Predicting future motion is crucial in video understanding and controllable video generation. Dense point trajectories are a compact, expressive motion representation, but modeling their future evolution from observed video remains challenging. We propose a framework that predicts future trajectories and visibility from past trajectories and video context. Our method has three components: (1) Grid-Anchor Offset Encoding, which reduces location-dependent bias by representing each point as an offset from its pixel-center anchor; (2) TrajLoom-VAE, which learns a compact spatiotemporal latent space for dense trajectories with masked reconstruction and a spatiotemporal consistency regularizer; and (3) TrajLoom-Flow, which generates future trajectories in latent space via flow matching, with boundary cues and on-policy K-step fine-tuning for stable sampling. We also introduce TrajLoomBench, a unified benchmark spanning real and synthetic videos with a standardized setup aligned with video-generation benchmarks. Compared with state-of-the-art methods, our approach extends the prediction horizon from 24 to 81 frames while improving motion realism and stability across datasets. The predicted trajectories directly support downstream video generation and editing. Code, model checkpoints, and datasets are available at https://trajloom.github.io/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: For each sequence, the model observes an 81-frame history (left) and predicts future trajectories for the next 81 frames (right). Predicted trajectories are shown at three times: early, middle, and final. Colors show the spatial order of query points.
Figure 2: Overview of our pipeline. Given observed trajectories Tp , we rasterize and encode them with Grid-Anchor Offset Encoding into a dense offset field, then compress with TrajLoom-VAE into history latents zp . Conditioned on zp and video features, TrajLoom-Flow generates future latents via rectified-flow integration with boundary hints, which are decoded by TrajLoom-VAE into future trajectories T^f .
Figure 3: Grid-Anchor Offset Encoding converts absolute trajectories into offset space, reducing the bias of absolute coordinates.
Figure 4: We initialize z0 from scaled Gaussian noise, then add each last history token z(−1,n) to the first future token z0(0,n) .
Metric
Method
Kinetics
RoboTAP
Kubric
MagicData (E)
FVMD ↓
WHN (L)
8999
7587
4872
10383
Ours
3626
2467
1338
2968
FlowTV ( 102 ) ↓
WHN (L)
24.71
27.26
12.56
26.74
Ours
7.53
6.03
6.03
7.11
DivCurlE ( 103 ) ↓
WHN (L)
34.69
37.39
9.89
40.04
Ours
3.97
2.03
2.09
2.99
Table 1: Comparison of trajectory generation with WHN (L). FVMD and flow diagnostics (FlowTV ×102 , DivCurlE ×103 ; ↓ ) on Kinetics, RoboTAP, Kubric (MOVi-A; same config as WHN), and MagicData (E).
Frames
Method
Kinetics
RoboTAP
Kubric
MagicData (E)
24
WHN (L)-VAE
63.09
29.35
15.97
69.88
Ours
1.99
1.59
0.75
1.72
81
WHN (L)-VAE
63.31
31.52
16.27
67.97
Ours
2.04
1.61
0.77
1.72
Table 2: Fidelity of trajectory VAE reconstruction. Visibility masked endpoint error (VEPE, ( ↓ )) for reconstructing 24 and 81 frame trajectory segments.
Figure 5: Comparison with WHN (L). Each row shows a dataset: Kinetics, RoboTAP, Kubric, and MagicData (E). Our method yields smoother and more coherent motion.
Metric
Method
Kinetics
RoboTAP
Kubric
MagicData (E)
FVMD-Long ( 10−3 ) ↓
w/o offset
46.61
36.43
31.66
41.97
Ours
35.06
21.75
7.24
28.27
FlowTV ( 102 ) ↓
w/o offset
15.92
15.26
15.54
15.01
Ours
7.65
5.96
5.03
7.11
DivCurlE ( 103 ) ↓
w/o offset
19.10
16.27
17.66
16.13
Ours
4.21
1.89
1.45
3.09
Table 3: Ablation study with Grid-Anchor Offset Encoding on future 81 frames.
Figure 6: Trajectory-guided video generation with Wan-Move [ 5 ] . We use the observed history to generate a trajectory. Wan-Move then uses this trajectory, along with the condition image, to generate 81 frames, as shown in the third and fourth rows.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: 1D toy example: pointwise reconstruction loss does not guarantee realistic motion. Both smooth and jittery reconstructions of x(t)=t can match Lrec , but only the smooth one aligns with ground truth motion. Consistency regularization separates realistic from unrealistic solutions.
Figure 8: More Comparison with WHN (L).
Figure 9: Additional Wan-Move results driven by our predicted trajectories. Left: conditioning inputs (history trajectory and the conditioning image). Right: our generated 81-frame future trajectories and the corresponding 81-frame videos synthesized by Wan-Move.
Frames
Method
Kinetics
RoboTAP
Kubric
MagicData (E)
24
w/o offset
4.24
3.98
3.26
3.91
w/o regularizer
2.99
2.35
1.42
2.65
Ours
1.99
1.59
0.75
1.72
81
w/o offset
4.30
4.01
3.24
3.99
w/o regularizer
3.11
2.41
1.47
3.99
Ours
2.04
1.61
0.77
1.72
Appendix
Table 4: TrajLoom-VAE ablations. Effect of Grid-Anchor Offset Encoding and spatiotemporal consistency regularization on VEPE ( ↓ ).
Figure 10: TrajLoom-VAE training curves. Masked L1 reconstruction metric vs. training step. Using Grid-Anchor Offset Encoding and the spatiotemporal regularizer yields faster, more stable convergence and a substantially lower loss than removing offsets or the regularizer.
Metric
Setting
Kinetics
RoboTAP
Kubric
MagicData (E)
FVMD-Long ( 10−3 ) ↓
w/o fusion
39.60
28.86
16.38
33.87
w/o anchoring
43.50
33.12
20.29
37.11
20 k steps
40.13
28.81
17.02
33.51
w/o on-policy
38.87
27.38
13.86
31.71
Ours
35.06
21.75
7.24
28.27
FlowTV ( 102 ) ↓
w/o fusion
9.66
8.66
9.56
8.50
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation study with flow-field diagnostics (generator components). Metrics are computed on 81-frame future prediction. Lower is better ( ↓ ). All results use Euler integration with 10 steps. w/o fusion removes the token-aligned history fusion module; w/o anchoring disables boundary anchoring of the first future latent slice ; 20k steps is an early flow-matching checkpoint of the generator; w/o on-policy matches the full flow-matching training budget of our method but omits the on-policy K -step fine-tuning stage.
Metric
Method
Kinetics
RoboTAP
Kubric
MagicData (E)
FVMD ↓
WHN (L)
8999
7587
4872
10383
WHN (L) ∗
8755
5855
6284
9691
Ours
3626
2467
1338
2968
Ours ∗
3182
2546
1724
2358
FlowTV ( 102 ) ↓
WHN (L)
24.71
27.26
12.56
26.74
WHN (L) ∗
22.06
14.46
18.41
14.46
Appendix
Table 6: Effect of sampler choice and step count. Metrics are computed on 81-frame future prediction; lower is better ( ↓ ). Entries marked with ∗ use Dormand–Prince (DOPRI5) with 100 steps, while unmarked entries use Euler with 10 steps (default).
Understanding and predicting motion is a fundamental component of visual intelligence. Although modern video models exhibit strong comprehension of scene dynamics, exploring multiple possible futures through full video synthesis remains prohibitively inefficient. We model scene dynamics orders of magnitude more efficiently by directly operating on a long-term motion embedding that is learned from large-scale trajectories obtained from tracker models. This enables efficient generation of long, realistic motions that fulfill goals specified via text prompts or spatial pokes. To achieve this, we first learn a highly compressed motion embedding with a temporal compression factor of 64x. In this space, we train a conditional flow-matching model to generate motion latents conditioned on task descriptions. The resulting motion distributions outperform those of both state-of-the-art video models and specialized task-specific approaches.
Nick Stracke, Kolja Bauer, Stefan Andreas Baumann +3
Accurately anticipating how complex, diverse scenes will evolve requires models that represent uncertainty, simulate along extended interaction chains, and efficiently explore many plausible futures. Yet most existing approaches rely on dense video or latent-space prediction, expending substantial capacity on dense appearance rather than on the underlying sparse trajectories of points in the scene. This makes large-scale exploration of future hypotheses costly and limits performance when long-horizon, multi-modal motion is essential. We address this by formulating the prediction of open-set future scene dynamics as step-wise inference over sparse point trajectories. Our autoregressive diffusion model advances these trajectories through short, locally predictable transitions, explicitly modeling the growth of uncertainty over time. This dynamics-centric representation enables fast rollout of thousands of diverse futures from a single image, optionally guided by initial constraints on motion, while maintaining physical plausibility and long-range coherence. We further introduce OWM, a benchmark for open-set motion prediction based on diverse in-the-wild videos, to evaluate accuracy and variability of predicted trajectory distributions under real-world uncertainty. Our method matches or surpasses dense simulators in predictive accuracy while achieving orders-of-magnitude higher sampling speed, making open-set future prediction both scalable and practical. Project page: http://compvis.github.io/myriad.
Stefan Andreas Baumann, Jannik Wiese, Tommaso Martorella +2
Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML) · Netflix
Video world models aim to preserve scene structure and predict how dynamic objects evolve beyond visual observations. We present Kepler4D, a framework for future video generation through explicit 4D scene state evolution. Given a monocular video, Kepler4D constructs a shared 3D representation of background geometry, object motion histories, coarse spatial supports, and semantic context. Chain-of-Motion summarizes observed motion and uses a vision-language model to select structured speed and heading decisions and decide whether to bound object-center height from below. A deterministic rollout converts these decisions into future object trajectories for inspection and editing before synthesis. We render the evolving proxies into geometric controls for a pretrained video generator, separating coarse object motion from the synthesis of appearance and articulation. Experiments on real-world videos demonstrate that Kepler4D enables controllable object motion and plausible future rollout while preserving scene consistency.
Feiran Wang, Bin Duan, Junyi Wu +2
University of Illinois at Chicago · University of Michigan Ann Arbor · Cisco