arxiv: 2603.05811 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-06 · 💻 cs.CV

Video Compression Meets Video Generation: Latent Inter-Frame Pruning with Attention Recovery

Dennis Menn , Yuedong Yang , Bokun Wang , Xiwen Wei , Mustafa Munir , Feng Liang , Radu Marculescu , Chenfeng Xu

show 1 more author

Diana Marculescu

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV

keywords video generationlatent pruningtemporal redundancyattention recoveryvideo compressionreal-time inferencediffusion models

0 comments

The pith

Pruning duplicated latent patches across video frames speeds up generation by 1.53 times while preserving quality and requiring no retraining.

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

The paper seeks to cut the high latency of video generation models by exploiting repeated content between frames in the latent space. It introduces a pruning step that skips recomputation of identical patches and pairs it with an attention recovery step that approximates the missing attention values to avoid visual errors. This combination runs on existing models without any fine-tuning. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns expensive generative pipelines into something closer to real-time on standard GPUs.

Core claim

The LIPAR framework detects duplicated latent patches between consecutive video frames, skips their recomputation during denoising, and applies an attention recovery approximation to the pruned tokens so that the final output matches the quality of the unpruned model.

What carries the argument

Latent Inter-frame Pruning with Attention Recovery (LIPAR), which identifies temporal duplicates in latent patches and substitutes an approximation for their attention contributions.

If this is right

Video editing throughput rises by a factor of 1.53.
Average speed reaches 19.3 FPS on an RTX 4090 with the 1.3B model at 4-step denoising in FP16.
Generation quality remains unchanged compared with the baseline.
The method integrates directly into existing pipelines with zero additional training.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same pruning logic could be tested on longer video sequences where temporal redundancy is even higher.
Attention recovery may generalize to other diffusion or autoregressive video models beyond the one tested.
Combining this latent-space shortcut with traditional video codecs could further reduce bandwidth for generated content.

Load-bearing premise

Duplicated latent patches can be detected reliably across frames and the attention recovery step preserves visual fidelity without introducing artifacts or needing per-model tuning.

What would settle it

A direct measurement on the 1.3B Self-Forcing model showing either visible artifacts in side-by-side video comparisons or failure to reach the stated 19.3 FPS throughput on an RTX 4090 under the reported settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.05811 by Bokun Wang, Chenfeng Xu, Dennis Menn, Diana Marculescu, Feng Liang, Mustafa Munir, Radu Marculescu, Xiwen Wei, Yuedong Yang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Decoding Compressed Latents. Original: Directly decode the video latents; Compressed: Compressed (nearly) unchanged latent patches. To further test temporal redundancy in the latent space, we select ten videos from the DAVIS dataset and substitute (nearly) unchanged patches with those from the previous frame to create a “compressed” latents. Even after compressing 46% of the latents, the decoded output … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Illustration of the approximation of pruned tokens to the unpruned token sequence. Dashed circles indicate pruned tokens, where x1 ≈ x2 ≈ x3 and x4 ≈ x5. modifying either the input vectors (q, k, v) prior to the attention calculation, or the resulting attention output afterward. Mathematically, our objective is to define functions f and g such that the attention output computed from the kept tokens approx… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: LIPAR overview: The proposed method consists of three stages: 1. Pruning 2. Attention Recovery and 3. Restoration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Illustration of the Attention Recovery Method. This method preserves visual quality in pruned tokens via two mechanisms: M-Degree Approximation and Noise-Aware Duplication. Pruned keys (k) and values (v) are approximated by copying temporal counterparts from the clean KV-cache (e.g., t−1) to maintain the i.i.d. noise assumption, ensuring the m closest tokens to the query remain populated. For simplicity,… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Qualitative comparison with representative low latency V2V models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of user preference and throughput against other models. Human Evaluation. Following TokenFlow [8] and StreamV2V [17], we assess perceptual quality using a TwoAlternative Forced Choice protocol with 51 video-prompt pairs from the DAVIS dataset [21], where participants select the better of two sideby-side videos. The study involved 14 participants, each performing 100 pairwise comparisons. Re… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Visual comparison of different pruning methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Attention Recovery. a) LIF b) + M-degree Apprx. c) + Noise-aware Dup. 7 Ablation Study 7.1 Generation Quality VS. Proposed Techniques [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Inference latency on a NVIDIA A6000 GPU for generating a 4.5-second video across varying token remains. We evaluate the relationship between inference latency and the percentage of remaining tokens. The experiment is conducted on an NVIDIA A6000 GPU using a video with a resolution of 480× 832 and 72 frames (4.5 seconds at 16 FPS). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: LPIPS Score vs. θ. As we increase the threshold θ for compression in Eqn. 14, the compression rate (annotated in black) increases. Notably, high visual similarity (LPIPS ≤ 0.05, dashed line) is maintained even when the compression rate rises to 46%. This quantitatively confirms that substantial temporal redundancy exists in latent space. There is no guarantee that the temporal redundancy exists in the lat… view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Webpage for performing human evaluation test. 17 Further Discussion on Qualitative Comparison with Other Pruning Methods 1. Throughput Difference: Despite using identical pruning rates, LIPAR achieves significantly higher throughput (FPS) than the baselines. This is primarily because token merging methods incur substantial overhead by executing merge operations at regular intervals for excessive tokens. … view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Qualitative comparison on motion control tasks. We visualize the results of our LIPAR applied to motion control applications compared against baseline (original) methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Current video generation models suffer from high computational latency, making real-time applications prohibitively costly. In this paper, we address this limitation by exploiting the temporal redundancy inherent in video latent patches. To this end, we propose the Latent Inter-frame Pruning with Attention Recovery (LIPAR) framework, which detects and skips recomputing duplicated latent patches. Additionally, we introduce a novel Attention Recovery mechanism that approximates the attention values of pruned tokens, thereby removing visual artifacts arising from naively applying the pruning method. Empirically, our method increases video editing throughput by $1.53\times$, achieving an average of 19.3 FPS on an NVIDIA RTX 4090 with the 1.3B Self-Forcing model (4-step denoising, FP16). The proposed method does not compromise generation quality and can be seamlessly integrated with the model without additional training. Our approach effectively bridges the gap between traditional compression algorithms and modern generative pipelines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

LIPAR gives a practical way to skip redundant latent patches in video diffusion but the abstract leaves detection rules and recovery math too vague to judge the no-quality-loss claim.

read the letter

The core idea is to detect duplicate latent patches across video frames, skip their recomputation during denoising, and then approximate the missing attention values so pruning does not create visible artifacts. The authors report this yields a 1.53× throughput gain, reaching 19.3 FPS on an RTX 4090 with the 1.3B Self-Forcing model at 4-step FP16 inference, all without retraining. That combination of inter-frame pruning plus attention recovery for generative pipelines is the new piece; prior token-pruning work exists but has not been packaged this way for video generators. The plug-and-play nature is a real strength for anyone already running these models. The approach directly attacks the latency bottleneck that keeps video generation from real-time use, and the reported numbers are measured on fixed hardware rather than derived from fitted parameters. The main weakness is that the abstract supplies no detection criterion for duplicated patches, no closed-form description of the attention recovery step, and no quality numbers at all. Without LPIPS, FVD, or even a simple user study, the assertion that quality is unchanged remains an unverified claim, especially on high-motion sequences where the stress-test concern about detection failure would matter most. The paper is aimed at people who need faster inference for diffusion video models and are willing to add a lightweight post-processing step. A reader already working on efficient generative pipelines would get immediate value from the idea and the reported FPS number, even if they later have to re-implement the missing pieces. It is coherent on its own terms and shows clear engineering thinking, so it deserves a serious referee who can ask for the detection rule, the recovery formula, and the quality tables. I would send it to review rather than desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Latent Inter-Frame Pruning with Attention Recovery (LIPAR) framework to address high latency in video generation models by detecting and skipping recomputation of duplicated latent patches across frames. It introduces an Attention Recovery mechanism to approximate attention values for pruned tokens and avoid artifacts. The central empirical claim is a 1.53× increase in video editing throughput to an average of 19.3 FPS on an NVIDIA RTX 4090 using the 1.3B Self-Forcing model (4-step denoising, FP16), with no quality compromise and no additional training required.

Significance. If the throughput gains and quality preservation hold under rigorous validation, the work could meaningfully bridge traditional video compression with modern generative pipelines, enabling more practical real-time video editing applications. The approach of pruning temporal redundancies without retraining is conceptually appealing, but its significance is currently limited by the absence of supporting quantitative evidence and implementation details.

major comments (3)

Abstract: The claim of 'unchanged generation quality' and 'no compromise' is unsupported because no quantitative metrics (LPIPS, FVD, PSNR, or user-study protocol) are reported, nor are any ablation results or comparisons to the baseline model provided to substantiate the assertion.
Method section (implied by abstract description of LIPAR): No detection rule for duplicated latent patches is specified (e.g., cosine similarity threshold, L2 distance, or temporal window), and no closed-form expression, pseudocode, or approximation formula is given for the Attention Recovery mechanism, rendering the pruning and recovery steps non-reproducible.
Experiments (implied by throughput and FPS claims): The reported 1.53× speedup and 19.3 FPS rest on unelaborated steps without validation on high-motion sequences or long videos; if duplicate detection fails or attention recovery introduces artifacts, the speedup claim becomes invalid while quality degrades, yet no such stress tests or failure cases are presented.

minor comments (1)

Abstract: The integration claim ('seamlessly integrated without additional training') would benefit from a brief statement on the exact model layers affected by pruning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the insightful comments, which have helped us identify areas for improvement in clarity and completeness. We address each major comment below and commit to revising the manuscript to enhance reproducibility and strengthen the empirical claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The claim of 'unchanged generation quality' and 'no compromise' is unsupported because no quantitative metrics (LPIPS, FVD, PSNR, or user-study protocol) are reported, nor are any ablation results or comparisons to the baseline model provided to substantiate the assertion.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit quantitative support in the abstract. The experiments section of the manuscript provides comparisons using LPIPS, FVD, and PSNR metrics demonstrating that our method maintains quality comparable to the baseline with differences within acceptable margins. We will revise the abstract to reference these metrics briefly, e.g., 'with LPIPS and FVD scores showing no significant degradation'. This revision will be made to better substantiate the claim. revision: yes
Referee: Method section (implied by abstract description of LIPAR): No detection rule for duplicated latent patches is specified (e.g., cosine similarity threshold, L2 distance, or temporal window), and no closed-form expression, pseudocode, or approximation formula is given for the Attention Recovery mechanism, rendering the pruning and recovery steps non-reproducible.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the current description lacks sufficient implementation details for full reproducibility. We will expand the Method section to specify the duplicate detection criterion (using a cosine similarity threshold over a sliding temporal window) and provide the mathematical formulation and pseudocode for the Attention Recovery mechanism. These additions will ensure the approach can be implemented by others. revision: yes
Referee: Experiments (implied by throughput and FPS claims): The reported 1.53× speedup and 19.3 FPS rest on unelaborated steps without validation on high-motion sequences or long videos; if duplicate detection fails or attention recovery introduces artifacts, the speedup claim becomes invalid while quality degrades, yet no such stress tests or failure cases are presented.

Authors: Our experimental evaluation was performed on a range of video sequences from standard benchmarks, which include both low and high motion content as well as videos of different durations. The reported speedup and FPS are averaged over these. To further validate robustness, we will add specific results and analysis for high-motion sequences and longer videos, including cases where pruning is more challenging, to demonstrate that quality is preserved and the speedup holds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain; empirical claims are direct measurements

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical pruning framework (LIPAR) with attention recovery for video generation, reporting measured throughput (1.53×, 19.3 FPS) on fixed hardware and model. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations appear in the provided text that would reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The speedup is presented as a direct experimental result rather than a derived prediction, and the method is stated to integrate without retraining, keeping the central claims independent of circular definitions or renamings.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the unstated premise that temporal redundancy in latent patches is both detectable and safely approximable; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are named in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5489 in / 1129 out tokens · 32779 ms · 2026-05-15T16:00:50.823490+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

com/madebyollin/taehv(2025)

Boer Bohan, O.: Taehv: Tiny autoencoder for hunyuan video.https://github. com/madebyollin/taehv(2025)

work page 2025
[2]

In: International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (2023)

Bolya, D., Fu, C.Y., Dai, X., Zhang, P., Feichtenhofer, C., Hoffman, J.: Token merging: Your ViT but faster. In: International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

CVPR Workshop on Efficient Deep Learning for Computer Vision (2023)

Bolya, D., Hoffman, J.: Token merging for fast stable diffusion. CVPR Workshop on Efficient Deep Learning for Computer Vision (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2024)

Choudhury, R., Zhu, G., Liu, S., Niinuma, K., Kitani, K., Jeni, L.: Don’t look twice: Faster video transformers with run-length tokenization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2022)

Dao,T.,Fu,D.Y.,Ermon,S.,Rudra,A.,Ré,C.:FlashAttention:Fastandmemory- efficient exact attention with IO-awareness. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

In: CVPR (2025)

Fang, H., Tang, S., Cao, J., Zhang, E., Tang, F., Lee, T.Y.: Attend to not attended: Structure-then-detail token merging for post-training dit acceleration. In: CVPR (2025)

work page 2025
[7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07399 (2025)

Feng, T., Li, Z., Yang, S., Xi, H., Li, M., Li, X., Zhang, L., Yang, K., Peng, K., Han, S., et al.: Streamdiffusionv2: A streaming system for dynamic and interactive video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07399 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

ICLR (2024)

Geyer, M., Bar-Tal, O., Bagon, S., Dekel, T.: Tokenflow: Consistent diffusion fea- tures for consistent video editing. ICLR (2024)

work page 2024
[9]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2025)

Huang, X., Li, Z., He, G., Zhou, M., Shechtman, E.: Self forcing: Bridging the train-test gap in autoregressive video diffusion. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2025)

work page 2025
[10]

In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024)

Huang, Z., He, Y., Yu, J., Zhang, F., Si, C., Jiang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, T., Jin, Q., Chanpaisit, N., Wang, Y., Chen, X., Wang, L., Lin, D., Qiao, Y., Liu, Z.: VBench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2024)

work page 2024
[11]

Kahatapitiya, K., Liu, H., He, S., Liu, D., Jia, M., Zhang, C., Ryoo, M.S., Xie, T.: Adaptive caching for faster video generation with diffusion transformers (2025), https://openreview.net/forum?id=DyyLUUVXJ5

work page 2025
[12]

arXiv (2023)

Kodaira, A., Xu, C., Hazama, T., Yoshimoto, T., Ohno, K., et al.: Streamdiffusion: A pipeline-level solution for real-time interactive generation. arXiv (2023)

work page 2023
[13]

HunyuanVideo: A Systematic Framework For Large Video Generative Models

Kong, W., Tian, Q., Zhang, Z., Min, R., Dai, Z., Zhou, J., Xiong, J., Li, X., Wu, B., Zhang, J., et al.: Hunyuanvideo: A systematic framework for large video generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03603 (2024)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[14]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision (2018)

Lai,W.S.,Huang,J.B.,Wang,O.,Shechtman,E.,Yumer,E.,Yang,M.H.:Learning blind video temporal consistency. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (2018)

work page 2018
[15]

Le Gall, D.: Mpeg: a video compression standard for multimedia applications. Commun. ACM (1991)

work page 1991
[16]

arXiv preprint arxiv:2312.10656 (2023)

Li, X., Ma, C., Yang, X., Yang, M.H.: Vidtome: Video token merging for zero-shot video editing. arXiv preprint arxiv:2312.10656 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[17]

ICLR (2024)

Liang,F.,Kodaira,A.,Xu,C.,Tomizuka,M.,Keutzer,K.,Marculescu,D.:Looking backward: Streaming video-to-video translation with feature banks. ICLR (2024)

work page 2024
[18]

Timestep embedding tells: It’s time to cache for video diffusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19108, 2024

Liu, F., Zhang, S., Wang, X., Wei, Y., Qiu, H., Zhao, Y., Zhang, Y., Ye, Q., Wan, F.: Timestep embedding tells: It’s time to cache for video diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19108 (2024) 16 D. Menn et al

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

Meng, C., He, Y., Song, Y., Song, J., Wu, J., Zhu, J.Y., Ermon, S.: SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equations. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

work page 2022
[20]

Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers

Peebles, W., Xie, S.: Scalable diffusion models with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09748 (2022)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[21]

Pont-Tuset, J., Perazzi, F., Caelles, S., Arbeláez, P., Sorkine-Hornung, A., Van Gool, L.: The 2017 davis challenge on video object segmentation (2017)

work page 2017
[22]

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models (2021)

work page 2021
[23]

Motion- stream: Real-time video generation with interactive motion controls.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01266, 2025

Shin, J., Li, Z., Zhang, R., Zhu, J.Y., Park, J., Shechtman, E., Huang, X.: Mo- tionstream: Real-time video generation with interactive motion controls. arXiv preprint:2511.01266 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

arXiv (2025)

Singer, A., Rotstein, N., Mann, A., Kimmel, R., Litany, O.: Time-to-move: Training-free motion controlled video generation via dual-clock denoising. arXiv (2025)

work page 2025
[25]

Su, J., Lu, Y., Pan, S., Wen, B., Liu, Y.: Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding (2021)

work page 2021
[26]

Wan: Open and Advanced Large-Scale Video Generative Models

Wan, T.: Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[27]

Wu, H., Xu, J., Le, H., Samaras, D.: Importance-based token merging for efficient image and video generation (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

2 Xiao, Z., Lan, Y ., Zhou, Y ., Ouyang, W., Yang, S., Zeng, Y ., and Pan, X

Xi, H., Yang, S., Zhao, Y., Xu, C., Li, M., Li, X., Lin, Y., Cai, H., Zhang, J., Li, D., et al.: Sparse videogen: Accelerating video diffusion transformers with spatial- temporal sparsity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01776 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

Sparse VideoGen2: Accelerate Video Generation with Sparse Attention via Semantic-Aware Permutation

Yang, S., Xi, H., Zhao, Y., Li, M., Zhang, J., Cai, H., Lin, Y., Li, X., Xu, C., Peng, K., et al.: Sparse videogen2: Accelerate video generation with sparse attention via semantic-aware permutation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18875 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[30]

In: NeurIPS (2024)

Yin, T., Gharbi, M., Park, T., Zhang, R., Shechtman, E., Durand, F., Freeman, W.T.: Improved distribution matching distillation for fast image synthesis. In: NeurIPS (2024)

work page 2024
[31]

In: Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025)

Yin, T., Zhang, Q., Zhang, R., Freeman, W.T., Durand, F., Shechtman, E., Huang, X.: From slow bidirectional to fast autoregressive video diffusion models. In: Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025)

work page 2025
[32]

In: CVPR (2018)

Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: CVPR (2018)

work page 2018
[33]

Zhang, Y., Wei, Y., Jiang, D., Zhang, X., Zuo, W., Tian, Q.: Controlvideo: Training-free controllable text-to-video generation. ICLR (2024) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 17 10 Related Work - Real-time Interactive Video Generation Recent advancements in video generation aim to reduce latency, paving the way forreal-time interactive video generat...

work page 2024