Relax Forcing: Relaxed KV-Memory for Consistent Long Video Generation
Organizations: Queen Mary University of London · Imperial College London · Huawei R&D UK
Abstract
Autoregressive video diffusion has recently emerged as a promising paradigm for long-video generation, enabling causal synthesis beyond the temporal limits of bidirectional models. Existing forcing-based training strategies reduce exposure bias by conditioning models on their own predictions during rollout, yet minute-scale generation remains challenging due to progressive temporal degradation and constrained motion evolution. In this work, we study the role of temporal KV memory during long-horizon autoregressive inference. Our analysis shows that simply retaining more historical frames does not consistently improve generation quality; instead, both the quantity and temporal placement of memory strongly affect motion dynamics. These findings suggest that temporal memory should be treated as structured context rather than a homogeneous chronological buffer. Motivated by this observation, we introduce Relax Forcing, a training-free memory mechanism for autoregressive video diffusion. Relax Forcing decomposes temporal context into three functional components: Sink frames that provide global stability, Tail frames that preserve short-term continuity, and dynamically selected History frames that supply mid-range motion structure. History frames are selected using a relaxation-based criterion that encourages alignment with global anchors while suppressing redundancy with recent context. This role-aware sparse memory design mitigates error accumulation during long-horizon rollout while preserving motion evolution and reducing attention overhead. Experiments on VBench-Long show that Relax Forcing improves long-video generation, achieving stronger motion dynamics and higher overall scores than existing autoregressive baselines. These results indicate that structured temporal memory is an effective and complementary direction for scalable long-video generation.
Figures & tables
| Methods | Training Free | Throughput (FPS) | Subject Consistency | Background Consistency | Aesthetic Quality | Imaging Quality | Motion Smoothness | Dynamic Degree | Average |
| 30 seconds | |||||||||
| CausVid [ 36 ] [CVPR’25] | 15.78 | 97.92 | 96.77 | 59.77 | 66.36 | 98.08 | 47.21 | 77.69 | |
| Self Forcing [ 13 ] [NeurIPS’25] | 15.78 | 97.34 | 96.47 | 59.44 | 68.58 | 98.63 | 36.62 | 76.18 | |
| Rolling Forcing [ 20 ] [ICLR’26] | 15.75 | 98.07 | 96.84 | 60.75 | 70.73 | 98.74 | 32.71 | 76.31 | |
| LongLive [ 31 ] [ICLR’26] | 18.16 | 97.97 | 96.83 | 61.51 | 69.07 | 98.76 | 45.55 | 78.28 | |
| Deep Forcing [ 35 ] [ICML’26] | 15.79 | 97.34 | 96.48 | 60.68 | 69.31 | 98.27 | 57.56 | 79.94 | |
| Methods | Subject Consistency | Background Consistency | Aesthetic Quality | Imaging Quality | Motion Smoothness | Dynamic Degree | Average |
| Baseline (Self Forcing) | 97.22 | 96.39 | 59.18 | 68.43 | 98.39 | 39.38 | 76.50 |
| + Full Attention | 97.25 | 96.60 | 59.22 | 66.43 | 98.29 | 45.03 | 77.14 |
| + Attention Sink | 97.18 | 96.40 | 59.80 | 68.58 | 98.32 | 54.37 | 79.11 |
| + Relaxed KV Memory (Ours) | 96.99 | 96.12 | 60.13 | 68.50 | 97.80 | 65.67 | 80.87 |
| Component | Size | Subject Consistency | Background Consistency | Aesthetic Quality | Imaging Quality | Motion Smoothness | Dynamic Degree | Overall |
| Sink | 0 | 95.84 | 95.26 | 58.92 | 67.56 | 97.68 | 54.93 | 78.36 |
| 1 | 96.85 | 95.98 | 59.29 | 68.66 | 97.80 | 63.54 | 80.36 | |
| 2 | 96.99 | 96.13 | 60.12 | 68.50 | 97.80 | 65.62 | 80.86 | |
| 3 | 97.46 | 96.46 | 60.87 | 69.12 | 98.13 | 58.55 | 80.10 | |
| History | 0 | 96.98 | 96.10 | 60.33 | 68.53 | 97.81 | 61.15 | 80.15 |
| 1 | 96.99 | 96.13 | 60.12 | 68.50 | 97.80 | 65.62 | 80.86 |
| Methods | Imaging Quality | Dynamic Degree | Overall | Drift | Repetition | Balance |
| Baseline (Self Forcing) | 68.58 | 36.62 | 76.18 | 2.70 | 81.34 | 1.000 |
| Random Sampling | 68.55 | 62.47 | 80.42 | 2.15 | 83.59 | 0.805 |
| Fixed-Positional Sampling | 68.51 | 64.22 | 80.59 | 2.18 | 83.16 | 0.768 |
| Attention-Based Sampling | 68.80 | 63.18 | 80.54 | 2.17 | 83.20 | 0.765 |
| First-Half Sampling | 68.83 | 59.76 | 80.27 | 1.68 | 87.87 | 1.000 |
| Relax Forcing (Ours) | 68.50 | 65.67 | 80.87 | 2.13 | 83.33 | 0.745 |
| Methods | Subject Consistency | Background Consistency | Aesthetic Quality | Imaging Quality | Motion Smoothness | Dynamic Degree | Average |
| Self Forcing | 97.34 | 96.47 | 59.44 | 68.58 | 98.63 | 36.62 | 76.18 |
| + Relax Forcing w/o Hybrid RoPE | 96.71 | 95.96 | 59.92 | 67.84 | 98.03 | 60.06 | 79.76 |
| + Relax Forcing w/ Hybrid RoPE | 96.99 | 96.13 | 60.18 | 68.51 | 97.80 | 65.65 | 80.88 |
| Metric | Baseline (21f) | Relax Forcing (7f) | Speedup |
| Flash Attention | 444.2 ms | 168.1 ms | 2.64 |
| KV Select + RoPE | 125.5 ms | 114.1 ms | 1.10 |
| Candidate Scoring | 0.0 ms | 3.4 ms | – |
| KV Cache Management | 13.0 ms | 49.5 ms | 0.26 |
| Total Self-Attention | 678.5 ms | 430.8 ms | 1.58 |
| Block Generation Time | 848 ms | 627 ms | 1.35 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| History Position | Subject Consistency | Background Consistency | Aesthetic Quality | Imaging Quality | Motion Smoothness | Dynamic Degree | Overall |
| None | 96.98 | 96.10 | 60.33 | 68.53 | 97.81 | 61.15 | 80.15 |
| 0 | 97.12 | 96.22 | 60.66 | 68.65 | 97.88 | 61.60 | 80.36 |
| 1 | 96.99 | 96.13 | 60.41 | 68.58 | 97.80 | 63.34 | 80.54 |
| 2 | 97.06 | 96.18 | 60.44 | 68.55 | 97.85 | 62.47 | 80.42 |
| 3 | 97.07 | 96.19 | 60.46 | 68.61 | 97.85 | 62.00 | 80.36 |
| 4 | 96.93 | 96.08 | 60.15 | 68.49 | 97.76 | 63.43 | 80.47 |
| Candidates Number | Subject Consistency | Background Consistency | Aesthetic Quality | Imaging Quality | Motion Smoothness | Dynamic Degree | Average |
| 2 | 96.98 | 96.12 | 60.16 | 68.52 | 97.79 | 65.55 | 80.85 |
| 3 | 97.00 | 96.12 | 60.17 | 68.57 | 97.80 | 65.39 | 80.84 |
| 4 | 96.99 | 96.13 | 60.12 | 68.50 | 97.80 | 65.62 | 80.86 |
| 5 | 97.00 | 96.14 | 60.00 | 68.48 | 97.79 | 65.30 | 80.78 |
| 7 | 96.94 | 96.09 | 60.14 | 68.46 | 97.77 | 63.44 | 80.47 |
| 9 | 96.96 | 96.09 | 60.04 | 68.38 | 97.76 | 63.97 | 80.53 |
| Method | Subject Consistency | Background Consistency | Aesthetic Quality | Imaging Quality | Motion Smoothness | Dynamic Degree | Average |
| Abrupt scene cuts / multi-shot editing, 30 seconds | |||||||
| Self Forcing | 95.11 | 95.35 | 59.70 | 67.12 | 97.73 | 64.07 | 79.85 |
| Rolling Forcing | 96.90 | 96.01 | 63.12 | 72.17 | 98.38 | 45.07 | 78.61 |
| Deep Forcing | 95.40 | 95.47 | 61.01 | 66.56 | 97.48 | 67.73 | 80.61 |
| Relax Forcing | 95.32 | 95.21 | 60.92 | 69.06 | 97.17 | 88.73 | 84.40 |
| Abrupt scene cuts / multi-shot editing, 60 seconds | |||||||
| Length | Configuration | FlashAttention (ms) | % of Diffusion | Diffusion Time (ms) | Attention Speedup |
| 30s | Relaxed KV | 7,273 | 29.8% | 24,467 | – |
| 30s | Dense-21 | 17,848 | 53.5% | 33,358 | 2.45 |
| 60s | Relaxed KV | 14,689 | 29.0% | 50,781 | – |
| 60s | Dense-21 | 37,185 | 54.2% | 68,588 | 2.53 |
| 120s | Relaxed KV | 30,000 | 27.9% | 107,738 | – |
| 120s | Dense-21 | 75,612 | 54.6% | 138,516 | 2.52 |
Long-Horizon Video Generation
Long-horizon video generation creates coherent, controllable videos over extended durations despite limited context and accumulating errors.
See all 162 papers