Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 49 references

OmniEdit-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Instruction-based Video Editing

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Instruction-based video editing models, including commercial systems, do well only on spatial tweaks and fall far short on temporal, audio, and reasoning edits, according to a new five-track benchmark that gates all quality scores on…

desk verdict The five-track taxonomy and accuracy-aware penalty are a genuine step forward for IVE evaluation, but the reliability claim rests on a single pooled VLM-human alignment table that is thinner than the paper's headline conclusions need it to be. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05049 v1 pith:QNWQEKSM submitted 2026-08-05 cs.CV

Chenxuan Miao , Yutong Feng , Yi Lu , Yunfeng Yan , Donglian Qi , Shiwei Zhang , Yu Liu , Xi Chen
show 1 more author
Hengshuang Zhao
This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords instruction-basedvideoeditingbenchmarktemporalaudioreasoning-basedreference-basedaccuracy-awareevaluationvision-languagemodel
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

Instruction-based video editing lets a user change a video by typing an instruction, but judging whether the edit was actually done has been unreliable. This paper tries to establish a benchmark that measures what editing models can and cannot do across the dimensions that matter for video, not just for static images. It organizes tasks into five tracks — spatial, temporal, audio, reference-based, and reasoning — and scores each edited video on accuracy, preservation, realism, and consistency, with accuracy acting as a gate that shrinks all other scores when the instruction is not followed. Evaluated on this testbed, both open-source and commercial models do reasonably well only on spatial edits and drop sharply on temporal, audio, and reasoning tasks. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's point: the field's progress so far is real but narrow, and future editing systems need to handle motion, sound, and implicit instruction before they are usable in realistic settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the accuracy-aware penalty inside the evaluation pipeline. For accuracy A, preservation P, realism R, and consistency C (each scored 1–5), the final score is 0.5A + 0.2(P × A/5) + 0.15(R × A/5) + 0.15(C × A/5), which makes accuracy a multiplicative gate: if the edit does not follow the instruction, every other dimension shrinks and cannot compensate. The second structural component is the five-track taxonomy — spatial, temporal, audio, reference, reasoning — because it defines what accuracy means in each track and supplies the track-specific evaluation prompts.

What would settle it

Take a stratified random sample of edited videos from the temporal, audio, and reasoning tracks, have independent human raters score them with the same four-dimension rubric, and compare per-track mean absolute error and rank correlation with the VLM scores; if agreement on those tracks is substantially worse than the paper's aggregate MAE of 0.55–0.86, the claimed model weaknesses would not be established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that instruction-based video editing is a multidimensional task and that current models are far from satisfactory when measured that way. The paper builds a benchmark of 790 editing tasks distributed over five tracks, and a unified evaluation pipeline in which a vision-language model rates each output on four dimensions with track-specific prompts. Accuracy is treated as the primary signal: the scores for preservation, realism, and consistency are multiplied by accuracy divided by five before aggregation, so a visually plausible but instruction-violating edit cannot receive an inflated grade. The reported results show commercial systems leading on spatial editing, most models scoring below 20 on the temporal track, all models remaining below 30 on reasoning, audio editing largely unsupported or weak, and reference-conditioned editing strong only for models with dedicated reference capabilities. The paper interprets this as evidence that larger datasets and bigger models improve spatial manipulation but do not solve temporal coherence, multimodal alignment, or implicit reasoning.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's conclusions rest on the assumption that the vision-language model's 1-to-5 ratings, produced with the paper's prompts, match human judgments across all five tracks and all four dimensions, including temporal timing, audio-visual sync, and causal reasoning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the findings hold, users should not expect current commercial video editors to handle temporal composition, motion-semantic changes, or counterfactual reasoning; their strong spatial scores do not generalize.
  • Audio editing is a demonstrated gap, so progress will require models that generate and edit synchronized audio jointly with video rather than treating audio as an afterthought.
  • Implicit and reasoning-based instructions are largely unsolved, implying that practical editing systems will need explicit planning or reasoning components before generation.
  • The accuracy-aware penalty offers a simple way to make automatic evaluation respect instruction fidelity and could be reused by other video and image editing benchmarks.
  • VLM-human agreement on the four dimensions (overall mean absolute error between 0.55 and 0.86) suggests that scalable automatic evaluation can stand in for human annotation in large-scale editing benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether the accuracy gate makes preservation, realism, and consistency scores too compressed to distinguish among moderately inaccurate edits; a separate binary 'instruction satisfied' gate plus a graded accuracy score might be more informative.
  • A natural extension is to use the benchmark's per-track failures as a reward signal for training editing models, with accuracy as a hard constraint and the other dimensions as soft objectives.
  • The reasoning track suggests a divide-and-conquer architecture the paper does not evaluate: an external reasoner that turns implicit instructions into explicit edit plans, followed by a video editor that executes those plans, may outperform end-to-end systems.
  • The audio track could double as a testbed for audio-visual synchronization research, since it explicitly requires lip-sync, event-sound alignment, and scene-consistent ambient audio rather than frame-level fidelity.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces OmniEdit-Bench, a benchmark for instruction-based video editing (IVE) that decomposes editing tasks into five tracks—spatial, temporal, audio, reference-based, and reasoning—and evaluates models along four dimensions (accuracy, preservation, realism, and consistency) using a VLM (Gemini-3.1-Pro) supplemented by human judgments. An accuracy-aware penalty mechanism scales the non-accuracy dimensions by normalized accuracy to prevent plausible-but-incorrect edits from being scored highly. The authors evaluate eight open-source and commercial models on the benchmark and report that all models perform far better on spatial edits than on temporal, audio, and reasoning tasks, with commercial models generally ahead on spatial and reference tracks. The paper argues that OmniEdit-Bench is a comprehensive and reliable testbed for IVE and provides a direction for future research.

Significance. If the benchmark and its evaluation protocol are validated, this work would fill a real gap: existing IVE benchmarks mostly inherit image-editing tasks and lack video-specific dimensions such as temporal dynamics, audio, and reasoning. The taxonomy in Fig. 2 is thoughtfully organized, and the accuracy-aware penalty mechanism is a principled response to the known failure of similarity-based metrics to reward instruction fidelity. The evaluation covers both open-source and commercial models, and the inclusion of human-alignment analysis is a strength. However, the paper's central claim of being a 'reliable and comprehensive testbed' rests on the VLM-based scores being trustworthy on the exact tracks where the headline conclusions are negative (temporal, audio, reasoning). The evidence for that reliability is thinner than the text implies, and several reproducibility issues in the reported tables need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (6)
  1. [§4.4 / Table 3] The human-alignment evidence is pooled across tracks and lacks the information needed to support the paper's track-specific conclusions. Table 3 reports aggregate MAE values (0.86 accuracy, 0.77 preservation, 0.55 realism, 0.64 consistency) but does not give sample sizes, per-track breakdowns, annotation protocols, or rater agreement. Since the headline finding is that models are far from satisfactory on the temporal, audio, and reasoning tracks, and Appendix D concedes the VLM 'may not fully capture subtle subjective preferences or nuanced editing quality in borderline cases,' the paper needs to show that VLM scores align with human judgments on those specific tracks. Without this, the reliability of the benchmark for the tracks that matter most is unverified.
  2. [Table 3] The table is internally inconsistent: the proportions column is identical for all four dimensions, yet the dimensions have different score distributions, and the overall MAE values do not match the weighted average of the per-level MAEs. For example, weighting realism MAE by the reported proportions gives approximately 0.62, not 0.55, and consistency gives approximately 0.96, not 0.64. The authors should clarify how the proportions and overall MAE are computed, and either provide per-dimension distributions or explain why a single proportion column is appropriate.
  3. [Table 2] The 'Overall Score (Average)' column is not reproducible from the track scores and the stated protocol. For instance, Runway Aleph has available track scores 54.2, 16.5, 15.1, and 20.3, whose arithmetic mean is 26.5, yet the table reports 24.2; Grok Imagine has mean 20.9 but reports 19.0; KlingV3-Omni has mean 37.7 but reports 38.3; and UniVideo has mean 16.1 but reports 14.4. The averaging rule for missing tracks (audio and reference) must be specified exactly, or the overall scores will be misleading.
  4. [§3.2 / Fig. 5] The final-score formula is not fully specified for the reported 100-point scale. The formula Score = 0.5A + 0.2P' + 0.15R' + 0.15C' yields a maximum of 5 when A=P=R=C=5, yet Table 2 reports scores on a 100-point scale. The paper should state the normalization or rescaling step (e.g., multiplication by 20) explicitly. Additionally, the weights 0.5/0.2/0.15/0.15 are presented without justification or sensitivity analysis; since the weights affect all cross-model comparisons, a brief robustness check would strengthen the claims.
  5. [§4.2 / Table 2] The model comparison is not apples-to-apples because different models are evaluated on different subsets of tracks. For example, audio is marked as unsupported for several models, and the reference track is only evaluated for models with spatial reference capabilities, while Seedance 2.0 is excluded from audio and reference entirely. The paper should clarify whether the overall scores are comparable given these missing entries, and should avoid drawing fine-grained ranking conclusions from overall averages over differing track sets.
  6. [§2 / §1] The paper motivates the accuracy-aware penalty by claiming that existing metrics allow incorrect edits to receive high scores due to strong visual priors, but it never empirically compares its proposed metric against these existing metrics (e.g., CLIP-based similarity, SSIM, or prior benchmark protocols). This is a testable claim: the authors could show that their metric down-weights specific failure cases where existing metrics give high scores. Without such a comparison, the claimed superiority of the evaluation framework over prior metrics remains unsubstantiated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1 / Audio Track] The text contains a typo: 'This category focuses on more general objects inluding animals and vehicles' should read 'including.'
  2. [§1 / Fig. 1] Figure 1 lists representative tasks but does not clearly indicate which are explicit versus implicit instructions; adding a legend or color coding would help readers map the instructions to the two axes described in the text.
  3. [Fig. 3] The legend for Fig. 3 includes 'N/A or unsupported,' but it is unclear from the figure which bars correspond to this category; the figure should mark unsupported tracks explicitly or explain the convention in the caption.
  4. [§4.1] The paper does not specify the API access date, model version details, or inference settings for the commercial models (e.g., KlingV3-Omni, Runway Aleph, Grok Imagine), which are needed for reproducibility of the benchmark results.
  5. [§4.4 / Table 3] The human evaluation is described only as 'human annotations' without saying how many annotators rated each sample, whether they were expert or crowd annotators, or what instructions they received; these details are necessary to assess the reliability of the human ground truth.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: benchmark evaluation is externally anchored to human judgments; self-citations are non-load-bearing and affiliation overlap is not logical circularity.

full rationale

OmniEdit-Bench's derivation chain is self-contained. The benchmark constructs its task taxonomy from curated video sources; the evaluation framework independently specifies four dimensions (accuracy, preservation, realism, consistency) and uses Gemini-3.1-Pro with task-specific prompts as an external scorer. The central reliability claim is supported empirically in Section 4.4 and Table 3 by comparing VLM scores with human annotations, which is an external anchor rather than a definitional identity. The accuracy-aware penalty mechanism is a deliberate scoring design, not a fitted parameter, and it does not make the reported model rankings follow from the scoring formula by construction. No prediction is derived from a fitted input, and no load-bearing argument is justified only by self-citation: references to the authors' prior works (AnyDoor, UniReal, ROSE, Wan) appear in related work or contextual discussion and do not carry the benchmark's validity or the evaluation protocol. The participation of Wan-team co-authors and the inclusion of Wan2.7-Edit is a governance/conflict-of-interest concern, not a logical circularity. The strongest substantive concerns—pooled MAE in Table 3 without per-track breakdowns or annotation details—bear on statistical validity and external support, not on whether the paper's stated derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark itself is a dataset and evaluation protocol, not a new physical or mathematical entity. The main postulates are the reliability of the VLM evaluator, the completeness of the taxonomy, and the validity of the accuracy-aware weighting.

free parameters (1)
  • Final score weighting coefficients = 0.5, 0.2, 0.15, 0.15
    The final score in Section 3.2 weights accuracy at 0.5 and scales preservation, realism, and consistency by 0.2, 0.15, 0.15. These weights are chosen to emphasize instruction fidelity but are not justified by any optimization or sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gemini-3.1-Pro with task-specific prompts provides valid scores for accuracy, preservation, realism, consistency across all tracks.
    The entire evaluation pipeline depends on this. Only a limited human alignment table (Table 3) supports it, without sample sizes or inter-annotator agreement.
  • domain assumption The five-track taxonomy and sub-tracks comprehensively cover the space of IVE tasks.
    The paper asserts comprehensiveness but provides no coverage analysis. The Limitations section admits that complex cross-modal and long-horizon scenarios are insufficiently explored.
  • ad hoc to paper The accuracy-aware penalty correctly prevents inflated scores for incorrect edits.
    The modulation formula P'=A/5*P, etc., is introduced without derivation or comparison to alternative aggregation methods.
  • domain assumption The collected videos from Pexels, Pixabay, OpenVid-1M, and synthetic generation are representative of real-world editing queries.
    Data diversity is claimed, but no distribution analysis or comparison to real user requests is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OmniEdit-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Instruction-based Video Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNWQEKSM

@misc{pith2026260805049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OmniEdit-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Instruction-based Video Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNWQEKSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05049}
}
read the original abstract

Instruction-based video editing (IVE) is an emerging field with broad applications, yet evaluating editing models remains challenging. Existing benchmarks suffer from two major limitations: limited task coverage inherited from image editing, which overlooks video-specific dimensions, and inadequate metrics that fail to measure instruction fidelity, allowing incorrect edits to receive high scores due to strong visual priors from the original video. To address these issues, we introduce a comprehensive and structured benchmark for IVE. Our benchmark decomposes editing tasks into multiple video-specific dimensions, including spatial, temporal, audio, and reference-based editing, extending beyond conventional frame-level evaluation. It also distinguishes explicit and implicit instructions and incorporates reasoning-based scenarios to better reflect real-world requirements. Furthermore, we propose an evaluation framework that assesses editing quality from four complementary dimensions: accuracy, preservation, realism, and consistency, using both human judgments and state-of-the-art vision-language models. To emphasize instruction fidelity, we introduce an accuracy-aware penalty mechanism that conditions other scores on accuracy, preventing visually plausible but incorrect edits from receiving inflated evaluations. Extensive experiments on representative open-source and commercial models show that current IVE models remain far from satisfactory. OmniEdit-Bench provides a comprehensive and reliable testbed for evaluating instruction-based video editing and offers insights into future research directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our evaluation tracks. This figure illustrates representative tasks from Spatial, Temporal, Audio, Reference, and Reasoning tracks. By covering a wide range of scenarios, our benchmarks provide a more comprehensive and precise basis for evaluating video editing models. enabling diverse operations such as object removal [25, 47, 21, 18] and style transformation [17, 48, 45], and significantly advancing ap… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taxonomy of video editing tasks. We classify the benchmark into five tracks: Spatial (240), Temporal (200), Reference (200), Audio (100), and Reasoning (50), illustrating the diverse scope of instruction-based video manipulation. Bench [5], expand the data coverage but do not explicitly capture video-specific aspects such as temporal and audio. Some works further explore individual dimensions, where VIE-Bench [26] s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparisons of model performance across evaluation metrics. The bar charts display the score distribution of all the evaluated models for Accuracy, Preservation, Realism, and Consistency, categorized by the five tracks defined in OmniEdit-Bench. Note: For Reference track, only models with spatial reference capabilities are evaluated due to current architectural limitations. camera or object motion and we organize th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Some examples of models’ output on OmniEdit-Bench. Zoom in for better view. For more visualization results, please refer to Appx. C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation framework. By introducing an accuracy-aware penalty mechanism, our framework ensures a more precise assessment of video editing quality. The accuracy score acts as a gating signal, preventing plausible-looking but instruction-deviant edits from receiving hig…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scaling instruction-based video editing with a high-quality synthetic dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15742, 2025

    Qingyan Bai, Qiuyu Wang, Hao Ouyang, Yue Yu, Hanlin Wang, Wen Wang, Ka Leong Cheng, Shuailei Ma, Yanhong Zeng, Zichen Liu, et al. Scaling instruction-based video editing with a high-quality synthetic dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15742, 2025

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    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. InCVPR, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Unireal: Universal image generation and editing via learning real-world dynamics

    Xi Chen, Zhifei Zhang, He Zhang, Yuqian Zhou, Soo Ye Kim, Qing Liu, Yijun Li, Jianming Zhang, Nanxuan Zhao, Yilin Wang, et al. Unireal: Universal image generation and editing via learning real-world dynamics. InCVPR, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

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

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

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Editboard: Towards a comprehensive evaluation benchmark for text-based video editing models

    Yupeng Chen, Penglin Chen, Xiaoyu Zhang, Yixian Huang, and Qian Xie. Editboard: Towards a comprehensive evaluation benchmark for text-based video editing models. InAAAI, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Wan-animate: Unified character animation and replacement with holistic replication

    Gang Cheng, Xin Gao, Li Hu, Siqi Hu, Mingyang Huang, Chaonan Ji, Ju Li, Dechao Meng, Jinwei Qi, Penchong Qiao, et al. Wan-animate: Unified character animation and replacement with holistic replication. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14055, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Viva: Vlm-guided instruction-based video editing with reward optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16906, 2025

    Xiaoyan Cong, Haotian Yang, Angtian Wang, Yizhi Wang, Yiding Yang, Canyu Zhang, and Chongyang Ma. Viva: Vlm-guided instruction-based video editing with reward optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16906, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

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

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

    2025

  3. [11]

    Prompt-to- prompt image editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626, 2022

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

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning

    Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning. InEMNLP, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. InNeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Video diffusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video diffusion models. InNeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Image quality metrics: Psnr vs

    Alain Hore and Djemel Ziou. Image quality metrics: Psnr vs. ssim. InICPR, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    VBench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models

    Ziqi Huang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Fan Zhang, Chenyang Si, Yuming Jiang, Yuanhan Zhang, Tianxing Wu, Qingyang Jin, Nattapol Chanpaisit, Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, Yu Qiao, and Ziwei Liu. VBench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models. I...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. InCVPR, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Smarteraser: Remove anything from images using masked-region guidance

    Longtao Jiang, Zhendong Wang, Jianmin Bao, Wengang Zhou, Dongdong Chen, Lei Shi, Dong Chen, and Houqiang Li. Smarteraser: Remove anything from images using masked-region guidance. InCVPR, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis

    Jungil Kong, Jaehyeon Kim, and Jaekyoung Bae. Hifi-gan: Generative adversarial networks for efficient and high fidelity speech synthesis. InNeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Black Forest Labs, Stephen Batifol, Andreas Blattmann, Frederic Boesel, Saksham Consul, Cyril Diagne, Tim Dockhorn, Jack English, Zion English, Patrick Esser, et al. Flux. 1 kontext: Flow matching for in-context image generation and editing in latent space.arXiv preprint arXiv...

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Diffueraser: A diffusion model for video inpainting

    Xiaowen Li, Haolan Xue, Peiran Ren, and Liefeng Bo. Diffueraser: A diffusion model for video inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10018, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Flow matching for generative modeling

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matthew Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. InICLR, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003, 2022

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Revise: Towards reason-informed video editing in unified models with self-reflective learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.09924, 2025

    Xinyu Liu, Hangjie Yuan, Yujie Wei, Jiazheng Xing, Yujin Han, Jiahao Pan, Yanbiao Ma, Chi-Min Chan, Kang Zhao, Shiwei Zhang, et al. Revise: Towards reason-informed video editing in unified models with self-reflective learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.09924, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Rose: Remove objects with side effects in videos

    Chenxuan Miao, Yutong Feng, Jianshu Zeng, Zixiang Gao, Liu Hantang, Yunfeng Yan, Donglian Qi, Xi Chen, Bin Wang, and Hengshuang Zhao. Rose: Remove objects with side effects in videos. InNeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Instructx: Towards unified visual editing with mllm guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08485, 2025

    Chong Mou, Qichao Sun, Yanze Wu, Pengze Zhang, Xinghui Li, Fulong Ye, Songtao Zhao, and Qian He. Instructx: Towards unified visual editing with mllm guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08485, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio

    Aaron van den Oord, Sander Dieleman, Heiga Zen, Karen Simonyan, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, Nal Kalchbrenner, Andrew Senior, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Wavenet: A generative model for raw audio. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InCVPR, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Runway aleph.https://runwayml.com, 2024

    Runway. Runway aleph.https://runwayml.com, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    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. InNeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  25. [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

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P. Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. InICLR, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Ve-bench: subjective-aligned benchmark suite for text-driven video editing quality assessment

    Shangkun Sun, Xiaoyu Liang, Songlin Fan, Wenxu Gao, and Wei Gao. Ve-bench: subjective-aligned benchmark suite for text-driven video editing quality assessment. InAAAI, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Edtalk: Efficient disentanglement for emotional talking head synthesis

    Shuai Tan, Bin Ji, Mengxiao Bi, and Ye Pan. Edtalk: Efficient disentanglement for emotional talking head synthesis. InECCV, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kling-omni technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16776, 2025

    Kling Team, Jialu Chen, Yuanzheng Ci, Xiangyu Du, Zipeng Feng, Kun Gai, Sainan Guo, Feng Han, Jingbin He, Kang He, et al. Kling-omni technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16776, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhou Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity.TIP, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    Univideo: Unified understanding, generation, and editing for videos.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08377, 2025

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

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Grok imagine.https://x.ai, 2024

    xAI. Grok imagine.https://x.ai, 2024. 12

    2024

  35. [43]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    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. InCVPR, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models

    Yuxin Zhang, Nisha Huang, Fan Tang, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Weiming Dong, and Changsheng Xu. Inversion-based style transfer with diffusion models. InCVPR, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Envisioning beyond the pixels: Benchmarking reasoning-informed visual editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02826, 2025

    Xiangyu Zhao, Peiyuan Zhang, Kexian Tang, Xiaorong Zhu, Hao Li, Wenhao Chai, Zicheng Zhang, Renqiu Xia, Guangtao Zhai, Junchi Yan, et al. Envisioning beyond the pixels: Benchmarking reasoning-informed visual editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02826, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting

    Shangchen Zhou, Chongyi Li, Kelvin CK Chan, and Chen Change Loy. Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting. InICCV, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. InICCV, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    Señorita-2m: A high-quality instruction-based dataset for general video editing by video specialists

    Bojia Zi, Penghui Ruan, Marco Chen, Xianbiao Qi, Shaozhe Hao, Shihao Zhao, Youze Huang, Bin Liang, Rong Xiao, and Kam-Fai Wong. Señorita-2m: A high-quality instruction-based dataset for general video editing by video specialists. InNeurIPS, 2025. 13 A Data Source and Categorie...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.