Adding control to video generation often requires training, which demands additional computational resources, data, or architectural changes. We propose a training-free approach that utilizes pretrained video diffusion models to control object layout and motion using coarse layouts. Our method operates in two passes: first, it steers spatiotemporal placement through prompt-guided cross-attention to produce a coarse visual guide; second, this guide conditions the same model to generate a high-quality, layoutconsistent video. The approach enables coordinated motion with strong temporal consistency, supporting diverse trajectories and object interactions without additional training. Extensive experiments show that our method consistently outperforms prior work in overlap and trajectory accuracy, as well as visual quality across static, dynamic, and multi-object scene settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. We steer the output (right) of a pre-trained video diffusion model towards a given layout (left) without training. Guiding a video using layout and text.
Figure 2. Overview of our training-free layout-guided video synthesis pipeline. Given a text prompt and spatiotemporal layout constraints, we first perform Layout Generation, where the latents of a frozen text-to-video diffusion model are optimized using a cross-attention-based layout loss. This latent refinement process aligns token-specific attention with the target layout and produces a coarse spatiotemporal guiding video in latent space. Next, after the guide is optionally spatially and/or temporally upsampled, we render the final video: the guiding video is injected at an early timestep into the video diffusion pipeline. This second stage refines appearance and details while preserving the imposed layout and motion, yielding the final high-quality video. A diagram of a training-free layout-guided video synthesis pipeline.
Figure 3. The guide (left) is of low visual quality but adheres to layout, the refined video (right) improves the visual quality and maintains layout adherence. Comparison of two generated outputs of a coarse guide and a refined video. Both show a goat climbing down rocks in a slalom motion.
Figure 4. Outputs of Text-to-Video (T2V) and our method (Ours) across different backbone models (LTX-2, WAN 2.2), together with the corresponding attention maps extracted from an intermediate timestep. Attempting to control layout via textual prompt (underlined) fails, whereas controlling the attention map results in a video that corresponds to the desired layouts (orange/blue bounding boxes). Comparing attention maps and their corresponding outputs.
Figure 5. Comparison of different learning rates during optimization. In each section, guide (top) and refined (bottom) videos are shown. The left column (low learning rate) produces guide videos with weaker adherence to the intended layout (indicated by orange squares). In contrast, the right column (high learning rate) achieves stronger layout adherence, but at the cost of reduced visual quality. Comparison of generated videos of different learning rates, the videos show a person on a bicycle riding from left to right of frame.
Guide
Refined
IoU ( ↑ )
AP50 ( ↑ )
CD ( ↓ )
I. ( ↑ )
I-AP50 ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
ClipSim ( ↑ )
IoU ( ↑ )
AP50 ( ↑ )
CD ( ↓ )
I. ( ↑ )
I-AP50 ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
ClipSim ( ↑ )
STATIC
PEEKABOO
17.02
8.80
24.74
45.17
45.10
139.00
30.98
19.45
4.37
18.96
58.76
66.71
132.92
29.14
FreeTraj
18.80
12.87
22.05
45.46
44.64
178.25
26.62
19.47
5.71
17.08
53.93
57.56
126.75
30.20
TrailBlazer
20.32
12.40
20.65
46.98
45.97
151.23
30.30
16.95
5.37
19.42
44.65
45.13
126.76
30.26
TrailBlazer (Wan 2.2)
21.76
13.51
18.18
55.10
56.76
148.06
28.73
21.25
13.75
18.89
55.98
56.03
140.14
28.75
Table 1. Quantitative comparison with prior training-free layout-guided methods across datasets. IoU and AP50 measure overlap accuracy. CD, I., and I-AP50 measure trajectory accuracy. FVD and ClipSim measure visual quality. Our framework achieves superior spatial alignment and trajectory consistency on all metrics. Notably, Wan 2.2 excels in guide-stage performance, while LTX-2 provides comparable or stronger refined results.
Method
STATIC
DYNAMIC
MULTI
Prompt ( ↑ )
Layout ( ↑ )
VQ ( ↑ )
Prompt ( ↑ )
Layout ( ↑ )
VQ ( ↑ )
Prompt ( ↑ )
Layout ( ↑ )
VQ ( ↑ )
T2V
8.00 ± 1.76
6.50 ± 1.96
7.00 ± 1.24
9.25 ± 1.52
0.60 ± 1.11
7.75 ± 3.53
8.21 ± 0.90
3.62 ± 1.41
7.92 ± 1.06
PEEKABOO
5.00 ± 1.26
4.15 ± 1.13
3.58 ± 1.15
4.84 ± 1.34
1.19 ± 0.49
2.64 ± 0.92
N/A
N/A
N/A
TrailBlazer
5.38 ± 1.36
4.15 ± 1.27
4.25 ± 1.37
1.60 ± 0.76
4.15 ± 1.59
1.48 ± 0.57
0.83 ± 0.75
1.39 ± 0.89
1.54 ± 0.92
FreeTraj
2.58 ± 0.95
3.77 ± 1.31
1.62 ± 0.55
2.92 ± 0.95
4.46 ± 1.37
1.96 ± 0.69
N/A
N/A
N/A
PEEKABOO [refined]
7.33 ± 0.86
6.08 ± 1.14
7.25 ± 0.96
5.68 ± 1.49
1.39 ± 0.91
5.72 ± 1.06
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table 2. User study results (mean score ± confidence interval with 95% confidence level) across prompt adherence (Prompt), layout adherence (Layout), and visual quality (VQ). T2V excels in visual quality and prompt adherence but shows poor layout adherence. Our method achieves the strongest layout adherence while remaining competitive in prompt alignment and visual quality.
Range
# layers
Guide
Refined
IoU ( ↑ )
AP50 ( ↑ )
CD ( ↓ )
I. ( ↑ )
I-AP50 ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
ClipSim ( ↑ )
IoU ( ↑ )
AP50 ( ↑ )
CD ( ↓ )
I. ( ↑ )
I-AP50 ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
ClipSim ( ↑ )
0-10
3
33.82
17.35
8.31
86.15
90.65
173.48
29.69
27.84
12.61
11.18
74.00
78.66
157.01
30.22
10
35.54
20.34
8.87
87.18
91.77
171.70
29.38
26.79
11.38
12.54
71.70
76.01
151.17
29.60
10-20
3
31.94
19.73
10.52
82.04
89.18
161.22
29.15
24.83
11.61
13.61
69.72
75.84
150.15
30.33
10
25.49
10.88
14.12
72.42
75.65
156.44
29.74
19.64
6.24
16.66
58.56
62.59
145.02
29.97
20-30
3
16.56
1.91
21.42
51.48
53.81
162.91
29.45
15.70
2.18
21.06
48.33
50.43
150.00
30.02
Table 3. Ablation study on the contribution of different layers to layout adherence. Tested on Wan 2.2. The results indicate that earlier layers perform better.
Resolution (Guide/Refined)
Inference Time
Guide
Refined
Guide/Refined
Backb.
IoU ( ↑ )
AP50 ( ↑ )
CD ( ↓ )
I. ( ↑ )
I-AP50 ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
ClipSim ( ↑ )
IoU ( ↑ )
AP50 ( ↑ )
CD ( ↓ )
I. ( ↑ )
I-AP50 ( ↑ )
FVD ( ↓ )
ClipSim ( ↑ )
Wan
160 × 49/320 × 49
00:36/01:10
01:13
37.01
24.15
7.82
86.00
92.48
174.01
28.94
22.67
10.31
15.23
57.75
62.72
156.44
30.60
160 × 49/320 × 81
00:36/01:59
02:07
37.31
24.32
8.02
87.38
94.18
171.82
28.79
25.63
11.44
12.48
69.80
74.63
148.28
30.43
160 × 81/320 × 81
00:50/01:59
02:07
37.54
24.69
8.63
87.22
91.13
181.94
29.09
24.90
9.42
13.49
69.85
72.49
152.32
30.38
320 × 49/320 × 81
01:55/01:59
02:07
46.74
40.75
5.73
89.49
94.59
185.68
27.48
28.20
12.72
11.30
71.27
75.64
158.87
30.61
320 × 81/320 × 81
03:21/01:59
02:07
48.88
46.40
5.34
90.34
96.32
181.73
26.66
27.62
14.55
10.77
71.41
74.12
163.21
30.35
Table 4. Ablation study of resolution contributions to layout adherence. Resolution is denoted as spatialheight×temporal resolution. Inference time of guide and refinement stages are compared to that of the backbone model. Focusing on the refined block (right) of the Wan model (top), the results indicate that it is generally better to generate the refined video at a higher resolution. At the highest resolution ( 480×81 ) it is preferable in terms of trajectory accuracy (CD, I, I-AP50) to generate the respective guide at the lowest resolution (row 6), with negligible decrease in overlap accuracy (IoU, AP50).
Figure 6. Comparison between the video guide generated using an ensemble of Text-to-Image methods (left) and the refined video produced by a pre-trained video model (right). The guide fails to capture the interaction between the boy and the scarf: the hands remain static instead of grasping and moving the scarf, resulting in motion that lacks coordination between the objects. Side-by-side comparison of guide and refined video frames of a boy lifting a scarf over his head.
Figure 7. Comparison of our refined video (Ours) against competing methods. Left: dynamic object layout. While T2V produces high-quality visuals, it does not follow the layout. Trailblazer (TB) and FreeTraj (FT) introduce bicycle artifacts, and Peekaboo (Peek.) shows weaker alignment. Right: multiple-object layout; empty frames indicate unsupported methods. Remaining methods fail to maintain spatial and temporal consistency: the explosion occurs prematurely, and the person does not follow the left-to-right trajectory specified by the blue box. Comparison of outputs of different methods from 2 different datasets: Dynamic and Multi. The first example is of a bicyclist riding from right to left, the second example is of a man walking from left to right, and an explosion happens in the background.
Figure 8. Additional applications of our method. Left: video editing, where the input video is transformed according to the text prompt. Right: stylization, where only selected semantic elements retain color while the rest of the scene remains monochrome. Side-by-side comparison of two applications. Left: a Joker video edited so his hair appears on fire. Right: a film noir stylization where only a woman's red dress remains colored.
Diffusion Transformer Text-to-Video models have achieved remarkable synthesis quality, yet fine-grained spatial controllability remains a significant challenge. While existing training-free methods produce solid overall results in spatially grounded generation, \ie, placing a specific object in a designated location, they rely on gradient-based optimization techniques that incur prohibitive computational overhead, a bottleneck amplified in modern large-scale architectures. To address this limitation, we present Gradient-free Analytical Trajectory Optimization Video Generation (GATO-Vid), a novel training-free and gradient-free approach for precise spatial guidance. Rather than relying on costly backward passes, we introduce an alternative cross-attention score and solve it analytically to obtain an exact, closed-form solution. To use our analytical solution, we propose an on-the-fly injection mechanism tailored to the topological manifold of the transformer's latent space. Our experiments demonstrate that GATO-Vid significantly outperforms existing baselines in localization accuracy while introducing minimal computational overhead.
Guillaume Jeanneret, Mathis Koroglu, Hugo Caselles-Dupré +2
ISIR - Sorbonne Université, France · Obvious Research, France · Valeo.ai, France
Precise 3D spatial orchestration in text-to-video generation remains a significant challenge, particularly for multi-object scenes where semantic layout and temporal dynamics are often entangled. While existing depth-conditioned models achieve good structural fidelity, they necessitate dense, frame-accurate guidance that is labor-intensive to author for dynamic events involving deformable objects. We present LooseControlVideo, a framework that enables intuitive and expressive control by using sparse, oriented 3D boxes as a "blocking" proxy. This allows users to author high-level layout and trajectory while leveraging a video generative model to generate realistic occlusions, dynamics and interactions. We achieve this by fine-tuning a Wan 2.2 backbone on a video dataset annotated with DNOCS, a novel encoding for 3D size, orientation and depth-ordered occlusions. Furthermore, our method allows for localized refinement, such as adjusting a jump trajectory or adding an interaction, with minimal disruption to the global scene context. Extensive evaluations on the nuScenes, HO-3D, and BEHAVE benchmarks demonstrate that LooseControlVideo significantly outperforms existing 2D-box and flow-based baselines. Our findings indicate a 1.2x to 3x improvement in Trajectory Error; 2x improvement in Rigid Motion Consistency; and a 1.5x to 2x increase in Occlusion Accuracy over current state-of-the-art layout-conditioned models, demonstrating that oriented 3D primitives provide good geometric prior for complex, multi-agent video authoring.
Shariq Farooq Bhat, Niloy J. Mitra, Kalyan Sunkavalli
We ask how little geometry a person has to draw to control both where people stand and where the camera moves in a generated video. Our answer is a ground plane and one cylinder per person. A user draws a grid on the ground, places one cylinder where each person should stand, moves the cylinders and the camera over 81 frames, and the model renders a photoreal video in which the people occupy the cylinders' positions, move as the cylinders move, and are seen from the drawn camera. Appearance comes from a text prompt and a background reference image; layout and motion come from the geometry. Because no dataset pairs such a signal with video, we build the pairs ourselves: an automatic engine writes 2000 captions from a combinatorial seed, generates a clip for each with a text-to-video model, and lifts every clip back to its geometry with person tracking, background inpainting, an agentic ground-mask loop, feed-forward multi-view reconstruction and a plane fit, with no real footage and no manual labels. A LoRA on Wan2.2-Fun-Control trained on 1935 such tuples follows drawn layouts and camera paths on hold-out clips: the generated people match the cylinders' count, order, position and height, the text changes who they are, the reference image changes where they are, and dolly-in, orbit, pan and crane paths are followed, dolly-out only weakly.