Streaming video generation has benefited from distribution matching distillation (DMD), which matches the joint distribution of video frames to a video teacher's approximation of the real video distribution. Although this joint matching mitigates drift during autoregressive rollouts, limitations remain in visual quality and semantic alignment. To address these limitations, we propose DuoMatching, a distribution matching framework that approximates the real video distribution through a unified joint-marginal formulation. On top of existing joint matching formulations, the additional marginal matching objective provides dedicated frame-level supervision from an image generator, transferring complementary visual and semantic priors from it. To apply this frame-level supervision in video generation, we introduce LatentBridge to resolve the latent representation mismatch between the video student and the image teacher. Latent Variation Sampling further distributes such frame-level supervision across distinct temporal segments, reducing redundancy. Experiments demonstrate that DuoMatching improves visual quality, composition, and semantic alignment while largely preserving motion dynamics. Human evaluations show overall preference rates above 80% against all evaluated baselines. The project page is available at https://johnzhan2023.github.io/DuoMatching/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation and results of DuoMatching. Videos generated by autoregressive models often have degraded quality for later rollout frames (see Q-Align [ 38 ] curves). Joint DMD mitigates this drift, yet the student still retains a visual quality gap relative to the video teacher. The example reveals a missing feather specified in the prompt. To solve this problem, we reformulate distribution matching from a coupled joint-marginal perspective to better approximate the real video distribution, as illustrated by improved visual quality and the recovered feather, while maintaining temporal coherence.
Figure 2: Spatial structure of score differences in joint and marginal distribution matching. Marginal matching exhibits more spatially coherent responses, whereas joint matching produces more scattered responses in this example. Each heatmap is independently normalized to highlight spatial structure rather than absolute magnitude.
Figure 3: Overview of DuoMatching. (a) DuoMatching complements joint distribution matching with an image-teacher reference distribution Pi . Each group schematically represents a video, with nodes depicting frame-level distributions. (b) LatentBridge is trained to map a video latent zl , conditioned on the preceding slice zl−1 and a local frame index i , to the corresponding image latent using an ℓ1 reconstruction loss. (c) Latent Variation Sampling uses differences between adjacent latent slices to partition the sequence into segments, within which slices are randomly sampled.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison between DuoMatching and Causal Forcing++ across four aspects: fine-grained visual quality, semantic alignment, composition, and dynamics. DuoMatching improves visual details, prompt adherence, and composition while preserving video dynamics.
Method
Mode
NFE
Semantic ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
Dynamic ↑
Smoothness ↑
Total ↑
Bidirectional DMD methods
CausVid
Full
4
69.23
64.15
73.00
36.67
98.84
80.63
Ours
Full
4
70.89
64.55
73.77
39.17
98.82
81.45
Causal autoregressive methods
Frame-wise generation (1 step)
Causal Forcing++
Frame
1
57.17
67.12
68.83
70.56
98.49
79.82
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on VBench with Self Forcing [ 11 ] , One-Forcing [ 7 ] , Reward Forcing [ 21 ] and Causal Forcing++ [ 47 ] . “Full” denotes bidirectional full-video generation, while “Frame” and “Chunk” denote the causal autoregressive generation unit. NFE denotes the number of function evaluations per generation unit. Results should be compared within matched generation modes and NFE budgets. Bold indicates the best result within each matched group; ours are shaded in light gray.
Comparison
Visual Quality ↑
Semantic Alignment ↑
Temporal & Motion ↑
Overall ↑
Ours vs. CausVid
92.17%
89.13%
51.30%
91.30%
Ours vs. Causal Forcing++
81.30%
79.57%
49.57%
80.87%
Ours vs. One-Forcing
93.48%
91.74%
90.87%
94.35%
Ours vs. Reward Forcing
83.91%
82.61%
60.87%
83.91%
Table 2: Human preference study under the same Wan2.1 video teacher. Each entry reports the percentage of pairwise judgments favoring our method over the corresponding baseline.
Teacher
Video Student
Image Teacher
HPSv3 ↑
Semantic ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
Dynamic ↑
Smoothness ↑
Total ↑
None
–
68.42
62.28
69.82
94.44
98.20
80.67
Wan2.1-14B
5.87
68.77
64.16
69.90
94.72
99.05
81.43
SDXL
6.57
68.50
64.78
70.01
93.89
98.12
81.47
FLUX.2-4B
8.86
69.06
65.29
71.58
94.17
99.23
82.64
Qwen-Image
9.05
72.84
66.97
73.48
93.61
98.39
83.53
Table 3: Ablation of image teachers, comparing Wan2.1-14B [ 32 ] , SDXL [ 25 ] , FLUX.2-4B [ 14 ] , and Qwen-Image [ 37 ] against a baseline without an image teacher. Teacher HPSv3 [ 22 ] measures human preference alignment of images generated by each teacher, while the remaining metrics evaluate the resulting video student.
Configuration
Evaluation Metrics
Peak Memory
Marginal DMD
Latent Mapping
Semantic ↑
Imaging ↑
Dynamic ↑
Total ↑
(GB) ↓
×
—
68.42
69.82
94.44
80.67
56.49
✓
Direct
71.74
71.66
76.94
81.78
59.40
✓
Decode-Encode
—
—
—
—
OOM
✓
LatentBridge
72.84
73.48
93.61
83.53
59.41
Table 4: Ablation of marginal DMD and latent mapping strategies. Direct applies marginal DMD directly to temporally compressed video latent slices. Decode-Encode decodes video latents into RGB frames and re-encodes sampled frames with the image VAE, retaining gradients through both operations. Peak memory denotes the maximum GPU memory allocated to tensors during a complete training iteration. OOM indicates an out-of-memory failure.
Sampling strategy
K=2
K=4
K=8
Dynamic ↑ / Total ↑
Dynamic ↑ / Total ↑
Dynamic ↑ / Total ↑
Uniform random
93.06 / 80.99
91.39 / 82.61
89.44 / 81.04
Temporally stratified
– / –
91.67 / 82.68
– / –
LVS (Ours)
94.17 / 81.15
93.61 / 83.53
92.22 / 82.55
Table 5: Ablation of the number of sampled latent slices K and sampling strategies. Temporally stratified sampling randomly selects one latent slice from each of K segments of equal length.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric
ω=0.1
ω=0.4
ω=0.8
Semantic ↑
69.60
72.84
71.49
Imaging ↑
70.79
73.48
71.74
Dynamic ↑
93.61
93.61
87.78
Total ↑
81.03
83.53
81.57
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation of the marginal DMD loss weight ω .
Figure 5: Additional qualitative comparisons of DuoMatching with Reward Forcing, One-Forcing, and CausVid. DuoMatching improves visual details, semantic alignment, and composition while preserving video dynamics.
Figure 6: Qualitative evaluation of LatentBridge across image latent spaces. Top: target latents obtained by encoding the corresponding RGB frames with each image VAE. Bottom: reconstructions from latents predicted by LatentBridge from video latents of Wan2.1. Both rows use the corresponding image VAE decoder.
Figure 7: Latent reconstruction error of LatentBridge at different stages of generator training. Given a generated video latent slice zl , with zl−1 and the local frame index i as conditioning, LatentBridge predicts the corresponding image latent. We measure its ℓ1 error against the target obtained through Decode-Encode over 100 samples.
Aligning video generative models to human preferences heavily relies on Reinforcement Learning (RL), which suffers from extensive computational overhead. Existing workflows typically treat RL and distillation as disconnected stages: applying RL before distillation incurs prohibitive computational costs, whereas applying RL after distillation frequently leads to model collapse. To overcome these limitations, we propose a unified, single-stage optimization framework grounded in Distribution Matching (DM). In the standard DM framework, distillation updates the model via a gradient direction that minimizes the gap between the real and fake models, guiding generations toward clarity and high fidelity. Building upon this, we introduce DM-Align, which derives a complementary gradient direction to guide the model toward human-preferred samples. Inspired by DPO and GRPO, our method leverages the distributional gap -- formulated from either preference pairs or intra-group exploration -- to directly construct this preference-guided gradient. By synergizing these two gradient directions, our approach eliminates the need for multi-step reward evaluation and complex ODE-SDE conversions inherent in traditional RL. Comprehensive experiments across multiple foundational video models demonstrate that this sample-guided framework robustly enhances both distillation quality and preference alignment, consistently outperforming both standalone variants and sequential two-stage pipelines.
Jiuzhou Lin, Junlong Wu, Fei Zuo +11
Tsinghua University · Kuaishou Technology · Harbin Institute of Technology (ShenZhen) +1
Video creation spans text-to-video (T2V), image-to-video (I2V), and condition-based generation, yet video diffusion models remain costly because they repeatedly evaluate large backbones during sampling. Distribution matching distillation (DMD) reduces this cost, but its reverse Kullback--Leibler (KL) objective can provide unstable or incomplete guidance when the student and teacher distributions have limited overlap. VDOT addressed this issue by adding optimal transport distillation (OTD), whose explicit coupling supplies geometric directions for condition-based generation. Balanced OTD, however, performs full-mass matching between the spatial tokens of each corresponding student--teacher frame pair. This assumption weakens for T2V and I2V, where one condition admits many valid outputs and spatial content need not align across different realizations. We present VDOT++, a unified distillation framework that applies the same training recipe separately to generators for the three task families. It makes OTD robust to output diversity through an asymmetric unbalanced formulation that allows unreliable student tokens to carry less mass while maintaining coverage of the teacher tokens. An ℓ1 ground cost further replaces mean-based aggregation with a more mode-preserving weighted median that limits the influence of distant transport targets. The two changes respectively determine whom to match and how the selected targets should be aggregated. We additionally combine distribution matching and adversarial refinement through sequential backward passes, and exploit the decoupled score networks for cross-scale distillation, where larger score networks improve a compact generator. Experiments on UVCBench, VBench, VBench-I2V, and the VACE benchmark show that the resulting four-step generators are competitive with many-step teachers and strong few-step baselines across all three task families.
Yutong Wang, Xingtong Ge, Enhuai Liu +6
University of Sydney · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Shanghai AI Laboratory +1
Distilling video generation models to extremely low inference budgets (e.g., 2--4 NFEs) is crucial for real-time deployment, yet remains challenging. Trajectory-style consistency distillation often becomes conservative under complex video dynamics, yielding an over-smoothed appearance and weak motion. Distribution matching distillation (DMD) can recover sharp, mode-seeking samples, but its local training signals do not explicitly regularize how denoising updates compose across timesteps, making composed rollouts prone to drift. To overcome this challenge, we propose Self-Consistent Distribution Matching Distillation (SC-DMD), which explicitly regularizes the endpoint-consistent composition of consecutive denoising updates. For real-time autoregressive video generation, we further treat the KV cache as a quality parameterized condition and propose Cache-Distribution-Aware training. This training scheme applies SC-DMD over multi-step rollouts and introduces a cache-conditioned feature alignment objective that steers low-quality outputs toward high-quality references. Across extensive experiments on both non-autoregressive backbones (e.g., Wan~2.1) and autoregressive real-time paradigms (e.g., Self Forcing), our method, dubbed Salt, consistently improves low-NFE video generation quality while remaining compatible with diverse KV-cache memory mechanisms. Project page: https://xingtongge.github.io/Salt
Xingtong Ge, Yi Zhang, Yushi Huang +6
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Vivix Group Limited