Current instruction-guided video editing models struggle to simultaneously balance precise semantic modifications with faithful motion preservation. While existing approaches rely on injecting explicit external priors (e.g., VLM features or structural conditions) to mitigate these issues, this reliance severely bottlenecks model robustness and generalization. To overcome this limitation, we present SAMA (factorized Semantic Anchoring and Motion Alignment), a framework that factorizes video editing into semantic anchoring and motion modeling. First, we introduce Semantic Anchoring, which establishes a reliable visual anchor by jointly predicting semantic tokens and video latents at sparse anchor frames, enabling purely instruction-aware structural planning. Second, Motion Alignment pre-trains the same backbone on motion-centric video restoration pretext tasks (cube inpainting, speed perturbation, and tube shuffle), enabling the model to internalize temporal dynamics directly from raw videos. SAMA is optimized with a two-stage pipeline: a factorized pre-training stage that learns inherent semantic-motion representations without paired video-instruction editing data, followed by supervised fine-tuning on paired editing data. Remarkably, the factorized pre-training alone already yields strong zero-shot video editing ability, validating the proposed factorization. SAMA achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source models and is competitive with leading commercial systems (e.g., Kling-Omni). Code, models, and datasets will be released.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Teaser and overview. Top: qualitative comparisons on VIE-Bench, comparing SAMA with representative open- and closed-source systems. Bottom left: illustration of SAMA’s semantic–motion training objectives. Bottom right: fine-grained VIE-Bench performance comparison.
Figure 2: Overall pipeline. SAMA first performs factorized pre-training (stage 0) on additional perturbed videos by completing a pretext task conditioned on the given captions. It then performs normal supervised fine-tuning (stage 1) on original source videos. Semantic Anchoring is incorporated in both stages to jointly facilitate semantic representation learning and instruction-guided video editing.
Figure 3: Illustration of pretext perturbations.
Training stage
Dataset
# Pairs
Type
Stage 0 Factorized Pre-training
NHR-Edit [ 67 ]
720,087
image editing
GPT-Image-Edit [ 69 ]
1,015,170
image editing
X2Edit [ 70 ]
768,470
image editing
Koala-36M [ 65 ]
1,532,716
text-to-video ★
MotionBench [ 66 ]
53,879
text-to-video ★
Stage 1 Supervised Fine-tuning
NHR-Edit [ 67 ]
720,087
image editing
Table 1: Statistics of training data for each stage. ★ denotes we use specific text-to-video data for Motion Alignment by solving pretext transformations.
Method
Instruct follow
Preser- vation
Quality
Avg.
Instruct follow
Preser- vation
Quality
Avg.
Add
Swap / Change
Kling1.6
6.000
8.230
5.576
6.602
9.000
9.060
8.333
8.800
Kling-Omni
9.333
9.589
8.622
9.181
9.495
9.448
8.638
9.194
Runway
8.607
8.913
7.823
8.447
9.580
8.628
9.275
9.161
Pika
-
-
-
-
7.542
7.847
6.837
7.408
InsV2V
3.552
5.891
3.402
4.281
5.304
6.428
4.971
5.567
Table 2: Comparison results on VIE-Bench . The best results are shown in bold . Gray shading indicates closed-source models.
Task
Method
E dit A ccuracy
V ideo N aturalness
V ideo Q uality
Average Score
SA
SP
CP
AN
SN
MN
VF
TS
ES
SEA
SVN
SVQ
S
Add
InsViE
2.60
2.79
2.78
2.33
3.98
3.74
3.71
3.91
3.58
2.60
3.10
3.46
3.05
Lucy-Edit
6.27
6.32
7.75
4.63
7.08
6.08
6.31
6.82
7.57
6.47
5.70
6.77
6.31
Ditto
7.46
7.24
6.30
6.30
8.85
8.30
8.13
8.55
9.03
6.70
7.57
8.41
7.56
UniVideo
9.39
9.27
9.69
7.27
9.23
8.80
8.44
8.89
9.75
9.40
8.31
8.99
8.90
ReCo
8.65
8.40
9.22
6.39
8.78
8.28
8.02
8.61
9.61
8.54
7.55
8.61
8.23
Table 4: Comparison results on ReCo-Bench with Gemini-2.5-Flash-Thinking . The best results are shown in bold . Abbreviations: SA, semantic accuracy; SP, scope precision; CP, content preservation; AN, appearance naturalness; SN, scale naturalness; MN, motion naturalness; VF, visual fidelity; TS, temporal stability; ES, edit stability. SEA / SVN / SVQ are category scores and S is the overall score.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons with prior methods on VIE-Bench and ReCo-Bench.
Figure 5: Zero-shot qualitative results on VIE-Bench at two training stages.
Figure 6: Ablations for Semantic Anchoring (SA).
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of SAMA w/ and w/o MA .
method
instruct follow
preser- vation
quality
Overall
baseline
6.575
6.261
6.100
6.312
w/ SA
7.002
6.744
6.342
6.696
w/ MA
6.969
6.620
6.544
6.711
SAMA
7.402
6.998
6.884
7.095
Table 5: Ablations of SAMA modules.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
method
instruct follow
preser- vation
quality
Overall
w/ PE
6.705
7.533
6.686
6.975
w/o PE
6.619
6.257
6.619
6.498
Appendix
Table 6: Ablations of Type Embeddings (TE) modules.
Figure 8: Illustration of Type Embedding (TE).
Figure 9: Illustration of Pretext Prediction.
Figure 10: More qualitative results on VIE-Bench .
Figure 11: More qualitative results on OpenVE-Bench .
Figure 12: More qualitative results on ReCo-Bench .