Generating egocentric video from a single exocentric video is an emerging and important topic for AR/VR and physical AI. Compared with conventional novel view synthesis, exo-to-ego generation is a significantly harder task because the standard geometric conditioning becomes highly unreliable under extreme view changes and large unobservable regions. We present Grounded-Exo2Ego, a principled framework that addresses these challenges at both the architectural and data levels. Architecturally, Grounded-Exo2Ego is a dual-branch video diffusion model that couples a geometric anchoring branch, which conditions the generation on the rendering of a 3D reconstruction, with a novel semantic grounding branch, which goes beyond the prevailing geometry-based approach and improves quality by synthesizing challenging regions based on object-level context. Additionally, we found that the overlooked issue of camera-reconstruction misalignment severely undermines exo-to-ego learning. We thus introduce a camera re-localization algorithm that resolves this issue and substantially improves quality across all metrics. We further develop a fully automated synthetic data engine that generates and renders rigged 3D characters in procedurally generated environments. Evaluation on the challenging EgoExo4D dataset shows that our method outperforms recent state-of-the-art approaches by large margins across all metrics. Detailed ablations validate improvements from each of our contributions at both the data and architectural level.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Exo-to-Ego is inherently more difficult than general view synthesis. State-of-the-art methods, e.g. Vista4D [ 20 ] , often render monocular 3D reconstruction of the input view (a) from a novel view to produce the conditioning video. However, such renderings are riddled with holes and corrupted geometry at the ego view (b), leading to bad results (c). Recent exo-to-ego methods [ 16 ] achieve better results (d) but fail to recover the exact viewpoint and content.
Figure 3: Method overview. Geometric anchoring (top): Exocentric color and depth are lifted to a 3D reconstruction and rendered at the ego pose. Semantic grounding (bottom): Per-object context is extracted as segmentation masks and object tokens. The segmentation masks are reprojected into the ego-view as used as attention masks during cross-attention. The per-object masks encourages noisy tokens to attend to object information relevant to the specific region, providing spatial structure that grounds semantics onto pixels.
Image Metrics
Object Metrics
Video Metrics
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
CLIP-I ↑
Loc Err ↓
IoU ↑
Contour ↓
FVD ↓
T-LPIPS ↓
New Action [1pt] (new actions, seen envs.)
Exo2Ego-V [ 22 ]
14.53
0.384
0.569
0.774
0.326
0.074
–
622.47
–
TrajectoryCrafter [ 36 ]
13.05
0.375
0.606
0.780
0.210
0.128
–
546.09
–
Wan-Fun-Control [ 1 ]
12.25
0.463
0.617
0.810
0.235
0.076
–
595.07
–
Wan-VACE [ 15 ]
12.95
0.413
0.626
0.829
0.228
0.114
–
508.69
–
Vista4D [ 20 ]
10.39
0.301
0.670
0.796
0.139
0.254
0.090
647.51
4.40
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on EgoExo4D. Best in bold , second-best underlined . Evaluated on the samples using EgoX’s evaluation protocol. Unseen indicates brand new environments not seen during training. New Action (renamed from EgoX’s Seen ) indicate unseen actions but in environment seen during training. Grey rows show the change over EgoX. Our numbers are averaged over five independent generations (standard deviations in Appendix B.1 ). Loc Err and Contour are normalized by the output side length. Values in [brackets] are metrics the EgoX paper does not report so we measured them ourselves.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on EgoExo4D (New Activities).
Variant
Backbone
Our data
Camera reloc.
Seq. concat
Obj tok.
Obj mask
Synth data
EgoX [ 16 ]
Wan
–
–
–
–
–
–
EgoX (LTX, data) ∗
LTX
Y
–
–
–
–
–
EgoX (LTX, data, reloc) ∗
LTX
Y
Y
–
–
–
–
Ours (no obj tok, mask, synth)
LTX
Y
Y
Y
–
–
–
Ours (no obj mask, synth)
LTX
Y
Y
Y
Y
–
–
Ours (no synth)
LTX
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
–
Table 2: Ablation studies on EgoExo4D. Top : the components each variant uses. Bottom : results, averaged over five independent generations (standard deviations in Appendix B.1 ). Loc Err and Contour are normalized by the image side length. Bracketed EgoX values are the two metrics its paper does not report, which we measured ourselves. Rows marked ∗ are our own re-implementations of EgoX , ported to the LTX-2.3 backbone so that the comparison isolates one component at a time; EgoX’s released code targets a different backbone, so these were rebuilt to the best of our ability from the paper and the reference implementation, and they may understate what the original authors would achieve. The unmarked EgoX row carries the numbers reported in their paper.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons on EgoExo4D (top) and in-the-wild samples (bottom).
Figure 6: Ablation study. Top row: EgoX omits the player entirely, but our variants reconstruct the player progressively closer to the ground truth. Bottom row: EgoX fails to reconstruct the viewpoint and scene correctly, but our variants reconstruct the ego view progressively more accurately.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Additional New-Activity scenes. Columns as in Figure 4 .
New Action
Unseen
Method
ΔTF↓
ΔMS↓
ΔDD↓
ΔTF↓
ΔMS↓
ΔDD↓
Vista4D [ 20 ]
0.013
0.004
0.072
0.010
0.003
0.160
EgoX [ 16 ] (paper)
0.008
0.002
0.137
0.013
0.004
0.209
Ours
0.004
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.010
Appendix
Table 3: Δ VBench on the New-Activity (seen) and Unseen splits. Lower magnitude is better; 0 indicates a perfect match to GT on the corresponding signal.
Variant
Loc Err
IoU
Contour
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
FVD
T-LPIPS
New Action
EgoX (LTX, data) ∗
±0.001
±0.003
±0.001
±0.03
±0.001
±0.002
±7.6
±0.023
EgoX (LTX, data, reloc) ∗
±0.002
±0.006
±0.002
±0.03
±0.001
±0.002
±8.2
±0.038
Ours (no obj tok, mask, synth)
±0.001
±0.005
±0.001
±0.03
±0.001
±0.001
±4.3
±0.022
Ours (no obj mask, synth)
±0.000
±0.004
±0.001
±0.03
±0.001
±0.001
±8.6
±0.031
Ours (no synth)
±0.000
±0.005
±0.001
±0.04
±0.001
±0.002
±4.1
±0.022
Ours
±0.001
±0.005
±0.001
±0.05
±0.001
±0.001
±2.0
±0.016
Appendix
Table 4: Variance across generations. Standard deviation over five independent generations. Means are reported in Tables 1 and 2 .
Object Metrics
Image Metrics
Video Metrics
Depth error
Loc Err ↓
IoU ↑
Contour ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FVD ↓
T-LPIPS ↓
Ours
none (deployed)
0.0518
0.4121
0.0437
16.05
0.4600
0.4673
385.8
1.485
2.5 cm smooth
0.0555
0.3980
0.0480
15.96
0.4579
0.4752
400.2
1.530
2.5 cm per-pixel
0.0552
0.3911
0.0464
15.91
0.4571
0.4782
400.6
1.562
5 cm smooth
0.0581
0.3827
0.0502
15.83
0.4540
0.4848
410.1
1.580
5 cm per-pixel
0.0611
0.3627
0.0525
15.75
0.4504
0.4905
410.0
1.582
Appendix
Table 5: Robustness to imperfect geometry. Depth is corrupted before rendering, at four magnitudes and in two spatial profiles. Ours degrades faster in relative terms but stays ahead in absolute terms on every object and video metric at every level; EgoX overtakes only on the two pixel-fidelity metrics, PSNR and SSIM.
Object Metrics
Image Metrics
Video Metrics
Pose error (rot. / trans.)
Loc Err ↓
IoU ↑
Contour ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FVD ↓
T-LPIPS ↓
Ours
none (deployed)
0.0518
0.4121
0.0437
16.05
0.4600
0.4673
385.8
1.485
1∘ / 1% ( 0.017 m)
0.0541
0.4009
0.0461
15.96
0.4556
0.4717
400.5
1.480
2∘ / 2% ( 0.034 m)
0.0538
0.3887
0.0461
15.85
0.4507
0.4774
398.5
1.493
5∘ / 5% ( 0.085 m)
0.0618
0.3254
0.0539
15.44
0.4360
0.5012
383.3
1.543
EgoX (LTX, data, reloc) ∗
none
0.0702
0.3156
0.0631
15.92
0.4489
0.4973
467.4
2.063
Appendix
Table 6: Robustness to a noisy target ego pose. One constant SE(3) offset per clip, applied before rendering: a mis-localized ego camera rather than per-frame jitter. Rotation is about a random axis. Translation is a fraction of that clip’s median scene depth — the reconstruction is scale-ambiguous, so a fixed offset in metres would be a different-sized error in every clip — with the implied median offset in brackets (median scene depth is 1.69 m over Unseen ). Both methods are largely insensitive up to 2∘ / 2% .
Object Metrics
Image Metrics
Video Metrics
Mask condition
Loc Err ↓
IoU ↑
Contour ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FVD ↓
T-LPIPS ↓
Ours
0.0518
0.4121
0.0437
16.05
0.4600
0.4673
385.8
1.485
Given ego attn mask
0.0461
0.4513
0.0381
16.30
0.4674
0.4529
373.6
1.462
erode 2 px
0.0528
0.4089
0.0452
16.01
0.4591
0.4708
401.3
1.492
erode 4 px
0.0557
0.3993
0.0479
15.99
0.4586
0.4714
397.7
1.499
erode 8 px
0.0543
0.4044
0.0467
15.99
0.4584
0.4715
397.0
1.499
Appendix
Table 7: Robustness to imperfect object masks ( Ours only; EgoX has no object pathway). The bottom block varies how open the attention gate is, from tighter than deployed (erode), through looser (dilate), to removed altogether (ungated). Removing the gate costs more than any perturbation of it.
Ego depth in exo view (m)
Shift (cm)
Shift (%)
0 – 1
4.5
5.2
1 – 3
6.9
3.9
3 – 6
83.0
17.6
>6
185.5
24.7
Appendix
Table 8: Ego-camera displacement from re-localization. Median over 14.0 M frames, binned by the ego camera’s depth along the exocentric optical axis. Shift (%) is relative to the ego camera’s distance from the exo camera.
Exo-to-egocentric video generation aims to synthesize what a person sees from their own viewpoint given third-person footage and a target head trajectory. The task requires transferring appearance and semantics across large viewpoint changes while hallucinating content never observed by the exocentric camera. Existing approaches either impose additional input requirements, such as a ground-truth initial egocentric frame or multiple synchronized exocentric views, or remain limited to category-specific settings. EgoX is the first to address cross-activity and in-the-wild generalization, but requires a human-provided caption of the non-existent egocentric view at inference and introduces a computationally expensive geometry-guided attention bias that can propagate reconstruction errors and suppress textual and visual context. We therefore propose Ego-Forge, a caption-free and bias-free framework for exo-to-egocentric generation. It introduces Dynamic Captioning, which derives conditioning tokens directly from the model's hidden states and adapts them to the diffusion timestep and network depth, replacing external text conditioning. By scaling training by an order of magnitude and using all available exocentric viewpoints, Ego-Forge learns cross-view correspondence implicitly and eliminates the need for geometry-guided attention, requiring only a lightweight depth prior. Ego-Forge achieves state-of-the-art performance on Ego-Exo4D, runs faster end-to-end, requires no external annotation at inference, and generalizes to in-the-wild scenes, including cases where over-reliance on geometry blocks appearance inference. Our model and source code will be made publicly available.
Foundation video generation models such as WAN 2.2 exhibit strong text- and image-conditioned synthesis abilities but remain constrained to the same-view generation setting. In this work, we introduce Exo2EgoSyn, an adaptation of WAN 2.2 that unlocks Exocentric-to-Egocentric(Exo2Ego) cross-view video synthesis. Our framework consists of three key modules. Ego-Exo View Alignment(EgoExo-Align) enforces latent-space alignment between exocentric and egocentric first-frame representations, reorienting the generative space from the given exo view toward the ego view. Multi-view Exocentric Video Conditioning (MultiExoCon) aggregates multi-view exocentric videos into a unified conditioning signal, extending WAN2.2 beyond its vanilla single-image or text conditioning. Furthermore, Pose-Aware Latent Injection (PoseInj) injects relative exo-to-ego camera pose information into the latent state, guiding geometry-aware synthesis across viewpoints. Together, these modules enable high-fidelity ego view video generation from third-person observations without retraining from scratch. Experiments on ExoEgo4D validate that Exo2EgoSyn significantly improves Ego2Exo synthesis, paving the way for scalable cross-view video generation with foundation models. Source code and models will be released publicly.
Generating an egocentric video from a single exocentric recording is a challenging case of novel view synthesis, as the two cameras share little overlap and much of the target view is unobserved. Current state-of-the-art methods reconstruct the scene explicitly by estimating depth, lifting the video into a point cloud, and re-rendering it from the egocentric camera to condition a video diffusion model. This deterministic mapping assigns each pixel to a single reprojected location, which preserves texture but translates depth errors into misplaced content. We ask what a video diffusion model should receive as its condition and propose a lifting-free answer: a learned view synthesizer, an LVSM-style transformer fine-tuned to render the egocentric view directly without depth, point clouds, or reprojection, resolving cross-view correspondence internally. In contrast, its probabilistic mapping averages each region over candidate source locations according to a learned correspondence distribution, preserving structure while fine texture is averaged away. We argue that this trade-off suits a diffusion generator, whose denoising training excels at restoring detail, so an effective condition should prioritize structural alignment over sharpness. This distribution's concentration also yields a per-region confidence, used both to mask low-confidence regions and to guide the generator toward high-confidence areas during early layout-forming denoising steps. Our approach consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art explicit pipeline and generalizes to other datasets without retraining. The synthesizer thus supplies view structure, and the diffusion model its detail.