Organizations: School of Software Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China · College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China · AI System Innovation Lab, Huawei Cloud Computing Technology Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310005, China
Recent advances in diffusion models and Transformer architectures have led to significant progress in text-to-video generation. However, these models often suffer from semantic errors such as missing objects, incorrect attributes, or mismatched actions. Although some semantic correction methods perform optimization before sampling or refinement after sampling, how to detect and correct semantic deviations during the video generation process remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce a training-free, interpretable mid-generation correction framework that integrates multimodal large language model (MLLM) feedback directly into the diffusion sampling loop. Our framework achieves diffusion trajectory correction by injecting semantic evaluation signals during video synthesis, enabling the model to optimize the generated content through continuous self-reflection. We propose two key modules: a Semantic Assessment Supervisor that generates intermediate preview frames for semantic evaluations and deviation diagnostics, and a Semantic Modification Assistant that corrects semantic drift during inference via a controllable latent trajectory intervention. Our method improves semantic alignment, visual fidelity, and temporal consistency without modifying model parameters. We validate the effectiveness of our approach through extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of semantic correction strategies for text-to-video generation. (a) Non–self-correcting : fixed-scale guidance tends to amplify artifacts and motion errors. (b) Starting-point correction : prompt/noise optimization before sampling cannot prevent drift during generation. (c) End-point correction : post-generation refinement reacts to errors but cannot prevent them. (d) Intermediate correction(Ours) : a training-free, MLLM-guided mid-generation correction that injects semantic feedback into the diffusion loop to maintain coherence during synthesis.
Fig. 2: Overview of the proposed mid-generation semantic correction framework (SASMA). The framework, termed SASMA (Semantic Assessment Supervisor and Modification Assistant), integrates MLLM feedback into the diffusion sampling loop for dynamic semantic correction during text-to-video generation. During sampling, intermediate latents are periodically decoded into preview frames for semantic evaluation (left and middle). The MLLM provides diagnostic feedback and corrective prompts, which are encoded into semantic deltas Δct± and injected back into the diffusion process (right) to guide subsequent denoising steps toward semantically consistent video synthesis.
Model
Method
Subject Cons. ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
Human Act. ↑
Spatial Rel. ↑
Scene ↑
Overall Cons. ↑
CogVideoX1.5
Standard
0.9088
0.5435
0.5624
0.8200
0.4328
0.3343
0.2483
Ours (SASMA)
0.9410
0.5633
0.5857
0.8440
0.4738
0.3894
0.2536
HunyuanVideo
Standard
0.9625
0.6012
0.6179
0.8840
0.5307
0.3581
0.2619
Ours (SASMA)
0.9604
0.6038
0.6323
0.9020
0.5803
0.3728
0.2643
AnimateDiff
Standard
0.9524
0.5938
0.6161
0.9240
0.5196
0.4987
0.2720
Ours (SASMA)
0.9569
0.6066
0.6463
0.9460
0.5355
0.5259
0.2713
TABLE I: Quantitative comparison per dimension on VBench.
Model
Method
Quality ↑
Semantic ↑
Total ↑
CogVideoX1.5
Standard
0.7717
0.6419
0.7457
Ours (SASMA)
0.7982
0.6689
0.7723
HunyuanVideo
Standard
0.8171
0.6975
0.7932
Ours (SASMA)
0.8201
0.7048
0.7970
AnimateDiff
Standard
0.8087
0.7195
0.7909
Ours (SASMA)
0.8136
0.7277
0.7963
TABLE II: Quantitative comparison of overall performance on VBench.
Fig. 3: Qualitative comparison on text-to-video generation. Our method introduces an MLLM-guided feedback mechanism into the diffusion process, allowing mid-generation semantic correction without retraining. This integration enhances both temporal consistency and visual-semantic alignment in challenging cases such as multi-object composition, spatial relations, actions, and scenes.
Fig. 4: Case of interpretable evaluation and correction. Along the denoising trajectory from xT to x0 , our framework performs semantic assessment at discrete intervals on intermediate latents. For each evaluated timestep, the MLLM produces three interpretable signals: a structured diagnostic signal f identifying semantic deviations, a corrective prompt p+ providing refined positive guidance, and a constraint prompt p− specifying exclusion constraints.
Method
UMT-FVD ↓
UMTScore ↑
MTScore ↑
CHScore ↑
Standard
216.68
2.8485
0.3420
45.566
+ Semantic Injection
213.26
2.8619
0.3476
59.187
+ Evaluation Module
212.50
2.8771
0.3452
60.578
+ Preview Module
213.18
2.8653
0.3486
61.784
TABLE III: Ablation study of SASMA modules on Chronomagic-Bench-150 with CogVideoX1.5.
Fig. 5: Effect of evaluation interval and stage scheduling. We compare three stage configurations (Early: 1-24, Late: 25-49, Full: 1-49) with three evaluation intervals (3, 5, 10) on CogVideoX1.5. Early-stage high-frequency evaluation improves subject consistency and motion smoothness, while late-stage performance remains stable across frequencies. Full-process mid-frequency scheduling (interval=5) achieves optimal balance. The gray dashed line indicates baseline performance without SASMA.
Method / Configuration
Motion Smooth. ↑
Dynamic Deg. ↓
Subject Cons. ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
Overall Cons. ↑
Standard
0.9561
0.6639
0.9088
0.5435
0.5624
0.2483
Ours (1 round)
0.9812
0.4944
0.9396
0.5530
0.5745
0.2511
Ours (2 rounds)
0.9817
0.4167
0.9485
0.5668
0.6004
0.2531
Ours (3 rounds)
0.9812
0.5111
0.9410
0.5633
0.5857
0.2536
TABLE IV: Ablation on different numbers of evaluation–feedback rounds within the SASMA framework on CogVideoX1.5.
MLLM
Motion Smooth.
Dynamic Deg.
Subject Cons.
Aesthetic
Imaging
Overall Cons.
VRAM (GB)
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
0.9587
0.5018
0.9266
0.5345
0.5684
0.2467
9,290
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
0.9808
0.4831
0.9424
0.5669
0.5945
0.2528
17,142
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
0.9815
0.4228
0.9478
0.5656
0.5912
0.2526
155,354
TABLE V: Effect of MLLM scale on semantic correction quality.
Fig. 6: Effect of Intermediate Previewing in Mid-Generation Evaluation. From timestep ts to te , we insert preview operations at an interval of Δ steps along the diffusion trajectory. For each selected timestep t , we compare the noisy intermediate decoding D(xt) with the preview video obtained from D(xtpvw) . The prompt is ”A teddy bear sitting between a football and a violin.”
Fig. 7: Quantitative analysis of mid-generation semantic evaluation. (a) Agreement rate between Qwen2.5-VL-7B and Qwen2.5-VL-72B. (b) MATCH ratio under raw decoding. (c) MATCH ratio with preview. Raw decoding produces near-zero MATCH predictions before t/T≈0.5 , whereas preview enables earlier semantic recognition.
Fig. 8: Evaluation of textual feedback quality across three models (Qwen2.5-VL-7B, VideoLLaMA3-7B, and InternVL2.5-8B). Each subplot shows the agreement rates between the model-generated feedback and the Qwen2.5-VL-72B verifier for (a) Diagnostic Signal, (b) Corrective Prompts, and (c) Constraint Prompt. The results are based on 165 test prompts from VBench. Darker bars indicate agreement (Yes), while lighter bars indicate disagreement (No).
Configuration
Overall Cons.
Time (s)
MLLM Calls
VRAM (GB)
Standard
0.2483
254.43
0
13.7
Ours (1-round)
0.2511
579.28
4.631
30.9
Ours (2-rounds)
0.2531
588.95
3.289
30.9
Ours (3-rounds)
0.2536
590.04
3.168
30.9
TABLE VI: Inference cost comparison under different configurations on CogVideoX1.5-5B with a single RTX 3090 GPU.
Dataset
Stop ≤ 1
Stop ≤ 2
Stop ≤ 3
Avg. Calls
VBench
34.96%
66.95%
78.79%
3.168
TABLE VII: Early stopping statistics on VBench using CogVideoX1.5-5B.
Component
Avg. Time (s)
Total Time (s)
Percentage
MLLM Inference
7.53
75.28
19.68%
Intermediate Preview
14.76
147.59
38.59%
Semantic Injection
15.96
159.58
41.73%
Total
—
382.45
100%
TABLE VIII: Component-wise efficiency breakdown of SASMA on CogVideoX1.5-5B.
In recent years, training-free video generation has progressed remarkably. However, when handling complex textual instructions, existing methods still suffer from semantic ambiguity, incorrect concept binding, and cross-frame inconsistency. To address these issues, we propose KGEdit, a structured semantic control framework for text-to-video (T2V) diffusion models. Specifically, we first construct an ambiguity-aware knowledge graph (AAKG) to disentangle and disambiguate the input prompt, converting it into four types of structured semantics: identity, relation, attribute, and negative constraints. We then design a structured semantic injection module (SSIM) to inject these semantic signals into key layers of the diffusion Transformer, enabling fine-grained semantic control. In addition, we introduce a temporal-aware semantic control (TASC) module that dynamically schedules semantic objectives according to the stage-wise characteristics of the denoising process, further improving semantic alignment and temporal consistency. Experiments show that KGEdit outperforms existing methods in editing precision and temporal stability, while offering higher efficiency and controllability in text-driven interaction scenarios.
Mingshu Cai, Miao Zhang, Chenghe Yang +3
Waseda University, Japan · College of Computer Engineering, Jimei University, Xiamen, Fujian, China · Department of Language Science and Technology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China +1
Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have become the dominant paradigm for high-fidelity video generation, yet their ability to perform high-level semantic planning remains limited. While hybrid architectures integrating MLLMs with diffusion backbones have shown strong advantages in image synthesis, such designs remain underexplored in video generation, where existing approaches often treat MLLMs primarily as frozen feature encoders rather than semantic generators. To fill this gap, we systematically study how an MLLM should be integrated with a DiT for video generation by answering three questions: what intermediate representation should bridge the MLLM and DiT, how the MLLM should generate it, and how the DiT should incorporate it during diffusion rendering. Our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) discrete semantic visual tokens produced by an EMA-based tokenizer provide a stable and expressive interface, (2) autoregressive causal modeling is effective for generating these tokens, and (3) explicit visual-token conditioning is more effective than prompt refinement or latent bridging. Based on these findings, we propose BiVidGen, a hybrid framework where an MLLM first generates semantic visual tokens and a DiT renders videos conditioned on both text and these tokens via multi-layer cross-attention. Extensive experiments show that BiVidGen improves semantic alignment and temporal coherence over a fine-tuned DiT baseline, achieving stronger performance on VBench-Long. These results demonstrate that explicit MLLM-based visual planning provides an effective intermediate interface for text-to-video generation beyond text-only conditioning.
Yanbo Ding, Yijia Fan, Caihua Shan +8
Chinese Academy of Sciences · Microsoft Research · Sun Yat-sen University +3
Autoregressive visual models (AVMs) based on next-scale prediction have emerged as a prominent paradigm for image and video synthesis. However, decomposing the generation process into discrete scales with varying granularities in AVM makes semantic errors difficult to identify and correct, thereby undermining the quality of the final output. Prior efforts to enhance AVM can be categorized into training-based and training-free approaches. Although training-based efforts to enhance AVM generation quality come at substantial computational cost, existing training-free methods neglect intermediate generation states, leaving semantic errors undiagnosed and allowing them to accumulate into the final output. In this paper, we focus on training-free paradigms and propose Gazer, a framework that integrates multimodal large language model feedback into the AVM sampling loop for in-generation semantic correction. Concretely, Gazer operates via two cooperating stages: the Reflective Diagnosis stage diagnoses semantic errors from intermediate states, while the Semantic Correction stage rewinds and rectifies the generation trajectory to realign with the target prompt. Experiments on compositional image and video benchmarks demonstrate that Gazer improves semantic alignment and compositional accuracy across multiple AVMs without additional training.