At ultra-low bitrates, high-fidelity reconstruction requires sampling plausible videos from the posterior rather than regressing to oversmoothed conditional means. We propose Generative Video Codebook Codec (GVCC), a zero-shot framework in which a pretrained video generative model serves directly as the decoder, and the transmitted bitstream specifies its generation trajectory. Modern rectified-flow video models are typically sampled with deterministic ODE solvers, which leave no per-step stochastic channel for transmitting compressed information. GVCC addresses this by converting the deterministic flow sampler into an equivalent marginal-preserving stochastic process, so that information can be transmitted by encoding the per-step stochastic innovations. Unlike images, videos introduce longer temporal dependencies and more diverse conditioning modes. We instantiate GVCC in three practical modes: Text-to-Video (T2V) without a reference frame, autoregressive Image-to-Video (I2V) with tail latent correction, and First-Last-Frame-to-Video (FLF2V) with boundary-sharing Group of Pictures (GOP) chaining. On the seven-sequence UVG dataset, local atom-count sweeps characterize the rate--quality behavior of all three variants. We report full-dataset perceptual and fidelity metrics together with temporal diagnostics, without inferring matched-rate or global RD improvements from these limited local sweeps.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Qualitative, perceptual, and user-preference comparison. Left: the Jockey example at the displayed sequence-specific operating points. Middle: full-UVG LPIPS-Alex; DCVC-RT (0.2913 at 0.00533 bpp) and GVCC-T2V (0.1329 at 0.00268 bpp) use our unified evaluation, while GNVC-VD ∗ (0.1433 at ∼ 0.00540 bpp) is read from its published curve. The displayed DCVC-RT and GVCC-T2V points differ by 54%. Right: the user study preferred GVCC-T2V to DCVC-RT and GNVC-VD in 97% and 88% of comparisons, respectively.
Figure 2: Overview of the GVCC framework. Top: shared pipeline—a frozen 3D VAE encodes the GOP into latent space, where GVCC compresses it into codebook noise indices; the decoder replays the same trajectory to reconstruct the video. Bottom: three conditioning strategies. (a) T2V: codebook only, no reference frame. (b) I2V: autoregressive GOP chaining with tail residual correction. (c) FLF2V: dual-anchor boundary sharing across consecutive GOPs.
Method
Setting
BPP
Ewarp↓
tOF ↓
CLIP-F ↑
GVCC-T2V
—
0.0048
0.0102
0.565
0.9823
GVCC-FLF2V
—
0.0096
0.0103
0.624
0.9838
GVCC-I2V
capped
0.050
0.0117
1.258
0.9830
GLC-Video
q0
0.0095
0.0179
2.949
0.9743
DCVC-RT
q0
0.0045
0.0060
1.353
0.9812
Table 1: Compact temporal diagnostics on UVG Jockey at 720p. I2V’s tail-residual stream is capped to a 0.050-bpp total budget.
GVCC-T2V
GVCC-I2V
GVCC-FLF2V
DCVC-RT
Seq.
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
BPP
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
BPP
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
BPP
LPIPS ↓
Beau.
31.79
0.154
0.0048
32.90
0.109
0.0567
32.26
0.158
0.0075
0.442
Bosp.
30.32
0.098
0.0048
33.63
0.055
0.0546
32.72
0.086
0.0108
0.233
Honey.
30.78
0.052
0.0048
36.21
0.020
0.0543
34.73
0.033
0.0141
0.180
Jock.
31.28
0.090
0.0048
33.27
0.070
0.0534
33.09
0.080
0.0105
0.251
RSG
26.74
0.086
0.0048
29.48
0.053
0.0516
29.44
0.063
0.0168
0.282
Table 2: Comparison of GVCC variants on UVG 720p (3 GOPs per sequence, 33 frames/GOP). DCVC-RT at avg. ∼ 0.005 bpp—matched to GVCC-T2V’s bitrate—is included as a rate-matched perceptual reference. Best and second-best results among GVCC variants are highlighted.
Figure 3: Full-UVG 1080p ultra-low-rate curves. From left to right: PSNR, LPIPS-Alex, and DISTS versus measured BPP. Only measured points below 0.013 bpp are shown, and lines connect operating points only within the same method or GVCC variant. I2V is outside this shared rate region and is reported in Appendix 8 . Free-GVC is our reproduction, and GNVC-VD ∗ is digitized from its published curves.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Consecutive-frame MAE on HoneyBee , Beauty , and Jockey . Dashed vertical lines indicate GOP boundaries.
Variant
BPP
Frames / seams
Intra
Boundary
Δ / std.
T2V
0.00483
198 / 5
0.0880
0.0898
+0.0018 / 0.0048
FLF2V
0.009591
193 / 5
0.0780
0.0856
+0.0076 / 0.0056
I2V
0.050 (capped)
198 / 5
0.0712
0.1147
+0.0435 / 0.0217
Appendix
Table 3: Boundary LPIPS statistics on Jockey at 720p. I2V uses the same capped stream as Table 1 .
Figure 5: Per-frame LPIPS profiles used for Table 3 . Dashed lines mark GOP seam indices. The complete arrays, exact boundary indices, and evaluation code are included in the supplementary material.
Component
Version and configuration
HEVC / VVC
HM-16.25 / VTM-17.0, low-delay configuration with intra period 32.
DCVC-RT / DCVC-FM
Official CVPR 2025 / 2024 weights; RT uses serialized streams and FM uses entropy-model rate estimates.
GLC-Video
Official released code and weights.
Free-GVC
Our implementation of the published method using CogVideoX-2B.
GNVC-VD
Approximate readings from the published RD curves; not locally recomputed.
LPIPS / DISTS
Official LPIPS-Alex v0.1 and the original DISTS implementation of Ding et al.
Appendix
Table 4: Codec and metric implementations used in evaluation.
Method
Setting
BPP
VMAF ↑
Method
Setting
BPP
VMAF ↑
DCVC-RT
q42
0.01835
84.59
GLC-Video
q42
0.01256
44.90
VVC
QP32
0.01208
80.67
GVCC-T2V
—
0.00268
44.25
GVCC-FLF2V
—
0.00680
67.80
GLC-Video
q21
0.00899
42.87
GVCC-I2V
—
0.05230
67.59
VVC
QP45
0.00146
42.02
HEVC
QP37
0.00776
66.68
Free-GVC
t∗=250
0.00578
41.83
DCVC-RT
q21
0.00533
65.88
HEVC
QP45
0.00251
40.51
Appendix
Table 5: VMAF on UVG 1080p. BPP denotes the measured operating point; no rate interpolation is applied.
Method
Setting
BPP
FVD ↓
LOO range
GVCC-FLF2V
M=80
0.006895
40.41
40.26–49.63
GLC-Video
qI=3,qP=63
0.016982
41.64
41.25–51.43
DCVC-RT
qI=qP=63
0.061345
9.69
4.87–11.80
Appendix
Table 6: Descriptive FVD results on the fixed 233-clip UVG support. The leave-one-sequence-out (LOO) range is reported as a sensitivity check. Since the rates differ and the 400-dimensional covariance is rank deficient at this sample count, no cross-method efficiency or distribution-level superiority is inferred.
Method
Setting
BPP
FID ↓
KID ↓
GVCC-FLF2V-14B
Local
0.0070
14.92
0.00216
Free-GVC
t∗=215
0.0072
18.36
0.00304±0.00031
Appendix
Table 7: Patch-level FID/KID on UVG 1080p under a unified local evaluation protocol.
Method
Setting
BPP
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
DISTS ↓
I2V
M=60
0.05163
32.72
0.0859
0.0501
I2V
M=80
0.05230
32.83
0.0840
0.0497
I2V
M=100
0.05297
32.86
0.0835
0.0496
DCVC-RT
q42
0.01835
36.94
0.2149
0.1420
DCVC-RT
q63
0.06289
39.64
0.1661
0.1071
Appendix
Table 8: Raw full-UVG 1080p I2V and DCVC-RT operating points. I2V BPP includes the initial reference frame.
Residual budget
BPP
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Status
Full
0.050
32.83
0.084
Stable
80%
0.041
30.12
0.108
Stable
50%
0.027
27.53
0.172
Stable
0%
∼0.005
—
—
Unstable from GOP 3
Appendix
Table 9: I2V tail-residual budget sweep on Jockey at 1080p.
Parameter
720p
1080p
Role
M
64
80
Atoms per step (bitrate knob)
Mtail (I2V)
128
128
Atoms for AR tail frames
K
16384
16384
Codebook size
T
20
20
Total sampling steps
N
3
3
Bit-free ODE tail steps
gscale
3.0
3.0
SDE diffusion coefficient
Appendix
Table 10: Default hyperparameters for GVCC (720p / 1080p).
Figure 6: Hyperparameter sweeps on UVG Beauty (T2V-1.3B, 720p). Blue: PSNR ( ↑ ). Red: LPIPS ( ↓ ). Purple: encoding time. Stars: selected defaults. (a) Atom count M : quality saturates around M=64 while BPP grows linearly. (b) Codebook size K : diminishing returns beyond 16384 at rapidly increasing cost. (c) Steps T : marked degradation at T=5 and smaller changes beyond T=20 . (d) Diffusion scale gscale : narrow sweet spot at 2.0–3.0; collapse at higher values. (e) GOP length: 17 frames insufficient; 33 and 49 comparable.
Test
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
MS-SSIM ↑
ΔE↓
Face ID ↑
Color
48.60
0.004
0.998
0.26
—
Text
38.87
0.002
0.998
0.26
—
Face
31.58
0.022
0.986
2.34
0.857
OOD
25.15
0.119
0.910
2.77
—
Appendix
Table 11: Faithfulness and robustness evaluation (GVCC-FLF2V, 720p, 3 GOPs). ΔE : CIEDE2000 color difference ( < 1: imperceptible, 1–3: barely noticeable, > 3: clearly visible). Face ID: ArcFace Deng et al. (2022) cosine similarity between original and reconstructed faces.
Test
VAE PSNR
FLF2V PSNR
Δ (GVCC loss)
Color
52.63
48.60
− 4.03
Text
40.46
38.87
− 1.59
Face
35.01
31.58
− 3.43
OOD
30.86
25.15
− 5.71
Appendix
Table 12: VAE upper bound vs. FLF2V compression (720p).
Figure 7: Rate–distortion curve of GVCC-T2V (1.3B, 480p, UVG average). Each point corresponds to a (M,K) configuration from Table 13 . The curve spans from 5.3 kbps to 322.8 kbps with monotonically increasing quality.
Video compression reduces the bits needed to store or transmit moving images while balancing visual quality, computational cost, and downstream usefulness.
Recent generative video compression methods leverage powerful generative priors to achieve perceptually pleasing reconstructions. However, most existing approaches require additional training to adapt generative models to produce realistic reconstructions from compact representations. In this paper, we propose ZeroGVC, a zero-shot generative video compression framework that leverages pretrained autoregressive diffusion priors for low-delay video reconstruction. ZeroGVC encodes the first frame of each group of pictures (GOP) with an image codec and represents subsequent P-frames through Codebook-Guided Autoregressive Latent Compression. This design is motivated by our observation that the compression scheme of denoising diffusion codebook models is effective in few-step consistency sampling. By selecting compact combinations of reproducible codebook noise vectors, ZeroGVC steers the latent denoising trajectory toward the target P-frame while allowing the decoder to reproduce the same trajectory in only a few denoising steps. In addition, we design an optional bidirectional reference mode that mitigates error propagation by leveraging the next I-frame context without introducing any additional bitrate overhead. Extensive experiments on standard video compression benchmarks demonstrate that ZeroGVC achieves superior perceptual reconstruction quality at ultra-low bitrates without any additional training.
Yixin Gao, Xiaohan Pan, Lin Liu +3
University of Science and Technology of China · 2Huawei Inc.
Video diffusion models can reconstruct visually compelling content from severely compressed representations at ultra-low bitrates, but they impose a rigid deployment trade-off. Bidirectional (BI) models achieve high quality through dense full-sequence attention, yet require the entire sequence before reconstruction and incur substantial latency. Autoregressive (AR) models enable low-delay streaming, but their restricted temporal context reduces compression efficiency. This tension is particularly relevant when a video stream must be decoded in real time yet is also stored for later, quality-oriented playback, making AR and BI models natural choices for the live and replay stages, respectively. To support both stages, we present UniGVC, a Unified Generative Video Codec that supports two decoding modes from a single bitstream. UniGVC-BI employs a BI-DiT with dense attention for quality-oriented random-access decoding, whereas UniGVC-AR uses windowed AR-DiT for low-delay streaming. Both paths share a hierarchical latent codec that recurrently produces the same conditions with ultra-low bitrates, allowing UniGVC-BI to serve as a conditional teacher for single-step distillation of UniGVC-AR. A tiny conditional video decoder further reduces streaming latency while preserving most of the reconstruction quality. On standard 1080p benchmarks, UniGVC-BI achieves the best overall rate-distortion-perception trade-off among the evaluated methods and produces temporally stable video at rates as low as 0.0005 bits per pixel. Meanwhile, UniGVC-AR remains competitive while decoding 1080p video at 36.85 FPS, over 250× faster than UniGVC-BI. Code and models will be released later.
Tianyu Zhang, Shuai Huo, Dengchao Jin +7
University of Science and Technology of China · Kuaishou Technology
Generative video compression (GVC) methods usually employ decoder-side diffusion models to denoise reconstructed signals based on generative priors. Besides, most of these methods perform denoising in latent space rather than directly in pixel domain. In this paper, we propose ResGVC, a residual coding framework for GVC that guides denoising toward original pictures by transmitting residual signals. ResGVC first encodes the original pictures within a learned video codec, and then decomposes the distortion between the codec reconstruction and the original pictures into a sequence of residual segments, where each residual segment is acquired at each denoising step. Residual segments can further be compressed by a novel residual codec with a diffusion transformer as an entropy model. Unlike prior methods, ResGVC introduces explicit source constraints throughout denoising rather than relying on decoder-side generation alone. The diffusion-based entropy model also enables more effective distribution modeling capability based on the powerful generative priors. Moreover, denoising directly in pixel space avoids the irreversible information loss caused by latent representation bottlenecks. Experimental results show that, compared with the previous state-of-the-art method, ResGVC achieves 63.7% and 83.8% BD-rate reductions in terms of LPIPS and PSNR, respectively, while also delivering superior visual quality.