6775–6785, 2024. 2

    2024

  18. [26]

    Flux.1-dev

    Black Forest Labs. Flux.1-dev. https://github.com/ black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev , 2024. 4

    2024

  19. [27]

    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 International conference on machine learning, pages 19730– 19742. PMLR, 2023. 5

    2023

  20. [28]

    Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models

    Yixin Liu, Kai Zhang, Yuan Li, Zhiling Yan, Chujie Gao, Ruoxi Chen, Zhengqing Yuan, Yue Huang, Hanchi Sun, Jian- feng Gao, et al. Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17177, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Readout guidance: Learning con- trol from diffusion features

    Grace Luo, Trevor Darrell, Oliver Wang, Dan B Goldman, and Aleksander Holynski. Readout guidance: Learning con- trol from diffusion features. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8217–8227, 2024. 3

    2024

  22. [30]

    Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. Sdedit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differ- ential equations

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Ji- ajun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differ- ential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 5

    2022

  24. [32]

    Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  25. [33]

    Chatgpt-4o (october 2024 version)

    OpenAI. Chatgpt-4o (october 2024 version). https:// chat.openai.com/chat, 2024. 3

    2024

  26. [34]

    Zero-shot image-to- image translation

    Gaurav Parmar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Richard Zhang, Yi- jun Li, Jingwan Lu, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Zero-shot image-to- image translation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, pages 1–11, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    Zero-shot image-to- image translation

    Gaurav Parmar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Richard Zhang, Yi- jun Li, Jingwan Lu, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Zero-shot image-to- image translation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. 5

    2023

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2

    2022

  30. [38]

    Fusecap: Leveraging large language mod- els for enriched fused image captions

    Noam Rotstein, David Bensa ¨ıd, Shaked Brody, Roy Ganz, and Ron Kimmel. Fusecap: Leveraging large language mod- els for enriched fused image captions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 5689–5700, 2024. 3

    2024

  31. [39]

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

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

    2022

  32. [40]

    Instadrag: Lightning fast and accurate drag- based image editing emerging from videos

    Yujun Shi, Jun Hao Liew, Hanshu Yan, Vincent YF Tan, and Jiashi Feng. Instadrag: Lightning fast and accurate drag- based image editing emerging from videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13722, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Text-to-4d dy- namic scene generation

    Uriel Singer, Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Oron Ashual, Iurii Makarov, Filippos Kokkinos, Naman Goyal, Andrea Vedaldi, Devi Parikh, Justin Johnson, et al. Text-to-4d dy- namic scene generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11280,

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Unsupervised learning of video representations us- ing lstms

    Nitish Srivastava, Elman Mansimov, and Ruslan Salakhudi- nov. Unsupervised learning of video representations us- ing lstms. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2015. 2

    2015

  35. [43]

    Mocogan: Decomposing motion and content for video generation

    Sergey Tulyakov, Ming-Yu Liu, Xiaodong Yang, and Jan Kautz. Mocogan: Decomposing motion and content for video generation. In CVPR, 2018. 2

    2018

  36. [44]

    Generating videos with scene dynamics

    Carl V ondrick, Hamed Pirsiavash, and Antonio Torralba. Generating videos with scene dynamics. In NeurIPS, 2016. 2

    2016

  37. [45]

    Cogvlm: Visual expert for pretrained language models

    Weihan Wang, Qingsong Lv, Wenmeng Yu, Wenyi Hong, Ji Qi, Yan Wang, Junhui Ji, Zhuoyi Yang, Lei Zhao, Xixuan Song, et al. Cogvlm: Visual expert for pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03079, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cogvlm: Visual expert for pretrained language models, 2024

    Weihan Wang, Qingsong Lv, Wenmeng Yu, Wenyi Hong, Ji Qi, Yan Wang, Junhui Ji, Zhuoyi Yang, Lei Zhao, Xixuan Song, Jiazheng Xu, Bin Xu, Juanzi Li, Yuxiao Dong, Ming Ding, and Jie Tang. Cogvlm: Visual expert for pretrained language models, 2024. 3

    2024

  39. [47]

    Paint by inpaint: Learning to add image objects by removing them first

    Navve Wasserman, Noam Rotstein, Roy Ganz, and Ron Kimmel. Paint by inpaint: Learning to add image objects by removing them first. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18212,

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    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, Xiao- han Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024. 2, 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction- guided image editing

    Kai Zhang, Lingbo Mo, Wenhu Chen, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. Magicbrush: A manually annotated dataset for instruction- guided image editing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 7, 14

    2024

  42. [50]

    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, 2018. 6

    2018

  43. [51]

    Physdreamer: Physics-based inter- action with 3d objects via video generation

    Tianyuan Zhang, Hong-Xing Yu, Rundi Wu, Brandon Y Feng, Changxi Zheng, Noah Snavely, Jiajun Wu, and William T Freeman. Physdreamer: Physics-based inter- action with 3d objects via video generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2025. 2 Appendix A. Additi...

    2025

  44. [52]

    The selected edit is:x

    Each example is accompanied by the temporal editing caption used to perform the edit, which was generated us- ing the method described in Section 3.1. Furthermore, in Figure S9, we supplement Figure 1 with additional video examples generated by our method, illustrating the tra...

  45. [53]

    A small brown teddy bear sitting in LOCATION

    “A small brown teddy bear sitting in LOCATION. ”

  46. [54]

    A tennis ball lies in LOCATION

    “A tennis ball lies in LOCATION. ” Out-of-video-distribution editing. As discussed in Sec- tion 6, one might assume that our method would fail to perform edits requiring temporal transformations that devi- ate significantly from typical real-world videos (the model’s training ...

  47. [55]

    The teddy bear slowly rips, revealing stuffing coming out

    “The teddy bear slowly rips, revealing stuffing coming out. ”

  48. [56]

    The tennis ball gradually transforms into a ripe red tomato

    “The tennis ball gradually transforms into a ripe red tomato. ” These edits depict unrealistic events that do not ordi- narily occur in real-life footage. However, as shown in Fig. S18, our method successfully handles both the back- ground variations and the out-of-distributio...

  49. [57]

    The sun is setting, and artificial lights replace it

    Relighting: ’The scene’s lighting shifts gradually, changing to night. The sun is setting, and artificial lights replace it. The camera is static. Time-lapse. Cinematic. ’

  50. [58]

    Outpainting: ’The image expands, adding new sur- roundings seamlessly beyond the original frame. ’

  51. [59]

    Denoising: ’The image clears up as noise fades away, revealing smoother, cleaner details. ’

  52. [60]

    Nothing moves

    Debluring: ’The camera comes into focus, revealing sharp details and enhanced clarity, as though a camera lens has adjusted perfectly. Nothing moves. Static im- age. ’

Pith tools

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