Making MLLM Latents Matter: Factor-Aware Predictive Learning for Cinematic Video Generation
Organizations: Tencent Video · LIX, École Polytechnique
Abstract
Cinematic video generation requires both temporal inference from limited inputs (i.e., sparse rather than frame-by-frame guidance) and factor-aware control of character, scene, action, and camera. Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) offer useful priors for both capabilities, but their representations are not automatically actionable for video generation: a Video Diffusion Transformer (DiT) may bypass them through native conditioning pathways, and using them does not ensure either factor-aware control or generation-compatible temporal prediction. We propose Factor-Aware Predictive Learning (FAPL), which establishes effective MLLM latent use as a shared prerequisite and then targets the two capabilities with complementary learning signals. First, latent-only generator grounding trains the DiT with a frozen MLLM and connector, strengthening the DiT's use of MLLM latents for generation. Second, for factor-aware control, paired videos specify a target-factor change and non-target preservation, and factor-span replacement trains the DiT to realize this relationship in its output. Third, for temporal inference, text-only and text-plus-complete-video observations share a video target, and the trained DiT is then frozen while the MLLM and connector are optimized through it. This final stage trains limited-input representations for generation while retaining complete-observation reconstruction as a complementary training mode. Extensive experiments demonstrate our consistently better performance on three cinematic video generation tasks (i.e., sparse-to-video, factor-aware editing, and multi-shot generation) over baselines and validate FAPL's contributions to MLLM feature use, temporal control, and factor coordination.
Figures & tables
| Sparse-to-Video | Factor-Aware Editing | Multi-Shot Consistency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Motion Order (%) | Trans. Error | Rot. Error (rad) | -Acc (%) | Subject | Scene | FaceSim-Arc |
| Omni-Video 2 (1.3B) | 33 | 0.1084 | 1.87 | 28 | 0.435 | 0.373 | 0.412 |
| Omni-Video 2 (14B) | 43 | 0.0817 | 1.49 | 37 | 0.476 | 0.423 | 0.468 |
| UniVideo (13B) | 48 | 0.0763 | 1.54 | 42 | 0.462 | 0.427 | 0.451 |
| FAPL (Ours) | 61 | 0.0586 | 1.02 | 58 | 0.516 | 0.471 | 0.523 |
| Exp Index | Training Configuration | Motion Order (%) | Trans. Error | Rot. Error (rad) | -Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Pretrained UniVideo | 48 | 0.0763 | 1.54 | 42 |
| 1 | Stage I only | 54 | 0.0708 | 1.38 | 44 |
| 2 | Stage II: training without factor swapping (based on Exp. 1) | 54 | 0.0654 | 1.30 | 48 |
| 3 | Stage II: training with factor swapping (based on Exp. 1) | 53 | 0.0671 | 1.32 | 57 |
| 4 | Stage III: text-only training (based on Exp. 3) | 57 | 0.0629 | 1.26 | 56 |
| 5 | Stage III: (Full FAPL) mixed-observation training (based on Exp. 3) | 61 | 0.0586 | 1.02 | 58 |