Video reward optimization can increase proxy rewards while reducing video dynamics, a mismatch we identify as motion collapse, including under a video-level motion-quality reward. We propose GraftOOD, which replaces part of the online rollouts in selected prompt groups with out-of-distribution video exemplars. A shared velocity-regression objective combines group-relative reward rectification with sequence-level exemplar supervision, requiring neither exemplar generation trajectories nor an additional supervised-loss coefficient. We characterize its pointwise optimal field as a source-posterior-weighted combination of the two source-specific target fields. We construct GraftSet-Video, containing 9,588 format-matched exemplars for 2,397 prompts, to supply external supervision. On Wan2.1-1.3B, GraftOOD raises Dynamic Degree from 4.86 to 44.41 relative to reward-only FlowAWR, while HPSv3 decreases from 8.10 to 7.32 and VisionReward remains close. At the main setting, GraftOOD leads nine of ten metrics among three exemplar-augmented methods. Ablations of exemplar frequency and within-group count reveal dynamics--reward trade-offs rather than uniform gains from increasing exemplar usage. These results support external exemplar supervision as a complement to scalar reward feedback, without equating higher measured dynamics with coherent, visually plausible motion in the generated videos. Code is available at GraftOOD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Reward-only optimization versus GraftOOD. Same-prompt sequences from reward-only optimization (left) and GraftOOD (right), with frames in temporal order.
Figure 2: GraftOOD motivation and overview. Top: exemplar-guided correction ws(vood−vold⋆) and motion examples. Bottom: (a) HPSv3, (b) Dynamic Degree, and (c) VisionReward during reward optimization. Adding RAFT to HPSv3 mitigates but does not prevent declining dynamics.
Figure 3: GraftSet-Video composition and scores. Source proportions among 9,588 exemplars (left) and mean HPSv3 by source, ranked in descending order (right). Colors match across panels.
Method
AQ
IQ
SC
OC
DD
VR
VQ
MQ
TA
HPSv3
Wan2.1 T2V 1.3B
65.63
66.79
94.58
88.70
48.61
1.26
-0.59
-0.34
-0.66
4.70
Flash-GRPO
67.46
68.10
95.85
90.36
28.67
1.65
-0.69
-0.43
-0.59
5.11
DiffusionNFT
68.30
71.50
97.49
90.9
14.24
5.20
-0.09
0.21
-0.51
7.23
FlowAWR
69.18
71.01
98.48
92.53
4.86
5.11
0.06
0.47
-0.65
8.10
FlashOOD
65.87
67.91
94.68
88.29
58.26
1.65
-0.62
-0.47
-0.50
5.31
NFTOOD
66.10
70.52
96.99
87.91
41.12
3.90
-0.45
-0.25
-0.47
6.55
Table 1: HPSv3 optimization of Wan2.1-1.3B with CFG-enabled evaluation. OOD methods use ρ=0.167 and nood=4 . All metrics are higher-is-better (definitions in Appendix B.2 ). Bold marks column bests among FlashOOD, NFTOOD, and GraftOOD only.
Figure 4: OOD prompt-ratio sweep. (a) HPSv3, (b) DD, and (c) VisionReward with nood=4 at ρ>0 . At ρ=0 , FlashOOD, NFTOOD, and GraftOOD use Flash-GRPO, DiffusionNFT, and FlowAWR, respectively, without introducing external exemplars.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison. Each prompt block shows Vanilla, FlashOOD, NFTOOD, and GraftOOD from top to bottom, with three frames per method in temporal order.
Figure 6: GraftOOD exemplar-count ablation. (a) HPSv3, (b) DD, and (c) VisionReward versus ρ for nood∈{1,2,4} ( G=8 ). Curves share one FlowAWR baseline at ρ=0 .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
System
Videos
wan2_2
2,164
vidu_q2
1,163
seedance_1_5
1,144
kling_2_5
1,098
kling3
915
seedance2
911
Appendix
Table 2: Exemplars by source.
Figure 7: Motion-quality reward and video dynamics. VideoAlign Motion Quality reward (left) and Dynamic Degree (right) during the same reward-optimization run.
Method
AQ
IQ
SC
OC
DD
VR
VQ
MQ
TA
HPSv3
FlashOOD
65.87
67.91
94.68
88.29
58.26
1.65
-0.62
-0.47
-0.50
5.31
NFTOOD
66.10
70.52
96.99
87.91
41.12
3.90
-0.45
-0.25
-0.47
6.55
GraftOOD
67.21
71.26
98.20
90.10
44.41
5.08
-0.25
-0.07
-0.45
7.32
Appendix
Table 3: OOD comparison at ρ=0.167 , nood=4 . Bold marks column bests.
Method
AQ
IQ
SC
OC
DD
VR
VQ
MQ
TA
HPSv3
FlashOOD
65.78
67.17
95.05
88.21
51.60
1.87
-0.52
-0.38
-0.49
5.62
NFTOOD
66.41
69.11
96.95
89.85
43.12
4.04
-0.38
-0.21
-0.46
6.61
GraftOOD
66.34
71.39
97.04
90.19
45.72
4.76
-0.32
-0.14
-0.50
6.94
Appendix
Table 4: OOD comparison at ρ=0.33 , nood=4 . Bold marks column bests.
Method
AQ
IQ
SC
OC
DD
VR
VQ
MQ
TA
HPSv3
FlashOOD
66.10
68.40
94.72
87.10
55.13
1.96
-0.63
-0.49
-0.51
5.68
NFTOOD
66.27
69.01
95.77
89.88
45.36
3.52
-0.37
-0.14
-0.46
6.21
GraftOOD
66.03
69.21
96.75
88.92
48.68
3.97
-0.43
-0.25
-0.39
6.68
Appendix
Table 5: OOD comparison at ρ=0.5 , nood=4 . Bold marks column bests.
ρ
AQ
IQ
SC
OC
DD
VR
VQ
MQ
TA
HPSv3
0
69.18
71.01
98.48
92.53
4.86
5.11
0.06
0.47
-0.65
8.10
0.167
67.21
71.26
98.20
90.10
44.41
5.08
-0.25
-0.07
-0.45
7.32
0.33
66.34
71.39
97.04
90.19
45.72
4.76
-0.32
-0.14
-0.50
6.94
0.5
66.03
69.21
96.75
88.92
48.68
3.97
-0.43
-0.25
-0.39
6.68
Appendix
Table 6: GraftOOD ratio sweep with nood=4 ( G=8 ). The ρ=0 row repeats FlowAWR; positive rows repeat Tables 3 – 5 . Bold marks column bests among positive ratios only.
ρ
AQ
IQ
SC
OC
DD
VR
VQ
MQ
TA
HPSv3
0
69.18
71.01
98.48
92.53
4.86
5.11
0.06
0.47
-0.65
8.10
0.167
66.59
71.29
98.18
90.59
31.41
5.34
-0.03
0.15
-0.53
7.6
0.33
67.57
71.08
98.25
88.26
40.79
4.89
-0.17
0.09
-0.5
7.06
0.5
66.25
69.43
97.17
89.71
45.72
3.9
-0.47
-0.28
-0.47
6.54
Appendix
Table 7: GraftOOD ratio sweep with nood=2 ( G=8 ). The ρ=0 row is the shared FlowAWR baseline. Bold marks column bests among positive ratios only.
ρ
AQ
IQ
SC
OC
DD
VR
VQ
MQ
TA
HPSv3
0
69.18
71.01
98.48
92.53
4.86
5.11
0.06
0.47
-0.65
8.10
0.167
68.21
72.10
98.17
88.38
30.58
5.52
-0.32
-0.13
-0.39
7.74
0.33
67.43
71.23
98.27
90.66
33.93
5.09
-0.13
0.05
-0.57
7.36
0.5
66.81
69.31
98.01
91.48
46.76
4.69
-0.38
-0.17
-0.43
7.13
Appendix
Table 8: GraftOOD ratio sweep with nood=1 ( G=8 ). The ρ=0 row is the shared FlowAWR baseline. Bold marks column bests among positive ratios only.
Figure 8: Additional qualitative comparisons. Each block shows Vanilla, FlashOOD, NFTOOD, and GraftOOD from top to bottom, with three frames in temporal order. Full prompts appear in Appendix D.2 .
Regression-based RL for flow models mandates sampling without classifier-free guidance (CFG) to align the rectification target with the reference marginal velocity. Extending Advantage-Weighted Rectification (AWR), which dynamically scales this regression target based on reward, to video generation encounters a cold-start pathology: unguided rollouts collapse into low-fidelity regions where intra-group reward gaps remain wide but no longer track perceptual quality, rendering the optimization target arbitrary. Conversely, utilizing guided rollouts to restore fidelity, while keeping the regression target tied to the guided sampling distribution, provably triggers a geometric guidance blow-up under exponential-moving-average (EMA) updates. We propose VideoAWR, which resolves this tension by untying sampling from the optimization anchor. An EMA reference policy generates guided rollouts to restore reward separability, while the trainable policy is rectified against the unguided conditional anchor. We prove this decoupled objective is mathematically exact: the centered advantage cancels the anchor in expectation, filtering out the reward-neutral guidance offset and retaining only the reward-correlated covariance increment. Consequently, inference runs single-branch and CFG-free, yet inference-time CFG preserves its original semantics. Furthermore, we introduce Decoupled Timestep Rectification, supervising each rollout at an independently sampled timestep without bias to improve sample efficiency. Experiments on Wan2.1-1.3B and 14B demonstrate stable optimization and superior visual and motion quality in both CFG-free and CFG-enabled regimes. Code is available at \pdfstartlink attr{/Border [0 0 0]} user{/Subtype /Link /A << /S /URI /URI (https://github.com/Fuzm7/FlowAWR) >>}% \textcolor{pearDark}{VideoAWR}\pdfendlink.
Zheming Fu, Wenbin Ning, Ruizhe He +6
Beihang University · Zhongguancun Academy · Joy Future Academy +2
Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) methods for video generation like FlowGRPO remain far less reliable than their counterparts for language models and images. This gap arises because video generation has a complex solution space, and the ODE-to-SDE conversion used for exploration can inject excess noise, lowering rollout quality and making reward estimates less reliable, which destabilizes post-training alignment. To address this problem, we view the pre-trained model as defining a valid video data manifold and formulate the core problem as constraining exploration within the vicinity of this manifold, ensuring that rollout quality is preserved and reward estimates remain reliable. We propose SAGE-GRPO (Stable Alignment via Exploration), which applies constraints at both micro and macro levels. At the micro level, we derive a precise manifold-aware SDE with a logarithmic curvature correction and introduce a gradient norm equalizer to stabilize sampling and updates across timesteps. At the macro level, we use a dual trust region with a periodic moving anchor and stepwise constraints so that the trust region tracks checkpoints that are closer to the manifold and limits long-horizon drift. We evaluate SAGE-GRPO on HunyuanVideo1.5 using the original VideoAlign as the reward model and observe consistent gains over previous methods in VQ, MQ, TA, and visual metrics (CLIPScore, PickScore), demonstrating superior performance in both reward maximization and overall video quality. The code and visual gallery are available at https://dungeonmassster.github.io/SAGE-GRPO-Page/.
Video generation models produce visually coherent content but struggle with tasks requiring spatial reasoning and multi-step planning. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a path to improve generalization, but its effectiveness in video reasoning hinges on reward design -- a challenge that has received little systematic study. We investigate this problem by adapting Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to flow-based video models and training them on maze-solving and robotic navigation tasks. We first show that multimodal reward models fail catastrophically in this setting. To address this, we design verifiable reward functions grounded in objective task metrics. For structured game environments, we introduce a multi-component trajectory reward. For robotic navigation, we propose an embedding-level verifiable reward. Our experiments show that RL fine-tuning with verifiable rewards improves generalization. For example, on complex 3D mazes, our model improves exact match accuracy by 29.1% over the SFT baseline, and on trap-avoidance tasks by 51.4%. Our systematic reward analysis reveals that verifiable rewards are critical for stable training, while multimodal reward models could lead to degenerate solutions. These findings establish verifiable reward design as a key enabler for robust video reasoning. Code will be publicly available.
Ming Liu, Yunbei Zhang, Shilong Liu +2
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA · Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA · Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA