Camera-controlled video models are rapidly advancing toward long generation horizons and complex camera control. A key failure mode is 3D inconsistency: as the camera moves, objects lose permanence and scene structures shift. Existing post-training techniques, which assign a single scalar reward to the entire generation, are poorly suited to correcting these inconsistencies over long horizons. We introduce LoGo, which blends global and spatially localized rewards for camera-controlled video models. The local reward provides fine-grained credit assignment, which substantially improves 3D consistency, while the global reward preserves camera following and video quality. Across three base models, LoGo shows a clear advantage on DL3DV and TrajectoryBench, a new benchmark for long-horizon, complex-camera-control generation that current evaluations lack. LoGo effectively reduces local object shifts, artifacts, and global scene changes, illustrating the importance of credit assignment in post-training video models. Project website: https://ziqi-ma.github.io/logo-website/
Figures & tables
Figure 2: A scalar reward cannot capture localized failures: the door inconsistency is “washed out” by the overall good structure of the rollout. LoGo catches the localized inconsistency (right).
Figure 3: Motivation of LoGo. (a) A global reward fails to improve 3D consistency; local reward improves consistency, measured in PSNR, but degrades video quality, measured in HPSv3. This motivates combining the two in LoGo. (b) LoGo (green) extends the Pareto frontier in the consistency-quality tradeoff. (c) Reward curves and quality evaluation during training: local reward degrades video quality over time; LoGo improves consistency without compromising quality.
Figure 4: a) : illustration of voxel reward aggregation. b) : visualization of local reward projected to video frames.
Figure 5: Camera trajectories of TrajectoryBench vs. WorldScore.
Model
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
Lingbot2
Base
16.9
16.0
16.9
0.842
1.507
13.2
0.108
0.21
VideoGPA
17.1
16.1
17.0
0.847
1.486
13.1
0.107
0.22
World-R1
17.0
16.0
16.9
0.839
1.515
13.1
0.108
0.21
Global-only (ours)
18.0
17.1
17.8
0.872
1.306
11.2
0.102
0.31
LoGo (ours)
19.0
18.2
18.4
0.894
1.111
8.9
0.103
0.37
Table 1: Results on TrajectoryBench. PSNR-V and PSNR-D measure RGBD reprojection PSNR (using VGGT and DA3), PSNR-GS is based on Gaussian reconstruction. LoGo achieves strong gains in all consistency metrics across three base models. It increases PSNR-D by 2.2dB from Lingbot2 base model, and reduces epipolar error by 26%. Meanwhile, LoGo preserves, and often improves, camera following and video quality. Standard errors are in Table 6 in the Appendix.
Model
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
Lingbot2
Base
13.3
13.1
15.6
0.719
2.161
20.52
0.082
-0.422
VideoGPA
13.3
13.2
15.6
0.728
2.429
20.15
0.081
-0.409
World-R1
13.6
13.3
15.7
0.717
2.271
20.13
0.070
-0.429
Global-only (ours)
14.0
13.8
16.3
0.772
2.107
22.68
0.086
-0.305
LoGo (ours)
16.1
15.8
17.3
0.795
1.365
18.33
0.077
-0.283
Table 2: Results on DL3DV. LoGo yields larger gains than baseline methods across three base models for all 3D consistency metrics, while maintaining camera control and video quality, with up to 37% decrease in epipolar error. Standard errors are shown in Table 7 in the Appendix.
Figure 6: Qualitative results of LoGo vs. baselines . Red boxes indicate inconsistent regions. LoGo effectively fixes both global and local inconsistencies, including scene change (top right), hallucinated objects (top left), floater artifacts (middle), and inconsistent object appearance (bottom). Baseline post-training methods are not capable of resolving these issues, while LoGo is.
Model
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
Epipolar ↓
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
Lingbot2
Base
22.6
18.2
15.3
20.6
17.6
14.5
0.524
0.681
2.034
VideoGPA
22.7
18.3
15.4
20.7
17.7
14.6
0.533
0.684
1.997
World-R1
22.7
18.1
15.4
20.6
17.4
14.5
0.526
0.681
2.046
LoGo
23.8
20.2
17.6
21.6
19.7
17.0
0.490
0.601
1.439
UniWorld
Base
23.0
17.2
16.7
21.2
16.4
16.1
0.450
0.760
1.623
Table 3: Difficulty breakdown on TrajectoryBench. We show results on easy, medium, and hard categories of TrajectoryBench. PSNR-V denotes RGBD reprojection error with VGGT, and PSNR-D with DA3. LoGo’s margin over the baselines widens as difficulty increases across all three base models. This trend also holds for other metrics found in Table 6 in the Appendix.
Figure 8: Epipolar error vs. length.
3D Consistency
Camera
Video Quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
Base
15.3
14.5
15.7
0.812
2.034
13.2
0.108
0.21
Global-only
16.5
15.7
16.7
0.848
1.726
11.2
0.102
0.31
Window
17.0
16.3
17.1
0.856
1.666
9.5
0.094
0.32
Framewise
17.0
16.4
16.9
0.857
1.531
10.7
0.101
0.24
Patchwise
16.9
16.2
17.0
0.865
1.660
8.4
0.100
0.24
Table 4: Comparison of different local rewards. We compare voxel (used in LoGo) with framewise, 2D patchwise, and 40-frame window credit assignment. Voxel-based yields the best consistency gains. Easy/medium/hard breakdown and standard errors are in Table 8 in the Appendix.
3D Consistency
Camera
Video Quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Base
16.9
16.0
16.9
0.842
1.507
13.2
0.108
0.21
5.09
Local-only
19.2
18.2
18.7
0.893
1.078
11.2
0.116
0.32
4.47
+ interleave
19.2
18.3
18.6
0.897
1.072
8.9
0.107
0.38
4.94
+ global (final)
19.0
18.2
18.4
0.894
1.111
8.9
0.103
0.37
5.18
Table 5: Ablating the LoGo recipe. Using local-only reward yields best 3D consistency but drops camera and aesthetics metrics. Adding in reward interleaving improves other metrics, but still degrades HPSv3 compared to the base model. LoGo, which includes both reward interleaving and local-global blending, yields the best overall result. Standard errors are in Table 11 in the Appendix.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
Lingbot2
Base
22.6
18.2
15.3
20.6
17.6
14.5
21.0
18.0
15.7
0.918
0.878
0.812
0.524
0.681
2.034
13.2
0.108
0.21
VideoGPA
22.7 ± 0.03
18.3 ± 0.08
15.4 ± 0.04
20.7 ± 0.05
17.7 ± 0.08
14.6 ± 0.05
21.1 ± 0.05
18.1 ± 0.07
15.8 ± 0.04
0.916 ± 0.002
0.880 ± 0.004
0.820 ± 0.005
0.533 ± 0.011
0.684 ± 0.013
1.997 ± 0.052
13.1 ± 0.14
0.107 ± 0.001
0.22 ± 0.004
World-R1
22.7 ± 0.06
18.1 ± 0.08
15.4 ± 0.04
20.6 ± 0.08
17.4 ± 0.08
14.5 ± 0.05
21.1 ± 0.06
18.0 ± 0.07
15.7 ± 0.04
0.917 ± 0.002
0.873 ± 0.005
0.809 ± 0.005
0.526 ± 0.012
0.681 ± 0.012
2.046 ± 0.054
13.1 ± 0.14
0.108 ± 0.001
0.21 ± 0.004
Global (ours)
22.9 ± 0.14
19.3 ± 0.11
16.5 ± 0.05
20.8 ± 0.13
18.8 ± 0.11
15.7 ± 0.06
21.4 ± 0.11
18.9 ± 0.09
16.7 ± 0.05
0.916 ± 0.005
0.908 ± 0.006
0.848 ± 0.005
0.521 ± 0.013
0.649 ± 0.015
1.726 ± 0.057
11.2 ± 0.17
0.102 ± 0.001
0.31 ± 0.006
Appendix
Table 6: TrajectoryBench evaluation difficulty breakdown. Geometry columns are split by difficulty tier E / M / H for easy, medium, hard splits. LoGo achieves better 3D consistency than baseline methods in all twelve metrics across three splits for all three models, while maintaining or improving camera control and video quality, with the strongest advantage on the hard split. ± denotes paired standard error.
Model
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
Lingbot2
Base
13.3
13.1
15.6
0.719
2.161
20.52
0.082
-0.422
VideoGPA
13.3 ± 0.10
13.2 ± 0.11
15.6 ± 0.09
0.728 ± 0.014
2.429 ± 0.158
20.15 ± 1.215
0.081 ± 0.005
-0.409 ± 0.010
World-R1
13.6 ± 0.11
13.3 ± 0.10
15.7 ± 0.11
0.717 ± 0.017
2.271 ± 0.154
20.13 ± 1.681
0.070 ± 0.004
-0.429 ± 0.012
Global (ours)
14.0 ± 0.15
13.8 ± 0.14
16.3 ± 0.14
0.772 ± 0.016
2.107 ± 0.152
22.68 ± 1.745
0.086 ± 0.006
-0.305 ± 0.017
LoGo (ours)
16.1 ± 0.22
15.8 ± 0.20
17.3 ± 0.21
0.795 ± 0.021
1.365 ± 0.198
18.33 ± 1.504
0.077 ± 0.006
-0.283 ± 0.018
Appendix
Table 7: DL3DV evaluation with standard errors. ± denotes paired standard errors. LoGo yields more improvement in 3D consistency compared to baseline post-training methods on three different base models for all four metrics, while maintaining camera control and video quality. The improvement is significant, with up to 37% decrease in epipolar error.
Reward readout
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
Base
22.6
18.2
15.3
20.6
17.6
14.5
21.0
18.0
15.7
0.918
0.878
0.812
0.524
0.681
2.034
13.2
0.108
0.21
Global
22.9 ± 0.14
19.3 ± 0.11
16.5 ± 0.05
20.8 ± 0.13
18.8 ± 0.11
15.7 ± 0.06
21.4 ± 0.11
18.9 ± 0.09
16.7 ± 0.05
0.916 ± 0.005
0.908 ± 0.006
0.848 ± 0.005
0.521 ± 0.013
0.649 ± 0.015
1.726 ± 0.057
11.2 ± 0.17
0.102 ± 0.001
0.31 ± 0.006
Window
23.3 ± 0.17
19.9 ± 0.11
17.0 ± 0.05
21.2 ± 0.15
19.3 ± 0.11
16.3 ± 0.06
21.6 ± 0.12
19.4 ± 0.09
17.1 ± 0.05
0.918 ± 0.005
0.914 ± 0.006
0.856 ± 0.005
0.539 ± 0.020
0.635 ± 0.014
1.666 ± 0.053
9.5 ± 0.17
0.094 ± 0.001
0.32 ± 0.006
Framewise
23.5 ± 0.17
19.7 ± 0.11
17.0 ± 0.05
21.3 ± 0.16
19.0 ± 0.11
16.4 ± 0.06
21.5 ± 0.11
19.0 ± 0.09
16.9 ± 0.05
0.929 ± 0.005
0.918 ± 0.006
0.857 ± 0.005
0.531 ± 0.021
0.617 ± 0.013
1.531 ± 0.053
10.7 ± 0.17
0.101 ± 0.001
0.24 ± 0.006
Appendix
Table 8: Full ablation table of different ways to localize the reward. We compare voxel reward (used in LoGo as local reward), and other localization schemes such as framewise, 2D patchwise, frame windows (40f windows). Voxel localization yields the best improvement because it normalizes per-group rollouts in the native 3D space where 3D consistency is measured, without being affected by shifts in region represented per frame/patch caused by slightly different camera following in each rollout. This advantage persists across difficulty splits, and is most significant on the “hard” split, which has longer generation horizon and more complex camera motions.
RL algorithm
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
Base
23.0
17.2
16.7
21.2
16.4
16.1
20.6
17.5
16.9
0.900
0.898
0.871
0.450
0.760
1.623
13.8
0.132
0.39
DiffusionNFT
Ours-global
22.8 ± 0.05
17.6 ± 0.05
17.6 ± 0.05
20.8 ± 0.06
16.9 ± 0.07
17.1 ± 0.06
20.5 ± 0.07
17.9 ± 0.06
17.6 ± 0.04
0.899 ± 0.001
0.901 ± 0.005
0.887 ± 0.003
0.447 ± 0.003
0.773 ± 0.017
1.514 ± 0.039
13.3 ± 0.14
0.126 ± 0.001
0.37 ± 0.004
LoGlo
23.1 ± 0.05
17.9 ± 0.06
17.9 ± 0.06
21.2 ± 0.07
17.2 ± 0.07
17.4 ± 0.06
20.9 ± 0.08
18.4 ± 0.07
18.0 ± 0.05
0.903 ± 0.002
0.912 ± 0.004
0.895 ± 0.003
0.446 ± 0.003
0.781 ± 0.017
1.436 ± 0.037
13.9 ± 0.18
0.130 ± 0.001
0.40 ± 0.004
FlowGRPO
Ours-global
23.2 ± 0.03
17.7 ± 0.03
17.5 ± 0.03
21.3 ± 0.06
16.8 ± 0.04
16.8 ± 0.04
20.9 ± 0.10
18.0 ± 0.04
17.5 ± 0.03
0.901 ± 0.001
0.902 ± 0.002
0.880 ± 0.002
0.456 ± 0.001
0.788 ± 0.014
1.500 ± 0.035
13.8 ± 0.07
0.132 ± 0.000
0.37 ± 0.003
Appendix
Table 9: Full difficulty breakdown of TrajectoryBench evaluation of LoGo with three different post-training algorithms: DiffusionNFT, Flow-GRPO, and DRaFT. LoGo’s advantage persists regardless of post-training algorithms. Paired standard error is displayed in each cell.
Voxel size
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
E
M
H
Base
22.6
18.2
15.3
20.6
17.6
14.5
21.0
18.0
15.7
0.918
0.878
0.812
0.524
0.681
2.034
13.2
0.108
0.21
0.05
24.1 ± 0.16
20.7 ± 0.11
18.6 ± 0.06
21.8 ± 0.16
20.1 ± 0.11
17.8 ± 0.06
21.7 ± 0.13
19.7 ± 0.09
18.2 ± 0.06
0.932 ± 0.005
0.935 ± 0.007
0.880 ± 0.005
0.466 ± 0.010
0.579 ± 0.014
1.229 ± 0.051
9.2 ± 0.17
0.108 ± 0.001
0.42 ± 0.006
0.1
24.3 ± 0.15
20.5 ± 0.11
18.7 ± 0.06
21.8 ± 0.15
19.9 ± 0.11
17.9 ± 0.07
21.8 ± 0.10
19.6 ± 0.09
18.4 ± 0.06
0.941 ± 0.005
0.939 ± 0.007
0.885 ± 0.006
0.486 ± 0.014
0.577 ± 0.014
1.235 ± 0.051
9.0 ± 0.19
0.111 ± 0.001
0.42 ± 0.006
0.3
24.6 ± 0.16
20.7 ± 0.11
18.4 ± 0.06
22.2 ± 0.16
20.2 ± 0.11
17.6 ± 0.07
21.7 ± 0.11
19.6 ± 0.09
18.0 ± 0.06
0.947 ± 0.006
0.940 ± 0.007
0.893 ± 0.006
0.467 ± 0.012
0.581 ± 0.013
1.246 ± 0.051
10.5 ± 0.18
0.117 ± 0.001
0.42 ± 0.006
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation of localization voxel size on TrajectoryBench, with difficulty breakdown and paired standard errors. Decrease of voxel size generally increases 3D consistency, up to 0.1 × median scene depth. We choose voxel size of 0.1 based on this ablation.
3D consistency
Camera
Video quality
PSNR-V ↑
PSNR-D ↑
PSNR-GS ↑
MVCS ↑
Epipolar ↓
RPE ∘ ↓
RPE trans ↓
VR-VQ ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Base
16.9
16.0
16.9
0.842
1.507
13.2
0.108
0.21
5.09
Local reward
19.2 ± 0.05
18.2 ± 0.05
18.7 ± 0.04
0.893 ± 0.004
1.078 ± 0.034
11.2 ± 0.12
0.116 ± 0.001
0.32 ± 0.004
4.47 ± 0.019
+ interleave
19.2 ± 0.05
18.3 ± 0.05
18.6 ± 0.04
0.897 ± 0.004
1.072 ± 0.034
8.9 ± 0.13
0.107 ± 0.001
0.38 ± 0.004
4.94 ± 0.013
+ global (final)
19.0 ± 0.05
18.2 ± 0.05
18.4 ± 0.04
0.894 ± 0.004
1.111 ± 0.033
8.9 ± 0.13
0.103 ± 0.001
0.37 ± 0.004
5.18 ± 0.010
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation on LoGo recipe with paired standard errors. Using local reward only yields best 3D consistency but worst camera and aesthetics metrics. Adding in reward interleaving improves other metrics, but still degrades HPSv3 compared to the base model. LoGo, which includes both reward interleaving and local-global blending, yields the best overall result.
Figure 9: Visualization of LoGo’s local reward. The red-blue overlay is the normalized score per voxel projected back to image patches - blue means good and red means bad. In this example, a tree that did not exist in earlier is hallucinated in the middle of the video and splits into two. This is caught by LoGo’s local reward component, which concentrates on the tree region, and subsequently fixed by post-training with LoGo.
Figure 10: Effect of voxel size on geometry metric and camera following metrics. Both improve with finer voxel size up till 0.1 × P90 scene depth.
Generating geometrically consistent videos remains an open challenge: text-to-video diffusion models trained on web-scale data treat geometry only implicitly, leading to object deformation, texture drift, and non-rigid backgrounds under camera motion. Existing solutions either improve consistency as a byproduct, apply only to static scenes or realign the latent space of the model completely. We introduce a geometry-consistency reward that directly measures whether motion in a generated video is compatible with a coherent scene. Our key insight is that in physically consistent videos, background motion should be explainable by rigid camera-induced flow, while independently moving objects should preserve appearance identity along motion trajectories. We operationalize this using optical flow, depth--pose predictions, and feature-based correspondence to separate rigid and dynamic regions and evaluate their respective consistency. Integrating this reward with reinforcement fine-tuning transforms geometric consistency from an emergent property into an explicit optimization objective for video generators. The approach is model agnostic and applies to diverse dynamic scenes containing both camera and object motion. Experiments show substantial reductions in temporal geometric artifacts over strong baselines while preserving perceptual quality. Code and model weights are published.
Video world models enable interactive exploration of dynamic environments, yet struggle to respect prior observations over long horizons and across viewpoints. We present WorldCrafter, a video world model that learns a camera-queryable implicit 3D-aware memory for this purpose. The key insight is to let the requested viewpoint shape how multi-view evidence is compressed into the video generator's limited token budget. Trained jointly with the video generator, a memory encoder and pose-conditioned readout module integrate historical observations into a fixed set of target view-specific tokens before denoising, without explicit depth-based correspondences. By combining this memory with recent temporal context and few-step distillation, WorldCrafter enables streaming scene exploration from a single input image or text prompt. Experiments across static and dynamic scenes show substantial gains in long-horizon consistency and camera-control accuracy while preserving visual quality during minute-scale exploration.
Modern image-and-text-to-video diffusion models can synthesize highly realistic videos by iteratively denoising an initial Gaussian noise tensor conditioned on reference image and text inputs. However, existing approaches still lack precise and unified controllability over both object motion and camera motion within a single generation process. We present UniCaMo, a unified framework that enables simultaneous control of object trajectories and camera viewpoints by directly constructing the input noise of the diffusion model. Specifically, UniCaMo builds a shared 3D-grounded motion-consistent noise space across latent video frames. Sparse 3D point tracks are used to warp the Gaussian noise of the reference frame along desired object trajectories, while a virtual spherical noise representation provides globally consistent noise values for newly revealed scene regions under camera motion. By combining local track-guided noise warping with global sphere-based noise sampling, UniCaMo maintains geometric and temporal consistency under both object movement and viewpoint changes. Because UniCaMo modifies only the input noise, it requires no auxiliary adapters, control branches, or architectural changes to the underlying video diffusion model. With lightweight LoRA fine-tuning on large pretrained video diffusion models, including Wan 2.1 (14B), UniCaMo achieves state-of-the-art results in both video quality and motion controllability on standard controllable video generation benchmarks.
Long Vu, Tan Ngo, Animesh Karnewar +5
Qualcomm AI Research · Trinity College Dublin, Ireland