Video Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have been synthesizing high-quality video with high fidelity from given text descriptions involving motion. However, understanding how Video DiTs convert motion words into video remains insufficient. Furthermore, while prior studies on interpretable saliency maps primarily target objects, motion-related behavior in Video DiTs remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we investigate concrete motion features that specify when and which object moves for a given motion concept. First, to spatially localize, we introduce GramCol, which adaptively produces per-frame saliency maps for any text concept, including both motion and non-motion. Second, we propose a motion-feature selection algorithm to obtain an Interpretable Motion-Attentive Map (IMAP) that localizes motion spatially and temporally. Our method discovers concept saliency maps without the need for any gradient calculation or parameter update. Experimentally, our method shows outstanding localization capability on the motion localization task and zero-shot video semantic segmentation, providing interpretable and clearer saliency maps for both motion and non-motion concepts.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Spatiotemporal localization pipeline. This pipeline obtains a video saliency map for any concept using Video DiTs. Given a concept, we first obtain a text-surrogate token via Query–Key Matching, and then compute the GramCol to derive its spatial saliency map. For motion concepts, we additionally identify motion heads before computing GramCol, thereby improving temporal localization.
Figure 3: Layer-wise average of λ2 and the corresponding feature maps. As the average λ2 increases, the extracted features become sharper and more interpretable.
Figure 4: QK-Matching visualizations per text token. While QK-Matching yields somewhat unclear spatial localization, its peak (red dot) still accurately pinpoints the target concept.
Figure 5: Visualization of Motion Localization Score (MLS) versus the separation score (Calinski-Harabasz index, CHI). MLS measured from GramCol extracted across attention heads in layers L of CogVideoX-2B. Heads with higher CHI scores tend to exhibit higher MLS, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.60.
Figure 6: Qualitative comparisons of motion localization results using CogVideoX-5B on the MeViS dataset
Method
Backbone
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
ViCLIP
ViT-H
0.33
0.17
0.35
0.29
0.28
0.28
DAAM
VideoCrafter2
0.36
0.17
0.38
0.32
0.35
0.32
Cross Attention
HunyuanVideo
0.39
0.25
0.41
0.36
0.34
0.35
ConceptAttention
HunyuanVideo
0.42
0.26
0.44
0.35
0.34
0.36
IMAP
HunyuanVideo
0.60
0.41
0.62
0.50
0.62
0.55
Cross Attention
CogVideoX-2B
0.29
0.56
0.35
0.23
0.28
0.34
Table 1: Motion localization results on including five metrics.
Exp. #
Method
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
Cross Attention
0.41
0.27
0.43
0.34
0.33
0.36
ConceptAttention w/o softmax
0.42
0.24
0.44
0.37
0.38
0.37
ConceptAttention w/ softmax
0.50
0.32
0.51
0.47
0.47
0.45
1
GramCol (all layers)
0.45
0.30
0.47
0.41
0.42
0.41
2
+ layer selection
0.47
0.34
0.48
0.48
0.50
0.46
3
+ motion head selection
0.53
0.34
0.55
0.46
0.48
0.47
Table 2: Ablation results showing the impact of our components on the performance over five metrics.
Table 3: Quantitative results of zero-shot video semantic segmentation on the VSPW dataset.
Figure 8: Qualitative results of zero-shot video semantic segmentation using interpretable map methods for Video DiTs. All these saliency maps are upsampled by AnyUp [ 77 ] .
Stage
Video Encode
Diffusion Inference
Map Save
Diffusion Denoising
Query-Key Matching
Motion Head Selection
Time (s)
10.79
58.67
10.35
0.083
7.17
Table 4: Stage-wise inference time. All timings are measured on an A100 80GB GPU using CogVideoX-5B [ 82 ] , with re-noising followed by a single denoising timestep. (Video Encode: VAE encoding stage of the real video; Map Save: visualization process of IMAPs.)
Figure 9: Visualization of IMAP over various timesteps
Layers
# layers
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
All layers
42
0.53
0.34
0.55
0.46
0.48
0.47
<0.50
17
0.34 (-0.19)
0.22 (-0.12)
0.37 (-0.18)
0.29 (-0.17)
0.28 (-0.20)
0.30 (-0.17)
>0.50
25
0.57 (+0.04)
0.44 (+0.10)
0.58 (+0.03)
0.53 (+0.07)
0.53 (+0.05)
0.53 (+0.06)
>0.70
21
0.68 (+0.15)
0.48 (+0.14)
0.69 (+0.14)
0.61 (+0.15)
0.64 (+0.16)
0.62 (+0.15)
>0.75
14
0.66 (+0.13)
0.51 (+0.17)
0.68 (+0.13)
0.61 (+0.15)
0.64 (+0.16)
0.62 (+0.15)
>0.80
7
0.69 (+0.16)
0.55 (+0.21)
0.70 (+0.15)
0.65 (+0.19)
0.65 (+0.17)
0.65 (+0.18)
Table 5: Quantitative analysis of the layer thresholds in CogVideoX-5B
Figure 10: Quantitative analysis of the layer thresholds in CogVideoX-5B
Figure 15
Figure 12: Comparison of IMAP under high ( >0.70 ) vs. low ( <0.50 ) average λ2 layers in CogVidoX-5B
Figure 13: Comparison of IMAP under high ( >0.70 ) vs. low ( <0.50 ) average λ2 layers in CogVidoX-5B
Figure 14: Examples of negative heads in CogVideoX-5B (L: layer, H: head)
Figure 15: Qualitative comparison of the effect of applying the softmax operation ( × : without softmax, ✓: with softmax)
Figure 16: Qualitative comparison of the effect of applying the softmax operation ( × : without softmax, ✓: with softmax)
Figure 17: Visualization of visual token embeddings via dimensionality reduction [ 74 ] (colors indicate frames)
Figure 18: Counts of 150 motion words in the preprocessed MeViS dataset
Figure 19: Example of the LLM input grid image
Metric
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
Pearson’s r (PCC)
0.62
0.44
0.64
0.66
0.64
0.75
Spearman’s rs
0.52
0.46
0.59
0.63
0.69
0.74
Table 7: Correlation coefficients between scores from 5 observers and OpenAI o3-pro.
Total
Agreement
Our wins (Win Rate)
51
44.8 (88%)
45.6 (89%)
Table 8: Pairwise preference agreement and win rate.
Method
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
HiNorm
0.47
0.34
0.50
0.41
0.43
0.43
QK-Matching
0.68
0.48
0.69
0.61
0.64
0.62
Table 9: Quantitative analysis of various text-surrogate token selection methods
Method
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
Video
0.48
0.31
0.50
0.41
0.44
0.43
Frame-wise
0.68
0.48
0.69
0.61
0.64
0.62
Table 10: Quantitative analysis of various text-surrogate token selection levels
Method
# heads
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
None (all heads)
48
0.47
0.34
0.48
0.48
0.50
0.46
Random
5
0.50
0.30
0.51
0.44
0.47
0.44
Separation Score
5
0.68
0.48
0.69
0.61
0.64
0.62
Table 11: Quantitative results of various motion head selection methods
# Heads
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
1
0.52
0.36
0.54
0.44
0.47
0.47
3
0.55
0.35
0.56
0.49
0.51
0.49
5
0.68
0.48
0.69
0.61
0.64
0.62
10
0.55
0.34
0.55
0.48
0.51
0.49
Table 12: Quantitative analysis of the number of selected motion heads
Figure 30
Method
Backbone
SL
TL
PR
SS
OBJ
Avg.
Cross Attention
Wan2.1-1.3B
0.49
0.32
0.45
0.43
0.45
0.43
IMAP
Wan2.1-1.3B
0.50
0.33
0.52
0.40
0.40
0.43
Cross Attention
Wan2.1-14B
0.50
0.32
0.51
0.42
0.41
0.43
IMAP
Wan2.1-14B
0.58
0.41
0.60
0.47
0.49
0.51
Table 14: Motion localization results on including five metrics
Figure 21: Feature-smilar but conceptually irrelevant cases (Repeated textures)
Figure 22: Feature-smilar but conceptually irrelevant cases (Different motions)
Figure 23: Failure cases. (a) The motion corresponding to the motion concept is not generated during video synthesis. (b) IMAP is extracted for the motion concept from an unconventional viewpoint. (c) The agent performing the motion is outside the camera view.
Figure 24: Qualitative comparisons of motion localization results using CogVideoX-5B on the MeViS dataset
Figure 25: Qualitative comparisons of motion localization results using CogVideoX-5B on the MeViS dataset
Figure 26: Qualitative comparisons of motion localization results using CogVideoX-2B on the MeViS dataset
Figure 27: Qualitative comparisons of motion localization results using HunyuanVideo on the MeViS dataset
Figure 28: Qualitative comparisons of zero-shot video semantic segmentation results using CogVideoX-5B on the VSPW dataset
Figure 29: Qualitative comparisons of zero-shot video semantic segmentation results using CogVideoX-5B on the VSPW dataset
Video diffusion models generate or edit temporally coherent video by iteratively denoising latent sequences conditioned on text, images, motion, or other signals.
The new era has witnessed a remarkable capability to extend Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for tackling tasks of video understanding. While current VLMs excel at event- or story-level understanding, their ability to capture fine-grained motion details remains limited, primarily due to their focus on high-level static semantic structures and macro-event logic. In contrast, Video Diffusion Models (VDMs) are adept at modeling dynamic motion patterns, benefiting from large-scale video data and the intrinsic requirement of temporal generation. In this paper, we introduce MotionEnhancer, a novel approach that leverages motion priors distilled from a powerful video diffusion model as auxiliary supervision to enhance the motion understanding capability of a VLM via attention alignment. MotionEnhancer comprises two simple parameter-free modules, Motion-sensitive Head Selection (MHS) and Motion-salient Text Token Identification (MTTI), to directly extract and optimize motion-related attentions from the VDM in a computation-only manner. MotionEnhancer provides a scalable solution for motion understanding without additional training parameters, modifications to existing architectures, or tool calling. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MotionEnhancer can achieve consistent improvements over state-of-the-art VLMs on two motion-level video understanding benchmarks, especially on motion-related metrics.
Yifan Xu, Chao Zhang, Ruifei Ma +4
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University · 2Beijing Digital Native Digital City Research Center · School of Computer Science, Peking University +1
Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have advanced video generation with high-quality, temporally coherent results. However, extending them to motion transfer, which requires following reference motion while aligning with a target prompt, remains challenging due to limited understanding of motion and structure representations within DiTs. We analyze video DiTs at the attention-head level and identify distinct heads specialized for motion and spatial structure. Based on this insight, we propose a head-aware controllable motion transfer framework that requires no parameter updates. Our method refines motion cues from motion-specialized heads via semantic correspondence guidance and preserves structure through selective feature injection. This head-level control not only enables accurate motion transfer but also provides an interpretable foundation for controllable video generation with DiTs.
Sunyoung Jung, Jiwoo Park, Yoonseok Choi +3
Yonsei University · LG Electronics · University of California, Merced
Motion transfer enables controllable video generation by transferring temporal dynamics from a reference video to synthesize a new video conditioned on a target caption. However, existing Diffusion Transformer (DiT)-based methods are limited to single-object videos, restricting fine-grained control in real-world scenes with multiple objects. In this work, we introduce MotionGrounder, a DiT-based framework that firstly handles motion transfer with multi-object controllability. Our Flow-based Motion Signal (FMS) in MotionGrounder provides a stable motion prior for target video generation, while our Object-Caption Alignment Loss (OCAL) grounds object captions to their corresponding spatial regions. We further propose a new Object Grounding Score (OGS), which jointly evaluates (i) spatial alignment between source video objects and their generated counterparts and (ii) semantic consistency between each generated object and its target caption. Our experiments show that MotionGrounder consistently outperforms recent baselines across quantitative, qualitative, and human evaluations.
Samuel Teodoro, Yun Chen, Agus Gunawan +3
School of Electrical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South Korea · Adobe Research, San Jose, California · CMLab, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea