Unified audio-video creation requires a single model capable of text-conditioned joint synthesis, bidirectional cross-modal generation, and instruction-guided editing across both modalities. Existing methods rely heavily on paired corpora, which are scarce for joint generation and even rarer for editing. Consequently, they are spent learning single-branch generative and editing capabilities that abundant unimodal data could readily teach, rather than on the cross-modal coupling. Furthermore, prevailing systems apply a single shared noise schedule to both modalities, neglecting two critical limitations. First, due to the significant discrepancy in information density, video requires prolonged high noise to organize spatial and motion structure, whereas the sparser audio signal can settle earlier during the synthesis process, the dynamics a uniform schedule might compromise. Second, lockstep denoising leaves asymmetric workflows, such as conditioning on one modality to synthesize or edit another, untrained. We present UniAVC, which addresses both obstacles. It first trains each branch on unimodal dataset to full generative and editing competence, and subsequently dedicates paired data to exploit cross-modal correspondence. Modality-decoupled schedulers meanwhile warp the noise schedule independently from a shared timestep, while subtasks with one clean modality directly supervise asymmetric configurations. These settings respectively enable intent-aware editing, which preserves one modality intact while enlisting it to constrain the other, and post-inference self-refinement, which regenerates only an unsatisfactory branch against an accepted one. UniAVC thus spans multiple creation tasks from a single set of weights without task-specific adapters.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: UniAVC performs joint audio-video generation, cross-modal generation in either direction, and instruction-guided editing of either or both modalities from one set of weights.
Figure 2: Single vs. dual noise schedules.
Figure 3: Illustration of the UniAVC framework. (a) Two transformer stacks process video and audio, intersecting exclusively at per-block cross-attention bridges whose modulation is driven by the partner branch’s noise level. Reference latents enter as in-context tokens concatenated to target tokens, with attention masks applied so that reference tokens do not attend to noisy tokens in either self- or cross-attention blocks. (b) Each branch first attains full generative and editing competence on unimodal data in parallel; both branches are subsequently frozen, and the paired corpus is used solely to train the cross-modal bridges.
Stage
Data
Corpus
Seen
Pretrain (V)
gen
14.5 M
33.4 M
edit
0.8 M
0.8 M
total
15.3 M
34.3 M
Pretrain (A)
gen
14.0 M
27.4 M
edit
0.9 M
27.4 M
total
14.9 M
54.9 M
Table 1: Sample budget by stage.
Method
JAVEditBench
InsAVE-80K
VQ ↑
AQ ↑
AVS ↑
IC ↑
VF ↑
AVQ ↑
FVD ↓
TV-A ↑
FAD ↓
TA-A ↑
AV-A ↑
PEAVS ↑
AVED
0.0590
1.72
0.1641
2.95
3.87
2.93
305.41
24.68
2.86
29.89
26.44
3.15
AVI-Edit
0.0604
2.34
0.2721
3.49
3.89
3.86
205.34
25.15
5.09
30.07
26.37
2.54
Cascaded
0.0563
2.35
0.2925
3.99
4.08
3.51
326.63
25.18
8.01
32.47
22.67
3.20
JAVEdit †
0.0596
2.42
0.3688
4.07
4.22
3.88
–
–
–
–
–
–
InstructAV2AV
0.0588
1.40
0.1759
2.88
3.93
3.61
180.38
25.23
2.75
34.96
27.72
3.24
Table 2: Quantitative comparisons for joint audio-video editing on JAVEditBench and the test split of InsAVE-80K. Column names abbreviate each benchmark’s official metrics for brevity. † denotes results retrieved from ( Chen et al., 2026c ) . Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Method
MS ↑
AS ↑
PQ ↑
CS ↑
LSE-C ↑
WER ↓
Joint Audio-Video
UniVerse-1
0.20
0.47
5.20
0.16
1.62
0.18
JavisDiT
0.27
0.42
5.49
0.19
0.85
1.00
Ovi
0.55
0.47
6.20
0.20
6.61
0.12
JoVA †
0.75
0.49
6.23
0.29
6.65
0.11
LTX-2.3
0.37
0.34
6.21
0.26
4.07
0.09
Table 3: Quantitative comparisons for joint generation on Verse-Bench (Left), and cross-modal generation on VGGSound test split (Right). † denotes results retrieved from ( Huang et al., 2025 ) . Best results are in bold and second best are underlined .
Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons for joint editing on JAVEditBench.
Setting
VQ ↑
AQ ↑
AVS ↑
IC ↑
VF ↑
AVQ ↑
Training paradigm
Single-stage
0.0584
2.27
0.2446
4.21
4.24
3.53
Progressive
0.0599
2.59
0.2975
4.42
4.48
3.85
Inference mode
Base
0.0584
2.37
0.2643
4.22
4.31
3.68
Intent-aware
0.0596
2.53
0.2728
4.31
4.39
3.75
Self-refinement
0.0592
2.52
0.2643
4.39
4.43
3.75
Full
0.0599
2.59
0.2975
4.42
4.48
3.85
Table 4: Ablation study on JAVEditBench.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage
Task
Source
Corpus
Prob.
Seen
Unimodal Pretraining (V)
T2I
Boogu-Image
9.5 M
0.33
16.3 M
TI2I
Boogu-Image
3.4 M
0.33
16.3 M
T2V
Proprietary
1.6 M
0.17
0.8 M
TV2V
Ditto, OpenVE-3M
0.8 M
0.17
0.8 M
stage total
15.3 M
34.3 M
Unimodal Pretraining (A)
T2A
sound: AudioSet, VGGSound, WavCaps
2.2 M
0.50
27.4 M
Appendix
Table A1: Detailed decomposition of training pools by stage. “Seen” is the number of samples the optimizer consumes during training.
Figure A1: Qualitative results for joint audio-video generation on VerseBench. Captions are omitted for brevity.
Figure A2: Additional qualitative comparisons for joint editing on JAVEditBench.
Figure A3: Inference modes: intent-aware editing preserves the pinned stream unchanged, while self-refinement improves one branch against the accepted other.
Figure A4: Audio-video editing versatility of UniAVC across five task families.
Metric
Method
Overall
Subject
Background
Speech
Subject
Subject
Editing
Editing
Editing
Addition
Removal
VQ ↑
AVED
0.0590
0.0603
0.0612
0.0603
0.0551
0.0562
AVI-Edit
0.0604
0.0625
0.0650
0.0599
0.0492
0.0638
JAVEdit
0.0596
0.0609
0.0636
0.0625
0.0633
0.0447
InstructAV2AV
0.0588
0.0620
0.0618
0.0619
0.0417
0.0628
MiniMax-H3
0.0605
0.0609
0.0618
0.0614
0.0618
0.0557
Appendix
Table A2: Per-task results on JAVEditBench. Best per column in bold and second best underlined .