Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 9 cited by

Playable Game Generation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read PlayGen generates playable Super Mario Bros and Doom at 20 FPS on an NVIDIA RTX 2060, with mechanics staying accurate over 1,000 frames.

desk verdict A genuinely end-to-end playable game generator with public code and demo, but the 1000-frame mechanics claim rests on a circular internal classifier and needs external validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00887 v1 pith:J2IBPRAD submitted 2024-12-01 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords playablegamegenerationworldmodellatentdiffusiontransformerreal-timeinteractionmechanicssimulationlong-tailedlearningaction-awareevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that generating a truly playable game—one a person can control in real time, with visuals that look right and mechanics that respond correctly—is feasible with a single neural model. It proposes PlayGen, which learns the game's next-frame transition function from a large, deliberately balanced dataset of gameplay, and demonstrates the approach on Super Mario Bros and Doom. The reported result is 20 frames per second on an NVIDIA RTX 2060, with mechanics accuracy that degrades only slightly even after more than 1,000 frames. If true, this would extend AI content generation from videos that merely look like games to interactive experiences that follow game rules.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an action-conditioned latent diffusion model with an autoregressive RNN-like hidden state (diffusion forcing) that carries memory of past frames and actions without exploding context length. The VAE compresses each frame to a latent code, and DiT blocks denoise the next latent conditioned on the current hidden state, the action embedding, and the noise level. Around this core sit two data-side devices: cluster-based balanced sampling, which solves a non-negative least-squares problem to choose how many samples to take from each cluster so the transition distribution is balanced, and self-supervised long-tailed transition learning, which keeps a priority queue of the highest-loss transitions and oversamples them during training. Evaluation rests on two complementary action-aware metrics computed by the Valid Action Model: ActAcc measures exact action-match rate, and ProbDiff measures the probability gap between predicted and ground-truth actions, which stays small when two different actions lead to indistinguishable frames.

What would settle it

Have human annotators label the executed action for frames generated by PlayGen on a set of long trajectories (e.g., 1,000 frames), then compare human labels with the actions PlayGen was given; if the VAM's action-recognition accuracy on generated frames is much higher than human-labeled agreement on a held-out set of real game frames, the mechanics-accuracy metrics are inflated. A sharper test: feed the VAM random or heavily corrupted frames—if ProbDiff stays near zero on such frames, the metric cannot detect broken mechanics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PlayGen treats game generation as learning the transition model $P(o_{t+1}\mid o_t, a_t)$: given the current rendered frame and the player's action, the model produces the next frame. The paper claims that with a mixture of random and goal-directed agents to collect diverse trajectories, cluster-based sampling to balance the transition distribution, self-supervised re-weighting of high-loss (long-tailed) transitions, and an autoregressive latent diffusion transformer with an RNN-like hidden state, this transition model runs at 20 FPS on a consumer GPU while keeping interactive mechanics accurate. On 600 ground-truth trajectories from Super Mario Bros and Doom, the model sustains ActAcc above 0.789 and ProbDiff below 0.065 for prediction lengths up to 1,024, and the drop from length 32 to 1,024 is at most 0.036 in ActAcc. The paper also introduces the playability-evaluation idea: because mechanics accuracy is hard to measure directly, they train a Valid Action Model (VAM) to recognize actions from short frame windows, then report how often the recognized action matches the action the model was given.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Valid Action Model, trained on the same balanced dataset as the generator, correctly identifies which action was executed in a 32-frame window of generated footage; if that classifier is biased toward the generator's own output, the reported ActAcc and ProbDiff numbers overstate how well the game mechanics are simulated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the results hold, real-time game simulation on consumer hardware is within reach of a single diffusion model, removing the need for hand-coded physics and rendering for simple games.
  • Mechanics accuracy that decays only about 0.036 in ActAcc from 32 to 1,024 frames means long play sessions remain coherent, making generated games plausible as actual playable products rather than short video clips.
  • The action-aware metrics provide an automated substitute for human playtesting when measuring whether a generative model respects game rules.
  • Reducing denoise sampling timesteps from 16 to 4 nearly doubles the frame rate (20 versus 5 FPS) with only a 1.4–1.8% visual-quality drop and a 0.2% mechanics drop, so deployment can trade off speed and fidelity.
  • The data-generation pipeline shows that random exploration plus balancing can cover rare mechanics without hand-designed reward functions, suggesting the approach transfers to other games where such agents exist.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same pipeline could be tested on games with richer physics (momentum, projectiles, destructible environments) to see whether the reported ActAcc thresholds generalize, since the two demonstrated games have relatively simple mechanics.
  • Beyond the paper: the VAM evaluation could be reused as a general 'interaction consistency' probe for any video-generation model, defining actions as control signals and checking whether generated frames obey them.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's own limitation note about similar paths in Doom suggests the real long-horizon constraint is memory precision rather than memory length, so future work could target sharper hidden states instead of longer contexts.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported 20 FPS is tied to 128×128 resolution and 4-step DDIM sampling; scaling to higher resolutions would likely require distillation or model compression, and that trade-off is not explored here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PlayGen, a framework for generating playable games by learning a transition model P(o_{t+1} | o_t, a_t). The contributions are: (i) a diverse data-collection scheme with cluster-based balanced sampling; (ii) an autoregressive DiT-based latent diffusion model with an RNN-like hidden state for long-horizon memory; (iii) a self-supervised long-tailed transition learning method; and (iv) a 'playability' evaluation framework that uses a Valid Action Model (VAM) to compute ActAcc and ProbDiff metrics. The method is evaluated on Super Mario Bros and Doom at 128×128 resolution, reporting 20 FPS on an NVIDIA RTX 2060 and claiming accurate mechanics for rollouts of more than 1000 frames.

Significance. If the claims held, PlayGen would be a notable advance over Genie, MarioVGG, and GameNGen: it demonstrates real-time interaction on a consumer GPU, substantially longer rollouts than prior work, and an automated evaluation pipeline for interactive mechanics. The data-generation and long-tail learning ideas are sensible, and the release of code and a demo is valuable. However, the central evaluation is weakened because the mechanics metrics are produced by a classifier trained on the same balanced dataset as the generator, with no external validation, and because the paper's own visual-quality thresholds are violated at the longest prediction length. The engineering is promising, but the evidence for the headline long-horizon claim is not yet sufficient.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (2)-(3); Sec. 4.1.2] The mechanics-accuracy metrics are computed with a VAM trained on the same balanced dataset used to train the generator. This makes the evaluation circular: high ActAcc and low ProbDiff may reflect the VAM's specialization to the generator's output distribution rather than correct mechanics. The paper provides no external validation of the VAM (no human study, no labels from a real game engine, no independent action detector), and the playability thresholds (ActAcc > 0.75, ProbDiff < 0.1) are justified only by the authors' manual play. Since the abstract's long-horizon claim rests on these numbers, this gap is load-bearing.
  2. [Table 1] At prediction length 1024, the paper's own visual-quality thresholds are not met for either game: Super Mario Bros has LPIPS 0.222 (threshold <0.2) and PSNR 18.19 (threshold >20); Doom has LPIPS 0.472, PSNR 17.25, FID 136.40, and FVD 2176.94 (thresholds <0.2, >20, <85, <300). The text's assertion that these differences are 'not substantial' relative to length 128 is contradicted by Doom's FVD increasing from 730.29 to 2176.94. Thus the claim of 'sufficient visual quality' after 1000 frames is not supported by the reported numbers.
  3. [Sec. 3.4; Sec. 4.1.2] Even granting the VAM's accuracy in-distribution, the evaluation protocol compares the VAM's predicted action to the original ground-truth action from a trajectory. Once the generated rollout has drifted from the training trajectory—as evidenced by the large LPIPS/FVD values at length 1024—the same command is no longer the correct action for the simulated state, so agreement with the original action sequence is not a meaningful measure of mechanics. The paper's own caveat that ProbDiff is misleading on low-quality or unrelated frames because the VAM outputs uniform probabilities further undermines the long-horizon conclusions.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 1; Table 2] The abstract states that reducing denoise timesteps from 8 to 4 causes only a 1.4%–1.8% decrease in visual quality and a 0.2% reduction in mechanics accuracy. These figures are not supported by Table 2: ActAcc drops by 0.010 for SMB (≈1.2%) and 0.024 for Doom (≈2.8%), while Doom's FVD rises from 622.51 to 1156.66 (≈86%). No entry in Table 2 corresponds to 0.2%. Such selective reporting of metrics should be corrected.
  5. [Tables 1–3] All quantitative results are reported as single values without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Given that the visual and mechanical metrics vary substantially with prediction length and sampling steps, the absence of variance estimates makes it impossible to assess whether the differences between settings (e.g., the balanced-data improvements in Table 3) are meaningful. Reporting multiple seeds or trajectory subsets would be necessary to support the quantitative comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (3)] The ProbDiff definition as written can be negative because it sums P(a_pred) - P(a_gt) without an absolute value or max; the text describes it as a difference in probabilities. Please clarify whether the intended metric is |P(a_pred) - P(a_gt)| or another variant.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (1)] There is a typo in the cluster center list ('c1, c1, ... , ck'), and the linear equation requires more explanation of how the non-negative integer solution {b_i} is obtained from the continuous non-negative least squares solution and what guarantees it preserves the balanced target y.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.2] The figure caption uses 'ProDiff' instead of 'ProbDiff', and the text inconsistently uses 'AccAct' in some places (e.g., Sec. 4.1.2) and 'ActAcc' elsewhere. Please standardize the metric names.
  4. [Sec. 4.1.3] The statement that '20 FPS can be considered as being able to achieve real-time interaction' is presented as fact; consider citing a source or explicitly defining this as a design choice.
  5. [Sec. 5, Limitations] The sentence 'The RNN architecture ensures that memory is retained, preventing rendering crashes' is unclear; memory retention and rendering crashes are not obviously connected, and the claim about preventing crashes is not tested or explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mechanics evaluation is internal and unvalidated, but no claimed result reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

PlayGen's core derivation chain is self-contained: the transition model is trained on engine-collected (o_t, a_t, o_{t+1}) data (Sec. 3.1-3.2), visual quality is assessed with standard external metrics (LPIPS, PSNR, FID, FVD), and real-time interaction is measured directly by FPS on an RTX 2060. The only potentially self-referential element is the mechanics evaluation: the VAM is trained on the same balanced dataset as the generator (Sec. 3.4), and ActAcc/ProbDiff are computed from VAM outputs (Eqs. 2-3). This makes the mechanics evaluation internal and unvalidated against an external action detector, human study, or engine-based check; the paper itself flags that ProbDiff can be misleading on low-quality frames and that visual metrics degrade at long prediction lengths (Sec. 3.4, Sec. 4.1.1, Table 1). However, this is an evaluation-validity limitation, not a circular reduction: the VAM's training target is action recognition on real game frames, not the claimed result of accurate mechanics in generated frames, and high ActAcc is not guaranteed by construction merely because both models share a training set. The thresholds ActAcc > 0.75 and ProbDiff < 0.1 are calibrated by manual play rather than fitted to produce the reported numbers. The paper's self-citations (Li et al. 2024; Yu et al. 2024) appear only in the introductory AIGC survey and are not load-bearing. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore, no specific circular step meets the evidentiary bar, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of unreported hyperparameters, on the modeling assumption that a hidden diffusion state can capture game memory, and on self-trained evaluation. No new physical or external entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • cluster count k in balanced sampling
    Used in Algorithm 2 to define clusters and the balance target; the value is not reported in the paper.
  • priority queue size Nq in long-tail learning
    Algorithm 3 maintains the top Nq highest-loss transitions; Nq is not specified.
  • random-action probability p per episode
    Algorithm 1 mixes random and other agents with probability p; the value is not reported.
  • sampling probability p_t from priority queue
    Algorithm 3 uses p_t negatively correlated with average loss; the exact schedule is unspecified.
  • playability thresholds = LPIPS<0.2, PSNR>20, FID<85, FVD<300, ActAcc>0.75, ProbDiff<0.1
    Hand-set thresholds used to declare sufficient visual quality and mechanics accuracy; set with reference to prior work and manual play.
  • denoise sampling timesteps = 4, 8, 16
    Inference-time compute-quality tradeoff; 4 timesteps yields 20 FPS but violates the LPIPS and FVD thresholds for Doom in Table 2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The game transition process can be represented as P(o_{t+1}|o_t, a_t) with a sufficient hidden state z_t capturing all past latents and actions.
    Central modeling assumption in Sec 3.1 and 3.3; if games are not reducible to this learned state, long-term mechanics will fail.
  • domain assumption A VAM trained on the same balanced dataset can infer executed actions from generated frames.
    Sec 3.4 and Sec 4.1.2 rely on this classifier for all mechanics-accuracy numbers, with no independent human validation.
  • ad hoc to paper 20 FPS is sufficient for real-time interaction and the chosen visual-quality thresholds indicate playable quality.
    Sec 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 assert these thresholds; for Doom at 4 timesteps the model falls short on two visual thresholds.
  • domain assumption Diffusion forcing hidden states remain accurate over 1024-frame horizons.
    Sec 3.3 and the Limitations section note that RNN memory is theoretically infinite but practically can hallucinate; the 1000-frame claim depends on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Playable Game Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J2IBPRAD

@misc{pith2026241200887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Playable Game Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J2IBPRAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00887}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) has advanced from text-to-image generation to text-to-video and multimodal video synthesis. However, generating playable games presents significant challenges due to the stringent requirements for real-time interaction, high visual quality, and accurate simulation of game mechanics. Existing approaches often fall short, either lacking real-time capabilities or failing to accurately simulate interactive mechanics. To tackle the playability issue, we propose a novel method called \emph{PlayGen}, which encompasses game data generation, an autoregressive DiT-based diffusion model, and a comprehensive playability-based evaluation framework. Validated on well-known 2D and 3D games, PlayGen achieves real-time interaction, ensures sufficient visual quality, and provides accurate interactive mechanics simulation. Notably, these results are sustained even after over 1000 frames of gameplay on an NVIDIA RTX 2060 GPU. Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/GreatX3/Playable-Game-Generation. Our playable demo generated by AI is: http://124.156.151.207.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Playable Game Generation: PlayGen can generate playable games that respond to player commands and operate according to game mechanics. Left: we demonstrate how players control in-game characters through commands. Right: we provide cases to show that our method can accurately simulate different game mechanics that involve real-time input actions. Abstract In recent years, Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AI… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of PlayGen. (a) Data generation. We generate diverse game data using a hybrid of agents and balance it with cluster-based sampling (Sec. 3.2). (b) Game-generative model. Our game-generative model comprises VAE (Kingma, 2013) and DiT (Peebles & Xie, 2023) with diffusion forcing (Chen et al., 2024) (Sec. 3.3). a and k indicate the current action and the noise level of the next frame respectively.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of the predicted results from PlayGen and the ground truth. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cases of how PlayGen incrementally improves playability. The components of PlayGen that enhance playability in each case are highlighted in bold. action, but appears to be obstructed, resulting in a very short jump distance, which does not conform to the game interacti…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cases demonstrating the rationality of action-aware metrics. The values of ActAcc metric and ProDiff metric are highlighted in bold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: More visualization results that predicted by PlayGen within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Video-Enhanced Offline Reinforcement Learning: A Model-Based Approach

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    VeoRL, which aligns real-action rollouts with latent-behavior rollouts learned from unlabeled videos, reports substantial improvements over offline visual RL baselines across three benchmarks.

  2. CustomX: Unified Character, Action, and Scene Customization in Video World Models

    cs.CV 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AniX generates controllable videos of a user-supplied character performing typed actions inside a user-supplied 3D scene by fine-tuning a pre-trained video generator on small locomotion datasets.

  3. From Virtual Games to Real-World Play

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A chunk-wise video diffusion model trained on labeled game data plus unlabeled real footage transfers game-style control commands to real-world entities.

  4. Matrix-Game: Interactive World Foundation Model

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 17B-parameter diffusion model generates controllable, physically consistent Minecraft video from a reference image and user actions, beating Oasis and MineWorld on a new benchmark.

  5. AlayaWorld: Interactive Long-Horizon World Modeling - Full Technical Report (v1.1)

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AlayaWorld v1.1 replaces depth-warped spatial memory with a streaming 3D point cache and aligns all conditioning signals to the causal VAE latent space, reporting the best WBench consistency score of 89.5.

  6. Pre-Trained Video Generative Models as World Simulators

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A lightweight action-conditioning module and a motion-reinforced loss convert pre-trained video generators into action-following world simulators that also speed up model-based reinforcement learning.

  7. Goku: Flow Based Video Generative Foundation Models

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A joint image-video generation model family reports state-of-the-art benchmark scores using rectified flow transformers, with all key evidence self-reported and no artifacts released.

  8. AlayaWorld: Long-Horizon and Playable Video World Generation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    AlayaWorld is a full-stack open-source framework for interactive video world generation, combining 3D spatial caching, error-bank training, and few-step distillation for real-time playable worlds.

  9. A Survey of Interactive Generative Video

    cs.CV 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that divides interactive generative video research into five modules: generation, control, memory, dynamics, and intelligence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [5]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512,

    Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512,

  2. [6]

    Prioritized experience replay.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05952,

    Tom Schaul. Prioritized experience replay.arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05952,

  3. [11]

    Nuwa-infinity: Autoregressive over autoregressive generation for infinite visual synthesis

    Chenfei Wu, Jian Liang, Xiaowei Hu, Zhe Gan, Jianfeng Wang, Lijuan Wang, Zicheng Liu, Yuejian Fang, and Nan Duan. Nuwa-infinity: Autoregressive over autoregressive generation for infinite visual synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09814,

  4. [12]

    Hallo: Hierarchical audio-driven visual synthesis for portrait image animation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08801,

    Mingwang Xu, Hui Li, Qingkun Su, Hanlin Shang, Liwei Zhang, Ce Liu, Jingdong Wang, Luc Van Gool, Yao Yao, and Siyu Zhu. Hallo: Hierarchical audio-driven visual synthesis for portrait image animation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08801,

  5. [15]

    Champ: Controllable and consistent human image animation with 3d parametric guidance

    Shenhao Zhu, Junming Leo Chen, Zuozhuo Dai, Qingkun Su, Yinghui Xu, Xun Cao, Yao Yao, Hao Zhu, and Siyu Zhu. Champ: Controllable and consistent human image animation with 3d parametric guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14781,

  6. [2011]

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd Van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly

    Video game. Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd Van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717,

  7. [2013]

    More agents is all you need.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05120,

    Junyou Li, Qin Zhang, Yangbin Yu, Qiang Fu, and Deheng Ye. More agents is all you need.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05120,

  8. [2015]

    Improving image captioning with better use of captions

    Zhan Shi, Xu Zhou, Xipeng Qiu, and Xiaodan Zhu. Improving image captioning with better use of captions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11807,

Show all 15 references
  1. [2016]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114,

    Diederik P Kingma. Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114,

  2. [2018]

    Diffusion models are real-time game engines

    Dani Valevski, Yaniv Leviathan, Moab Arar, and Shlomi Fruchter. Diffusion models are real-time game engines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14837,

  3. [2020]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502,

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502,

  4. [2021]

    Affordable generative agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02053,

    Yangbin Yu, Qin Zhang, Junyou Li, Qiang Fu, and Deheng Ye. Affordable generative agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02053,

  5. [2022]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127,

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram Voleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127,

  6. [2023]

    A survey of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223,

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. A survey of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223,

  7. [2024]

    Diffusion forcing: Next-token prediction meets full-sequence diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01392,

    Boyuan Chen, Diego Marti Monso, Yilun Du, Max Simchowitz, Russ Tedrake, and Vincent Sitzmann. Diffusion forcing: Next-token prediction meets full-sequence diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01392,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.