Diffusion video models produce striking clips, but they cannot reliably render an exact formula, a correct chart, a rule-consistent game or narration synchronized to on-screen events. A different rout...
arXiv:2610.35864v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Diffusion video models produce striking clips, but they cannot reliably render an exact formula, a correct chart, a ruleconsistent game or narration sy...
By Muxi Diao, Wenbin Xu, Lele Yang, Xuyang Ma, Yuzhe Chen, Jiankang Chen, Kaiyu Jiang, Changyi Liu, Haoyu Zhang, Hongyi Fu, Jianxiong Wang, Tianke Zhang, Haonan Fan, Yingxin Li, Bingyi Li, Xu Wang, Xuanyu Zheng, Bin Wen, Tingting Gao, Han Li, Wentao Zhang, Weiran Xu, Kongming Liang, Zhanyu Ma
Timeline-Bench is a benchmark comprising 56 real video‑editing tasks that require AI agents to transform raw production material into finished videos. Each task includes a brief, source assets, a container, and a set of tests that assess format, content, brief compliance, and quality based on 2,582 blind judgments by 43 video editors. In evaluations, the best agent resolved only 15 of the 56 tasks, and most failures were due to quality tests rather than technical errors.
VideoWeaver is an agent harness and benchmark for long‑video generation that evaluates and evolves reusable skills. It allows an agent to dynamically compose foundation skills into a workflow based on a single high‑level instruction, rather than following a static pipeline. The benchmark includes 16 task categories and 285 cases with multimodal references, and an evidence‑grounded agent‑as‑judge inspects execution traces and final videos to guide skill evolution, improving both process and output quality.
By Jianhui Wei, Yan Zhang, Jie Tan, Hengchuan Zhu, Xiaotian Zhang, Ziyi Chen, Daoan Zhang, Wei Xu, Yeying Jin, Zuozhu Liu
Progress in video generation keeps narrowing the visual gap between AI-generated and professionally produced footage, yet most benchmarks still draw prompts from web sources or LLM templates and score them with untrained, generic multimodal models. More fundamentally, their evaluation taxonomies remain rudimentary (overall visual quality, coarse text alignment and temporal smoothness) rather than the professional Cinematic Language criteria by which films are actually made and judged, so they assess basic video plausibility rather than film-grade craft.
arXiv:2607. 24241v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Progress in video generation keeps narrowing the visual gap between AI-generated and professionally produced footage, yet most benchmarks still draw prompts from web sources or LLM templates and score them with untrained, generic multimodal models.
By Shengyi Wang, Niantong Li, Guangzheng Hu, Hong Qi, Fei Ding, Weixu Qiao, Jinlin Wang, Xiaotong Lv, Peng Han, Zimeng Li, Fanshu Ding, Yushu Wang, Han Wu, Jingjing Chen, Chongxiao Wang, Yanhao Wu, Chenglong Huang, Xiaoqian Zhu, Jie Tian, Hua Li, Jingjing Fan, Mingshuang Tang, Zhong Li, Hengxia Qiang, Weibin Chen, Jinyang Zhen, Bing Zhao, Lin Qu, Jing Li, Hu Wei