Autoregressive video generators synthesize long videos through chunk-wise rollouts, yet they are typically trained to predict only the immediate future. This limited prediction horizon makes it challenging to maintain video quality over extended rollouts. To address this problem, we introduce Prospective Forcing, a multi-head prediction framework that injects long-range predictive signals into autoregressive video representations. Built on a rolling-window generator, Prospective Forcing attaches lightweight, offset-specific heads that share the same conditioning information and independently predict chunks at different future temporal offsets. By extending supervision beyond the next chunk, these heads encourage the shared history representation to retain information useful for longer-horizon prediction, supporting temporally consistent generation. At inference time, we accelerate sampling by using accepted future-chunk predictions to skip full-window backbone executions. We equip the head with learnable embeddings to generate multiple candidates for the next chunk, and a learned verifier either selects a candidate or rejects all and falls back to standard autoregressive generation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: By learning to predict future, Prospective Forcing generates long videos that remain dynamic, temporally consistent, and visually stable from a single text prompt.
Figure 2: Temporal shortsightedness. The car gradually drives out of view with only next-chunk prediction, and foreseeing future chunks keeps it in frame.
Figure 3: Illustration of Prospective Forcing. Left : We jointly denoise W=5 chunks in window r , yielding features h1r to h5r (green). Then K=2 heads predict h^6r and h^7r in parallel from h5r (orange). Leading clean chunks are committed and the window advances accordingly (blue). Right : M=3 candidates are generated for the next chunk h^6r , and the verifier Vϕ selects one or rejects all.
Figure 4: User study. Bars show the win rate of pairwise comparisons of human preference.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on a 30-second video generated from the prompt “A rally car taking a fast turn on a track”. Video comparison is provided in the supplementary materials.
Method
FPS ↑
VBench
VBench-Long
VideoScore
MUSIQ
Total ↑
Quality ↑
Semantic ↑
Quality ↑
Avg. ↑
Avg. ↑
Drift ↓
CausVid
9.28
76.22
77.02
73.00
77.43
2.637
66.49
9.02
Causal Forcing++
7.56
78.56
79.14
76.24
79.53
2.670
66.65
5.52
Self Forcing
7.79
78.27
78.76
76.33
78.24
2.905
68.84
6.18
LongLive
8.08
80.27
80.78
78.22
80.61
3.108
69.12
3.43
Rolling Forcing
7.95
78.63
80.05
72.94
82.20
2.775
68.92
5.32
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on 200 MovieGen prompts (30-second videos, 832×480 , 16 fps). Bold and underline denote the best and second-best results.
Horizons
Quality ↑
Drift ↓
{1}
81.00
4.08
{1,2} (Ours)
81.29
3.29
{1,2,4}
80.21
2.89
Table 2: Ablation on prediction horizons.
Train
Inference
FPS ↑
Quality ↑
Drift ↓
Stage 1
ℓ=0
7.69
81.29
3.29
Unverified, ℓ=1
12.03
81.80
4.22
Unverified, ℓ=2
14.51
81.16
4.51
ℓ=0
7.81
81.63
3.42
Stage 1 + 2
Unverified, ℓ=1
11.95
81.98
4.14
Verified, ℓ=1 (Ours)
9.23
82.71
3.64
Table 3: Ablation on inference mode. Results of the model trained with stage 1 only and with both stages, under different inference modes.
Factor
Setting
Quality ↑
Subject ↑
Dynamic ↑
Imaging ↑
Drift ↓
Architecture
Shared recurrent head
77.14
84.72
100.0
63.47
5.10
Sequential heads
78.37
85.30
100.0
65.01
4.16
Head input
3 chunks
79.58
85.48
100.0
65.74
4.04
5 chunks
77.25
84.41
100.0
64.13
4.61
Head output
3 chunks
80.43
94.23
17.0
71.40
2.58
5 chunks
80.87
95.28
23.5
70.88
2.05
Table 4: Ablation on design choices under stage 1 and standard inference. Each variant changes one component of the ODE-initialized model (row “ODE”).
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Inference
Accept rate
Sampling passes
Cache-update passes
Speedup
Standard ( ℓ=0 )
–
46
46
1.00×
Unverified, ℓ=1
100%
27
46
1.56×
Verified (Ours)
32.1%
37
46
1.20×
Appendix
Table 5: Per-video inference cost breakdown on a single A100 GPU (30-second video, 480 frames).
Stage 1 vs.
Visual Quality
Consistency
Dynamics
Avg.
Rolling Forcing
81.8%
86.4%
87.9%
85.4%
LongLive
59.6%
55.3%
68.1%
61.0%
Video-Mirai
78.8%
73.1%
86.5%
79.5%
Appendix
Table 6: User study of the stage-1 model with standard inference ( ℓ=0 ). Each entry is the percentage of pairwise comparisons in which participants preferred this model over the baseline. Average is computed over all comparisons of the three criteria.
Method
Subject ↑
Background ↑
Flickering ↑
Smoothness ↑
Dynamic ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
CausVid
87.59
90.60
98.13
99.06
21.00
57.35
67.47
Causal Forcing++
85.33
90.48
95.93
97.71
72.00
60.33
66.13
Self Forcing
89.59
92.27
98.17
98.77
24.50
61.07
69.57
LongLive
89.70
92.97
96.20
97.89
62.00
62.95
69.34
Rolling Forcing
84.36
88.72
94.34
97.86
98.50
58.19
68.24
Video-Mirai
82.85
88.02
95.99
96.92
47.00
57.30
64.44
Appendix
Table 7: Per-dimension VBench quality scores (%).
Method
Object ↑
Multi-Obj. ↑
Action ↑
Spatial ↑
Scene ↑
App. Style ↑
Temp. Style ↑
Overall Cons. ↑
Valid videos
119
20
36
5
54
8
36
200
CausVid
92.12
77.50
94.44
77.28
35.07
21.29
22.19
23.51
Causal Forcing++
95.06
76.88
94.44
87.15
42.82
21.35
22.72
24.46
Self Forcing
95.48
65.31
91.67
90.20
48.73
21.17
24.17
24.85
LongLive
95.43
80.94
94.44
80.74
49.54
21.17
24.95
25.97
Rolling Forcing
87.61
53.44
91.67
78.49
51.62
21.34
24.06
25.05
Appendix
Table 8: Per-dimension VBench semantic scores (%). The first row reports the number of prompts to which each dimension applies.
Method
Subject ↑
Background ↑
Smoothness ↑
Dynamic ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
CausVid
98.15
96.99
99.08
21.80
56.30
67.18
Causal Forcing++
96.09
95.76
97.74
60.77
58.86
65.39
Self Forcing
98.19
96.90
98.82
21.77
59.73
69.20
LongLive
97.20
96.26
97.96
55.50
61.43
68.66
Rolling Forcing
96.16
95.59
97.92
88.20
57.05
67.73
Video-Mirai
96.41
96.21
96.93
36.43
56.54
63.84
Appendix
Table 9: Per-dimension VBench-Long scores (%).
Method
Visual ↑
Temporal ↑
Dynamic ↑
T2V Align. ↑
Factual ↑
CausVid
2.683
2.450
2.985
2.738
2.330
Causal Forcing++
2.698
2.472
3.044
2.803
2.332
Self Forcing
2.908
2.731
3.242
3.046
2.597
LongLive
3.157
2.985
3.345
3.206
2.847
Rolling Forcing
2.843
2.608
3.095
2.876
2.452
Video-Mirai
2.679
2.461
3.187
2.752
2.441
Appendix
Table 10: Per-dimension VideoScore v1.1 scores.
Method
Head ↑
Tail ↑
Avg. ↑
N1∑i∣Ti−Hi∣↓
CausVid
70.25
62.73
66.49
9.02
Causal Forcing++
68.00
65.31
66.65
5.52
Self Forcing
71.06
66.61
68.84
6.18
LongLive
69.37
68.87
69.12
3.43
Rolling Forcing
69.48
68.35
68.92
5.32
Video-Mirai
69.49
59.58
64.54
11.90
Appendix
Table 11: MUSIQ scores of the first and last 5 seconds and the drift measure.
Autoregressive video generation creates videos frame by frame or in chunks, conditioning each prediction on prior context for streaming and interactive use.
Autoregressive video diffusion models support real-time synthesis but suffer from error accumulation and context loss over long horizons. We discover that attention heads in AR video diffusion transformers serve functionally distinct roles as local heads for detail refinement, anchor heads for structural stabilization, and memory heads for long-range context aggregation, yet existing methods treat them uniformly, leading to suboptimal KV cache allocation. We propose Head Forcing, a training-free framework that assigns each head type a tailored KV cache strategy: local and anchor heads retain only essential tokens, while memory heads employ a hierarchical memory system with dynamic episodic updates for long-range consistency. A head-wise RoPE re-encoding scheme further ensures positional encodings remain within the pretrained range. Without additional training, Head Forcing extends generation from 5 seconds to minute-level duration, supports multi-prompt interactive synthesis, and consistently outperforms existing baselines. Project Page: https://jiahaotian-sjtu.github.io/headforcing.github.io/.
Jiahao Tian, Yiwei Wang, Gang Yu +1
AGI Lab, Westlake University · University of California at Merced · StepFun
To stream long videos while maintaining visual quality and temporal consistency, Self Forcing mitigates exposure bias through self-rollout training on self-generated histories with key-value (KV) caching. To keep memory manageable, it detaches historical caches, preserving forward dependencies between chunks but severing the backward gradient paths. We introduce Connected Self Forcing, a training framework that reconnects gradient paths across autoregressive chunks, allowing feedback from later predictions to guide how earlier context is generated. These connections go beyond historical KV-writing: gradients pass through generated latents into the computations that produced them, linking the generation of earlier context to its use in later predictions. To make this connected training memory-efficient, we develop shortcut gradient replay, which recovers cross-chunk gradients without retaining the full rollout computation graph. Integrated with distribution matching distillation, Connected Self Forcing trains historical chunks according to both their direct supervision and their contribution to subsequent generation. Experiments on autoregressive video generation show improvements in long-horizon visual quality and temporal consistency, without changing the inference procedure.
Dongbin Zhang, Chaoda Zheng, Kangjie Chen +13
XPeng · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Tsinghua University
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.
Zengqun Zhao, Yanzuo Lu, Ziquan Liu +3
Queen Mary University of London · Imperial College London · Huawei R&D UK