Recent advances in video generation have achieved impressive visual quality, yet they often fail to produce physically consistent dynamics due to the lack of explicit modeling of underlying physical processes. Existing approaches either rely on simulators with strong assumptions or use coarse semantic guidance, and further struggle to effectively inject physical priors into generation models. In this work, we propose Seeing the Unseen, a unified framework for physics-grounded video generation. Our approach decomposes the problem into two stages: learning physical dynamics and injecting them into video synthesis. First, we introduce a lightweight Particle-based Graph Dynamics Simulator (PGDS) that learns generalizable physical interactions from data and predicts plausible 3D motion trajectories. Second, we propose a Visible--Invisible Motion Field (VIMF) that captures both motion observable in the input frame and motion that emerges over time due to object dynamics. This representation enables more complete and structured motion guidance compared to conventional physical signals. By integrating these trajectories into a diffusion-based generator, our method produces videos that are both visually coherent and physically consistent. Extensive experiments demonstrate improved motion accuracy, interaction consistency, and reduced physical artifacts compared to strong baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Seeing the Unseen. Our framework predicts physically consistent motion from a single image by modeling both reference-visible and future-emergent trajectories. By reasoning about occluded dynamics and structured interactions, it enables accurate simulation of complex events such as collisions and domino chains.
Figure 2: Overview of our proposed framework. Given an input image, we first lift it into a 3D scene particle representation. A particle-based graph dynamics simulator then predicts physically plausible 3D motion trajectories, which are rendered into reference-visible and future-emergent motions to guide physically consistent video generation.
Figure 3: Architecture of the physics-guided video generation model. The visible and future visible motion fields are encoded by a frozen 3D VAE and concatenated with the noisy video latent along the channel dimension. A zero-initialized injection strategy preserves the pretrained model behavior while progressively incorporating motion guidance.
Method
Domino
Collision
Free Fall
Coll.+Dom.
F.F.+Dom.
F.F.+Coll.
Translation
SA
PC
SA
PC
SA
PC
SA
PC
SA
PC
SA
PC
SA
PC
Open-source Video Generation Models
Wan2.2-I2V-14B
2.483
3.017
2.750
3.083
2.317
3.033
2.217
3.050
2.533
2.950
2.517
3.000
3.000
4.000
Wan2.2-TI2V-5B
2.650
3.033
2.917
3.067
2.183
3.083
2.200
3.033
2.467
3.033
2.183
3.083
3.000
4.100
HunyuanVideo-1.5
2.550
3.017
2.867
3.067
2.317
3.017
2.233
3.000
2.617
2.950
2.467
3.000
3.050
3.933
CogVideoX1.5-5B
2.450
3.200
2.833
3.017
2.333
3.000
2.300
2.983
2.650
3.000
2.333
3.000
3.050
3.933
Table 1: Quantitative results on seven physical video generation scenarios. Best results are bold . “–” indicates unsupported cases.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison with existing methods. Our method produces physically plausible dynamics with accurate object interactions (e.g., correct collision responses and domino chain propagation), while baseline models frequently exhibit artifacts such as object interpenetration, implausible motion trajectories, or failure to trigger expected physical events.
Table 4: PGDS motion prediction on seven Physion++ test scenarios. Vel. RMSE is the root mean squared particle velocity error over complete rollouts. Acc-V reports the percentage of particles meeting strict ( 0.05 m/s or 5% ) or relaxed ( 0.10 m/s or 10% ) velocity-error thresholds. Kinetic-energy bias is (Epred−EGT)/EGT×100% .
Method
Type
Manual Phys.
Precise 3D
Total Runtime
Unseen
Params ↓
Mesh
(incl. manual tuning) ↓
Shapes
PhysGen [ 31 ]
Simulator
∼ 6–10
Required
∼ 10 min
Limited
PhysMotion [ 46 ]
Simulator
∼ 6–8
Required
∼ 10 min
Limited
PhysGen3D [ 8 ]
Simulator
∼ 5–7
Required
∼ 10 min
Limited
PhysCtrl [ 50 ]
Data-driven
∼ 3–5
Partial
∼ 8 min
Moderate
NewtonGen [ 63 ]
Data-driven
∼ 2–3
Not required
∼ 6 min
Limited
Table 5: Configuration efficiency of trajectory generation methods. We compare setup cost and generalization with time and parameter estimates from public implementations.
Figure 5: Pairwise human evaluation comparing our method against baseline models. For each comparison, human annotators judge which method produces better results across three criteria: (a) instruction-following, measuring how faithfully the generated video adheres to the given text prompt; (b) video quality, assessing visual fidelity, temporal coherence, and artifact severity; and (c) overall preference. Results are reported as win/tie/lose rates (%).
Method
Domino
Collision
Free Fall
Translation
SA
PC
SA
PC
SA
PC
SA
PC
Go with Flow [ 5 ]
2.583
3.389
3.275
3.691
3.670
3.928
3.568
4.419
Wan-Move [ 12 ]
2.672
3.351
3.594
3.771
3.892
4.017
4.167
4.602
Diffusion as Shader [ 21 ]
2.640
3.295
3.697
3.829
3.764
3.923
3.821
4.493
Ours (visible-only)
2.693
3.348
3.693
3.717
3.972
4.004
3.837
4.521
Ours (full)
3.976
4.013
4.160
4.394
4.347
4.328
4.013
4.578
Table 6: Comparison of physical prior injection strategies and the visible-only ablation across four scenarios. Our visible-only and full variants use the same diffusion backbone; the full variant uses both reference-visible and future-emergent tracking videos. Best results are bold .
Figure 6: Comparison with different physical prior injection methods.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Architecture of the Particle-based Graph Dynamics Simulator (PGDS). The simulator follows an Encode–Process–Decode pipeline. Given particle states, a graph is first constructed based on spatial proximity. Node and edge features are encoded to capture material properties and geometric relations. A message-passing processor then iteratively propagates interaction effects across the graph. Finally, a decoder predicts particle velocities, which are used to update positions and roll out future dynamics.
Figure 8: Unified motion encoding and injection pipeline. The visible tracking video Vvis and future-visible tracking video Vfv are encoded using a frozen 3D VAE to obtain two latent sequences. These are concatenated with the noisy video latent to form a multi-channel input to the diffusion transformer. To preserve pretrained behavior, the patch embedding weights corresponding to tracking channels are zero-initialized, while the original weights are copied from the pretrained model. The first frame is injected via noise replacement to provide appearance conditioning.
Stage
Component
1 Object
3 Objects
5 Objects
Peak VRAM
S1
3D lifting (segmentation + monocular depth + single-image 3D reconstruction)
10.1 s
15.8 s
24.7 s
28.7–40.8 GiB
S2
Mesh-to-particle conversion
4.0 s
4.9 s
5.1 s
<1.2 GiB
S2
PGDS simulation
1.3 s
1.3 s
1.3 s
526 MiB
S3
VIMF dual-stream tracking rendering
15.9 s
16.0 s
15.9 s
<1.5 GiB
S4
Video diffusion generation (Ours)
150.6 s
151.0 s
150.6 s
39.67 GiB
End-to-end total
181.9 s
189.0 s
197.6 s
40.8 GiB
Appendix
Table 7: End-to-end runtime and peak GPU memory usage on a single NVIDIA H200 GPU. The total covers stages S1–S4.
Metric
Base TI2V-5B
Ours
Additional Overhead
Peak VRAM
39.59 GiB
39.67 GiB
+84 MiB
35 denoising steps
133.54 s
133.74 s
+0.20 s
Dual-stream tracking encoding
–
5.95 s
+5.95 s
Total generation time
144.20 s
150.28 s
+6.08 s ( +4.3% )
Appendix
Table 8: Additional cost of dual-stream conditioning in the video-generation stage on a single NVIDIA H200 GPU. The backbone and our model use 48 and 144 input latent channels, respectively.
Figure 9: Ablation on future-emergent motion signals. Top: our full model with both reference-visible and future-emergent tracking signals. Bottom: model using only reference-visible tracking.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of domino motion.
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison on free fall & collision motion.
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of free-fall motion.
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of collision motion.
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison of translation motion.
Scenario
Ours (clean)
Ours (Tracks)
Ours (Objects)
Ours (Both)
Wan2.2 TI2V-5B
Domino
3.976 / 4.013
3.777 / 3.852
3.578 / 3.732
3.459 / 3.612
2.650 / 3.033
Collision
4.160 / 4.394
3.952 / 4.218
3.744 / 4.086
3.619 / 3.955
2.917 / 3.067
Free Fall
4.347 / 4.328
4.130 / 4.155
4.086 / 4.155
3.912 / 4.025
2.183 / 3.083
Coll.+Dom.
3.854 / 4.016
3.661 / 3.855
3.469 / 3.735
3.353 / 3.614
2.200 / 3.033
F.F.+Dom.
3.985 / 4.017
3.786 / 3.856
3.587 / 3.736
3.467 / 3.615
2.467 / 3.033
F.F.+Coll.
4.327 / 4.589
4.111 / 4.405
3.894 / 4.268
3.764 / 4.130
2.183 / 3.083
Appendix
Table 9: Robustness to incomplete motion guidance and upstream perception errors. Each entry reports SA / PC ( ↑ ). The Tracks variant drops approximately 25% of object tracks, the Objects variant removes 1 – 2 segmented objects, and Both applies both perturbations. Coll., Dom., and F.F. denote Collision, Domino, and Free Fall. Δ reports the relative change in average SA / PC (%) with respect to the clean full pipeline.
Physical consistency in video generation studies how to make and evaluate videos whose geometry, motion, interactions, and state changes obey real-world laws.
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarland Informatics Campus · Saarbrücken Research Center for Visual Computing, Interaction and Artificial Intelligence · Singapore University of Technology and Design +2
the State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · the School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Zhongguancun Academy +4