Propagation-based video editing enables precise user control by propagating a single edited frame into following frames while maintaining the original context such as motion and structures. However, training such models requires large-scale, paired (source and edited) video datasets, which are costly and complex to acquire. Hence, we propose the PropFly, a training pipeline for Propagation-based video editing, relying on on-the-Fly supervision from pre-trained video diffusion models (VDMs) instead of requiring off-the-shelf or precomputed paired video editing datasets. Specifically, our PropFly leverages one-step clean latent estimations from intermediate noised latents with varying Classifier-Free Guidance (CFG) scales to synthesize diverse pairs of 'source' (low-CFG) and 'edited' (high-CFG) latents on-the-fly. The source latent serves as structural information of the video, while the edited latent provides the target transformation for learning propagation. Our pipeline enables an additional adapter attached to the pre-trained VDM to learn to propagate edits via Guidance-Modulated Flow Matching (GMFM) loss, which guides the model to replicate the target transformation. Our on-the-fly supervision ensures the model to learn temporally consistent and dynamic transformations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our PropFly significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art methods on various video editing tasks, producing high-quality editing results.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: An illustration of our on-the-fly data pair generation process based on one-step clean latent estimation. (a) Pre-trained VDM sampling process from intermediate noised latents xt with an edited text prompt caug , showing clean latent estimation after one-step sampling (Eq. 3 ) and full sampling (an iterative ODE solve from t to 0 ). (b) Increasing the CFG scale ( ω ) progressively strengthens the semantic edit (i.e., altering style, texture, and color). (c) Our method leverages this phenomenon efficiently: instead of performing computationally expensive full sampling, we utilize one-step clean latent predictions generated at a low CFG scale ( ωL ) and a high CFG scale ( ωH ). These on-the-fly predictions serve as the aligned source ( x^0∣tlow ) and target ( x^0∣thigh ) pair for training our PropFly.
Figure 3: Overview of our PropFly training pipeline. (a) A pair of video x0 and text prompt ctext is sampled from the video dataset and an augmented text caug is synthesized, by appending random style prompt cstyle to ctext . (b) A frozen, pre-trained VDM θ synthesizes a data pair ( x^0∣tlow,x^0∣thigh ) on the fly from a single noised latent xt using low and high CFG scales (guided by caug ). (c) A trainable adapter ϕ with the frozen VDM θ is then conditioned on the source video latent x^0∣tlow (for structure) and the edited first frame latent of x^0∣thigh . The adapter is trained via GMFM loss to predict the VDM’s text-guided, high-CFG velocity, effectively learning to edit the remaining video frames.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison against propagation-based baselines AnyV2V [ 29 ] and Señorita-2M [ 63 ] . Our PropFly successfully propagates diverse edits (including object, background, and style changes) while preserving the motion of the source videos. In contrast, the baseline methods often fail to propagate the edits accurately or introduce severe visual artifacts. Zoom in for better visualization.
Methods
VE
Pick ↑
Frame ↑
Video ↑
CLIP ↑
DINO ↑
# Param.
TokenFlow [ 12 ]
Te
20.02
26.80
24.30
98.68
98.78
0.9B
STDF [ 58 ]
Te
19.73
26.35
23.64
96.37
96.00
1.7B
InsV2V [ 8 ]
Te
19.55
26.14
23.33
97.15
96.67
0.9B
Lucy Edit [ 50 ]
Te
19.52
26.64
23.74
98.51
98.43
-
VACE [ 21 ]
Te
20.04
27.33
24.50
98.96
98.79
14B
EditVerse [ 22 ]
Te
20.06
27.95
25.48
98.58
98.56
-
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on the EditVerseBench-Appearance subset [ 22 ] . ‘ Te ’ and ‘ Pr ’ in the second column denote text-guided and propagation-based video editing (VE) methods, respectively. We evaluate video quality (Pick), text alignment (Frame & Video), and temporal consistency (CLIP & DINO). ↑ indicates higher is better.
Methods
VE
Pick ↑
CLIP ↑
ViCLIPdir↑
ViCLIPout↑
TAV [ 54 ]
Te
20.36
0.924
0.162
0.243
SDEdit [ 35 ]
Te
20.18
0.896
0.172
0.253
STDF [ 58 ]
Te
20.40
0.933
0.110
0.226
Fairy [ 53 ]
Te
19.80
0.933
0.164
0.208
InsV2V [ 8 ]
Te
20.76
0.911
0.208
0.262
EVE [ 49 ]
Te
20.76
0.922
0.221
0.262
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on the TGVE benchmark [ 55 ] . ‘ Te ’ and ‘ Pr ’ in the second column denote text-guided and propagation-based video editing (VE) methods, respectively. We evaluate video quality (Pick), temporal consistency (CLIP), and text alignment ( ViCLIPdir & ViCLIPout ).
Method
Pick ↑
Frame ↑
Video ↑
CLIP ↑
DINO ↑
w/ Full sampling
19.75
27.20
24.77
98.77
98.51
w/ FM loss (Eq. 1 )
19.50
26.33
21.98
98.52
98.29
w/o RSPF (Sec. 4.2 )
20.28
28.35
25.61
98.96
98.55
w/ Paired dataset
19.53
27.12
24.69
98.13
97.85
PropFly-1.3B
20.35
28.37
25.37
99.03
98.63
Table 3: Ablation study of our key components on the EditVerseBench-Appearance subset [ 22 ] .
Figure 5: Visual results showing the effect of our key components. (a) Baseline trained with full sampling fails to align object motion, while the baseline trained with the conventional FM objective fails to propagate the edit. (b) Baselines trained without our RSPF or with the paired dataset lack generalization, failing to perform complex edits. In contrast, our PropFly achieves robust propagation performance and high-fidelity edits. Zoom-in for details.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Weather
Artistic Style
Material
Mood
Backgrounds
snowy
in the style of Van Gogh
made of glass
monochrome
Gradient Background
rainy
in the style of Monet
made of crystal
vibrant colors
Moving Particle Background
drizzling
in the style of Picasso
made of ice
pastel colors
Geometric Pattern Background
foggy
in the style of Dali
glowing
muted colors
Neon Line Background
misty
in the style of Rembrandt
holographic
dreamy
Abstract Digital Art Background
sunny
in the style of Hokusai
iridescent
ethereal
Matrix Code Background
Appendix
Table 4: Style prompt set used for RSPF during the training of PropFly.
ωH
Pick Score ↑
Frame ↑
Video ↑
CLIP ↑
DINO ↑
2
19.98
27.24
24.57
98.83
98.41
5
20.32
28.33
25.52
99.01
98.62
7
20.35
28.37
25.37
99.03
98.63
10
20.27
28.24
25.34
99.00
98.80
20
20.19
28.33
25.27
98.85
98.62
Appendix
Table 5: Impact of CFG scaling on performance metrics during on-the-Fly data pair generation. Best performance for each metric is highlighted in bold , and the second best performance is indicated by an underline .
Figure 6: Samples of full sampling with varying CFG scales.
Figure 7: Samples of input videos and their on-the-fly data pairs.
Target Videos
Text Alignment ↑
Motion Alignment ↑
Señorita-2M [ 63 ]
20.41
78.08
On-the-fly (Ours)
20.97
82.57
Appendix
Table 6: Synthetic video data quality comparison. We evaluate the text alignment and motion alignment. ↑ indicates higher is better.
Backbone
Pick Score ↑
Frame ↑
Video ↑
CLIP ↑
DINO ↑
LTX-2B
19.87
27.37
24.68
99.02
98.61
Wan-1.3B
20.35
28.37
25.37
99.03
98.63
Wan-14B
20.42
28.71
26.05
99.21
99.05
Appendix
Table 7: Generalization across backbones. We evaluate the generalization capability of PropFly by applying it to both Wan [ 50 ] and LTX-Video [ 14 ] , measured on the EditVerseBench-Appearance subset [ 22 ] .
Figure 8: Video quality comparison between propagation-based video editing methods on the DAVIS dataset [ 40 ] .
Figure 9: Video quality comparison between propagation-based video editing methods on the DAVIS dataset [ 40 ] .
Figure 10: Video quality comparison on the Propagation task in EditVerseBench [ 22 ]
Figure 11: Video quality comparison on the Change object task in EditVerseBench [ 22 ]
Figure 12: Video quality comparison on the Add object and Remove object tasks in EditVerseBench [ 22 ]
Although existing video editing methods are generally feasible, they often require many costly iterations and still struggle to deliver high-quality yet satisfying editing results. We attribute this limitation to the prevalent data-to-data paradigm, which is less compatible with modern generative models than noise-to-data generation. To address this gap, we revisit video editing from a noise-to-data perspective and propose Streaming-Generation-based Video Editing (StreamEdit), which preserves few-step sampling while seamlessly injecting source-video conditions. Built on pre-trained streaming generation models, StreamEdit introduces dual-branch fast sampling with a self-attention bridge and cross-attention grounding/boosting to satisfy both sampling and conditioning requirements. We further propose source-oriented guidance to improve target-generation quality, and a visual prompting strategy to enhance editing flexibility and practicality. The method is effective, robust, and generalizable across different models. Extensive experiments on diverse video editing tasks show that StreamEdit consistently outperforms existing approaches, even in few-step settings with minimal time cost. Code and results are available at: https://dsl-lab.github.io/StreamEdit/.
Guanlong Jiao, Chenyangguang Zhang, Jia Jun Cheng Xian +2
The University of British Columbia · Vector Institute · ETH Zürich +2
Video editing aims to modify input videos according to user intent. Recently, end-to-end training methods have garnered widespread attention, constructing paired video editing data through video generation or editing models. However, compared to image editing, the high annotation costs of video data severely constrain the scale, quality, and task diversity of video editing datasets when relying on video generative models or manual annotation. To bridge this gap, we propose LIVE, a joint training framework that leverages large-scale, high-quality image editing data alongside video datasets to bolster editing capabilities. To mitigate the domain discrepancy between static images and dynamic videos, we introduce a frame-wise token noise strategy, which treats the latents of specific frames as reasoning tokens, leveraging large pretrained video generative models to create plausible temporal transformations. Moreover, through cleaning public datasets and constructing an automated data pipeline, we adopt a two-stage training strategy to anneal video editing capabilities. Furthermore, we curate a comprehensive evaluation benchmark encompassing over 60 challenging tasks that are prevalent in image editing but scarce in existing video datasets. Extensive comparative and ablation experiments demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance. The source code will be publicly available.
Weicheng Wang, Zhicheng Zhang, Zhongqi Zhang +6
Nankai University · Kuaishou Technology · Pengcheng Laboratory +1
Building a capable video editor remains significantly harder than a video generator: editing requires (source, instruction, edited) triplets that are prohibitively expensive to annotate and difficult to synthesize at scale, whereas image editing has already reached maturity with millions of such pairs readily available. In this work, we introduce VINCIE-NExT, a unified framework that transfers editing capability from images to videos through in-context visual demonstrations, alleviating the need for large-scale paired video editing data. VINCIE-NExT decomposes video editing into a structured chain of composable sub-tasks (Video -> Image -> Image -> Video), routing editing intent through the image domain and enabling scalable joint training from heterogeneous image and video corpora under a unified diffusion objective. An image editing pair, synthesized by the model or supplied by the user, is prepended as an in-context visual demonstration that serves as a spatial appearance blueprint for every output frame. To ground appearance edits across the interleaved context, we introduce a novel position encoding that links image demonstrations and video frames in a shared spatial coordinate system, enabling pixel-faithful propagation of appearance changes to every output frame. Chain-of-Editing further provides principled test-time scaling: by executing the sub-task chain as progressive diffusion stages, editing quality can be improved by investing additional compute without retraining. Comprehensive experiments on OpenVE-Bench demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance across diverse editing categories, with ablations confirming the effectiveness of each component.
Leigang Qu, Feng Cheng, Ziyan Yang +7
National University of Singapore · ByteDance Seed · University of Science and Technology of China