Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

ProphetDWM: A Driving World Model for Rolling Out Future Actions and Videos

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read ProphetDWM predicts future driving actions and video in one stage, beating separate pipelines on NuScenes.

desk verdict One-stage joint action+video prediction is a real step; the quantitative evidence for the long-term rollout claim is the paper's soft underbelly. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18650 v1 pith:6SFOWAT5 submitted 2025-05-24 cs.CV

Xiaodong Wang , Peixi Peng This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords drivingworldmodeljointactionandvideopredictionlatentdiffusionlong-termrolloutautonomousNuScenesPOMDP
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 a driving world model should not merely turn a full action sequence into video; it should also predict future actions and capture the dynamics that produce them. It proposes ProphetDWM, an end-to-end model with a lightweight action module that reads the current observation and a short known action sequence to produce a latent action, and a diffusion-based transition module that predicts future frames conditioned on that latent action. The two modules are trained jointly, so the action dynamics and the visual state distribution are learned together. On NuScenes, the paper reports the best video consistency (FVD 190.5, FID 6.9) and best average action-prediction L1 error (0.0915) among the compared methods, with iterative rollouts extending beyond 100 frames.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the latent action $\hat{h}=[h,\tilde{h}]$ produced by a lightweight MLP action module. Given the current observation $o_t$ and a short known action sequence $a_{t+1:t+\eta}$ (with $\eta<\Delta T$), the module maps the known actions and a projected visual feature into a latent action that covers the full prediction horizon, and it decodes the future portion into low-level actions. This latent action then conditions a diffusion-model transition module, a U-Net that adds noise to the latent states of current and ground-truth future frames and learns to denoise them with the latent action injected through cross-attention. A multi-scale state-context short pathway also feeds the observed state into each U-Net block via zero-initialized convolution scale/shift. Jointly optimizing the action L1 loss and the diffusion loss is what ties action dynamics to video consistency.

What would settle it

Train ProphetDWM with known-action horizons of 1, 2, 4, and 8 actions and measure action-prediction L1 and FVD; if long-horizon video quality collapses or action error grows sharply when $\eta$ is small, the claim that finite states suffice for the latent action would be refuted. A second check is comparing against an oracle that receives the full ground-truth action sequence as condition: a large gap would show the latent action loses dynamics information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that joint one-stage prediction of actions and video is what makes a driving world model useful for planning, and that previous world models are limited because they condition video on actions of the same length as the video and ignore the laws that generate action sequences. ProphetDWM is trained by learning latent actions from finite states and then predicting both actions and video; the latent action links the action dynamics to the state distribution. The reported result is that this joint training yields state-of-the-art video consistency on NuScenes while also giving the most accurate action prediction, and that the model can roll out coherent future video and actions for over 100 frames without re-encoding predicted actions.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that from the current image and a short window of roughly two known actions, a lightweight MLP can infer the entire future action sequence, and that this inferred latent action is accurate enough to condition all future video frames.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One-stage joint prediction removes the need to generate a full-length video before any action is known, so a short command of about two actions can drive a rollout of many frames.
  • Because the action module and transition module share training, the action predictions and the generated video stay aligned, supporting counterfactual 'what if I brake or steer' questions.
  • Long-term rollouts beyond 100 frames are obtained by iterative re-feeding, suggesting the latent action carries enough dynamics information to delay error accumulation.
  • The same POMDP formulation applies to any observed agent with low-level actions, not only ego-vehicle speed and steering.
  • Action prediction accuracy is reported jointly with video quality, so a single model can serve both visualization and planning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not analyze how the length $\eta$ of the known action sequence affects downstream performance; a natural test is to vary $\eta$ and check whether video consistency and action accuracy degrade gracefully.
  • If the latent action is a sufficient statistic for future dynamics, the model could be reused for closed-loop policy evaluation by swapping in different latent-action priors, but the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • The claim that joint training, rather than the extra parameters of the action module, causes the FVD improvement rests on the ablation in Table 4; a stronger test would compare against a trained-from-scratch video-only model with matched capacity.
  • The comparison omits several recent models because they are not open-sourced; a public benchmark with fixed checkpoints would tell whether the gap persists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ProphetDWM, an end-to-end driving world model that jointly predicts future actions and future videos. A lightweight MLP action module takes a short sequence of known actions plus the current observation and produces a latent action representation, which conditions a latent video diffusion model that predicts future states. The two modules are trained jointly with an action L1 loss and a diffusion denoising loss. Experiments on the Nuscenes dataset report an FVD of 190.5 and FID of 6.9 for 8-frame prediction at 192×384, an average action L1 of 0.0915, and qualitative long-term rollouts of more than 100 frames. The ablation in Table 4 shows a substantial FVD gain from joint training (265 to 191), supporting the central design choice.

Significance. If the quantitative results are taken at face value, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates that joint training of action prediction and video prediction in a single stage can improve both tasks, and the latent-action formulation is a reasonable way to couple the two modalities. The work is practically relevant for autonomous driving applications that need synchronized action and video forecasts. However, the significance is currently limited by the uncontrolled nature of the video-generation comparison and by the absence of quantitative evaluation of the long-term rollout capability, which the paper presents as one of its main strengths.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2 and Appendix Table A7] The headline FVD/FID numbers (Table 2: 190.5/6.9) are computed on Setting 1 (192×384, 8 frames, fps=2, one reference frame), while the long-term rollouts in Figure 6 use Setting 3 (256×448, sequence length 10, four reference frames, fps=4). No FVD/FID or action L1 is reported for the rollout regime. Since Table 6 shows the 256×448 model has FVD 238.0 versus 190.5 at 192×384, the claim that the model 'can roll out high-quality long-term videos and actions' is not quantitatively supported. Please add long-horizon metrics (e.g., FVD on rolled-out sequences, drift measures such as LPIPS over time) and at least one matched baseline for the rollout setting.
  2. [Table 2 and Sec. 4.3] The comparison in Table 2 is not controlled. The listed methods use different conditioning inputs (first image, HDmap, 3Dbox), different resolutions, and different training datasets. The text states that GenAD and Vista results are 'not included' because of extra training data, yet GenAD-nus appears in the table with FVD 244.0. Please either remove the contradictory sentence or clarify that GenAD-nus is a Nuscenes-finetuned variant and thus comparable. To support the claim of 'best video consistency,' the paper should report the resolution and conditioning for each method in the table and add a caveat that the comparison is only indicative.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (6)] The model assumes that a short known action sequence (η≈2 actions) plus the current observation is sufficient to infer the full latent action for the entire prediction horizon (ΔT=8–10 frames). This is a load-bearing assumption and is stated without sensitivity analysis. Please add an ablation varying η and ΔT, and report how action L1 and video FVD depend on the known-action length. Without this, the reader cannot judge whether the model will generalize to longer horizons, different action cadences, or scenarios where the action sequence is uninformative.
  4. [Table 3] The action prediction evaluation reports only average L1 errors on speed and steering, with no confidence intervals and no comparison to a trivial baseline such as 'repeat the last known action' or 'constant-velocity.' Since the known action window is short, the model may simply be exploiting the smoothness of human driving. Please add a constant/repeat baseline, report the standard deviation or per-scene breakdown of the errors, and state the exact prediction horizon and data split used for the action evaluation.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (6)] The notation in Eq. (6) is confusing: the left-hand side lists latent actions as outputs, while the right-hand side is written as a conditional distribution over future actions. Please rewrite it to clearly distinguish the inputs (o_t, a_{t+1:t+η}), the outputs (latent action ĥ and predicted future actions ã_{t+η+1:t+ΔT}), and the parameterized map q_θ.
  2. [Table 4] Table 4 lacks column headers for the first two columns ('Latent action' and 'Joint train.'). Please add them so the ablation rows are self-explanatory.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] The statement 'GenAD [38] and Vista [8] results are also not included here' conflicts with the presence of GenAD-nus in Table 2. Please clarify the distinction (e.g., original GenAD pretrained on extra data versus the Nuscenes-finetuned variant).
  4. [Figures 4 and 6] The figure captions use 'key frame' and 'non-key frame' without defining them. Since Nuscenes actions are only recorded at 2 Hz, please define these terms in the caption or in Sec. 4.2 to avoid confusion.
  5. [Appendix Table A7] Table A7 in the supplementary material should be cited in Sec. 4.1 when the two training resolutions are introduced, so the reader knows that the quantitative and qualitative settings differ.
  6. [References] The reference list contains a duplicate: 'Learning to model the world with language' appears as both [23] and [24]. Please merge them.
  7. [Abstract] The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'the video requires given actions' should be rephrased, e.g., 'the video prediction requires given actions of the same length as the video.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the core training and evaluation are self-contained against held-out Nuscenes data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The action module is supervised by ground-truth future actions (Eq. 7) on Nuscenes and evaluated on held-out data (Table 3). The video transition model is trained with a diffusion denoising objective (Eq. 11) against ground-truth latent states, and the FVD/FID numbers in Table 2 are obtained on the standard 192x384, 8-frame setting against external baselines. The latent action h is indeed a function of the known action prefix a_{t+1:t+eta}, and the video model is conditioned on the concatenated latent action [h, h_tilde]; however, this is a conditional generation architecture rather than a reduction of the prediction target to the input, because at evaluation the ground-truth future frames and future actions are not provided, and the model must still synthesize the pixel sequence. The long-term rollout claim is supported only qualitatively and uses a different 256x448 model with worse FVD (Table 6), but that is an evidence gap and a correctness risk, not a circularity. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction steps appear in the manuscript.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model rests on the usual assumptions of latent video diffusion world models plus one paper-specific premise: a short observed action window is enough to infer the full future latent action. No constants are derived from first principles; the listed hyperparameters are chosen by hand or left unreported.

free parameters (3)
  • loss weights beta_a and beta_v = not reported
    Balance action prediction and video prediction in the joint objective (Eqs. 7 and 11); the paper does not give their values, and they are chosen by hand.
  • state context drop ratio = not reported
    Used for classifier-free guidance sampling in Section 3.3; value not stated, affects sample quality.
  • number of reference frames = 1 or 4
    Experimental choice in Appendix A and Figure A9 that affects FVD and rollout length; not optimized but influences reported numbers.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The driving task can be modeled as a finite-horizon POMDP with images as observations and low-level steering and speed as actions, with no reward.
    Section 3.1 defines the task as a finite-horizon POMDP and explicitly excludes reward; all subsequent modeling depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption VAE latent states are sufficient statistics of observations for both reconstruction and future prediction.
    Eqs. 1 and 8 assume image observations are fully encoded by the latent VAE states.
  • ad hoc to paper A short observed action sequence plus the current observation is enough to infer the full future latent action h.
    Section 3.2 builds the entire action module on this premise; it is not derived or independently validated.
  • domain assumption A diffusion model with cross-attention over latent action can represent the observation transition distribution.
    Section 3.3 adopts a latent video diffusion model and injects h through cross-attention; this is an empirical modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Actions are available only at keyframes, and non-keyframe dynamics are supervised through the video loss.
    Appendix A explains actions in Nuscenes are recorded only for keyframes; the model must interpolate or ignore non-key action supervision.
  • domain assumption LLaVA-NeXT generated scene captions are accurate enough to fine-tune the base diffusion model.
    Section 3.3 relies on captions produced by LLaVA-NeXT-Video because Nuscenes has no text annotations; errors in captions would propagate.
invented entities (2)
  • latent action h
    purpose: Compressed representation of known and predicted future actions used to condition the video transition model and decode actions.
    It is an internal learned feature with no falsifiable prediction outside the model; its usefulness is demonstrated only by in-domain ablations.
  • state context short pathway
    purpose: Multi-scale injection of repeated observation states into U-Net blocks to improve temporal consistency.
    An architectural mechanism; no external evidence beyond the authors' concatenation comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ProphetDWM: A Driving World Model for Rolling Out Future Actions and Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SFOWAT5

@misc{pith2026250518650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ProphetDWM: A Driving World Model for Rolling Out Future Actions and Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SFOWAT5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18650}
}
read the original abstract

Real-world driving requires people to observe the current environment, anticipate the future, and make appropriate driving decisions. This requirement is aligned well with the capabilities of world models, which understand the environment and predict the future. However, recent world models in autonomous driving are built explicitly, where they could predict the future by controllable driving video generation. We argue that driving world models should have two additional abilities: action control and action prediction. Following this line, previous methods are limited because they predict the video requires given actions of the same length as the video and ignore the dynamical action laws. To address these issues, we propose ProphetDWM, a novel end-to-end driving world model that jointly predicts future videos and actions. Our world model has an action module to learn latent action from the present to the future period by giving the action sequence and observations. And a diffusion-model-based transition module to learn the state distribution. The model is jointly trained by learning latent actions given finite states and predicting action and video. The joint learning connects the action dynamics and states and enables long-term future prediction. We evaluate our method in video generation and action prediction tasks on the Nuscenes dataset. Compared to the state-of-the-art methods, our method achieves the best video consistency and best action prediction accuracy, while also enabling high-quality long-term video and action generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18650 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The comparison of video-action generation paradigms. We compare our method with previous methods that can perform action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of proposed ProphetDWM. Our world model has an action module to learn the latent action and a video [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Light-weight action model. This model learns the latent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: World model prediction by our proposed method. (Resolution of video is 256 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Video prediction comparison. Although different models have different resolutions for inference, CogVideoX-2b-nus(CogVX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Long-term video and action rollout. Given four input frames, our model can predict long-term video and actions, up to 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the proposed multi-scale fusion and widely-used concatenation [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. WorldLens: Full-Spectrum Evaluations of Driving World Models in Real World

    cs.CV 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A five-aspect, 24-metric benchmark, a 26K human-annotated dataset, and an AI evaluator show that today's driving world models cannot simultaneously look real, respect geometry, and behave safely.

  2. UNIVERSE: Unified Video Action Models for Autonomous Driving with Flexible Mask-Modulated Modality Generation

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A single mask-modulated DiT that co-trains future video and trajectories yields stronger autonomous-driving action generalization and 4.3× faster trajectory-only inference than dual-DiT designs.

  3. LongDWM: Cross-Granularity Distillation for Building a Long-Term Driving World Model

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A hierarchical coarse-to-fine diffusion transformer with cross-granularity distillation improves long-term driving video prediction, but the reported gains may be inflated by future-derived text prompts and a selected...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Lumiere: A space- time diffusion model for video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12945, 2024

    Omer Bar-Tal, Hila Chefer, Omer Tov, Charles Her- rmann, Roni Paiss, Shiran Zada, Ariel Ephrat, Junhwa Hur, Yuanzhen Li, Tomer Michaeli, et al. Lumiere: A space- time diffusion model for video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12945, 2024. 3

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023

    Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram V oleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15127, 2023. 5, 8

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dock- horn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models. InCVPR, pages 22563–22575, 2023. 1, 3, 5

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Ge- nie: Generative interactive environments

    Jake Bruce, Michael D Dennis, Ashley Edwards, Jack Parker-Holder, Yuge Shi, Edward Hughes, Matthew Lai, Aditi Mavalankar, Richie Steigerwald, Chris Apps, et al. Ge- nie: Generative interactive environments. InForty-first Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. 4

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Training sequence visualization

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, 1 Non-keyframe Non-keyframe Non-keyframeKeyframe Keyframe Keyframe Keyframe FutureHistory None Figure A8. Training sequence visualization. The orange marks are the inputs to our world model. The known future actions indicate the dynamic informati...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Carla: An open urban driv- ing simulator

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Anto- nio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. Carla: An open urban driv- ing simulator. InConference on robot learning, pages 1–16. PMLR, 2017. 1, 3

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Visual foresight: Model-based deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic control

    Frederik Ebert, Chelsea Finn, Sudeep Dasari, Annie Xie, Alex Lee, and Sergey Levine. Visual foresight: Model-based deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00568, 2018. 1, 3

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Vista: A generalizable driving world model with high fidelity and versatile controllability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17398, 2024

    Shenyuan Gao, Jiazhi Yang, Li Chen, Kashyap Chitta, Yihang Qiu, Andreas Geiger, Jun Zhang, and Hongyang Li. Vista: A generalizable driving world model with high fidelity and versatile controllability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17398, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution.NIPS, 31, 2018

    David Ha and J ¨urgen Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution.NIPS, 31, 2018. 3

    2018

  2. [10]

    World models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122, 2018

    David Ha and J ¨urgen Schmidhuber. World models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.10122, 2018. 1

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dream to control: Learning behaviors by la- tent imagination.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01603, 2019

    Danijar Hafner, Timothy Lillicrap, Jimmy Ba, and Moham- mad Norouzi. Dream to control: Learning behaviors by la- tent imagination.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01603, 2019. 3

    1912 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Mastering atari with discrete world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02193, 2020

    Danijar Hafner, Timothy Lillicrap, Mohammad Norouzi, and Jimmy Ba. Mastering atari with discrete world models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02193, 2020. 2, 3

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Mastering diverse domains through world models

    Danijar Hafner, Jurgis Pasukonis, Jimmy Ba, and Timothy Lillicrap. Mastering diverse domains through world models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The prediction results from different low-level control actions

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, 2 T=10 T=20 T=30 T=40 T=50 T=10 T=20 T=30 T=40 T=50 T=4 Go Left T=5 T=5 Figure A10. The prediction results from different low-level control actions. Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale upda...

  7. [15]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models.NIPS, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models.NIPS, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 1, 3, 5

    2020

  8. [16]

    Model-based imitation learning for urban driving.NIPS, 35:20703–20716, 2022

    Anthony Hu, Gianluca Corrado, Nicolas Griffiths, Zachary Murez, Corina Gurau, Hudson Yeo, Alex Kendall, Roberto Cipolla, and Jamie Shotton. Model-based imitation learning for urban driving.NIPS, 35:20703–20716, 2022. 3

    2022

  9. [17]

    Gaia-1: A generative world model for au- tonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17080, 2023

    Anthony Hu, Lloyd Russell, Hudson Yeo, Zak Murez, George Fedoseev, Alex Kendall, Jamie Shotton, and Gian- luca Corrado. Gaia-1: A generative world model for au- tonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17080, 2023. 1, 3

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Adriver-i: A general world model for autonomous driving

    Fan Jia, Weixin Mao, Yingfei Liu, Yucheng Zhao, Yuqing Wen, Chi Zhang, Xiangyu Zhang, and Tiancai Wang. Adriver-i: A general world model for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13549, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Drivegan: Towards a controllable high-quality neural simulation

    Seung Wook Kim, Jonah Philion, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Drivegan: Towards a controllable high-quality neural simulation. InCVPR, pages 5820–5829, 2021. 1, 2, 7

    2021

  12. [20]

    Videopoet: A large language model for zero-shot video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14125, 2023

    Dan Kondratyuk, Lijun Yu, Xiuye Gu, Jos ´e Lezama, Jonathan Huang, Rachel Hornung, Hartwig Adam, Hassan Akbari, Yair Alon, Vighnesh Birodkar, et al. Videopoet: A large language model for zero-shot video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14125, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A path towards autonomous machine intelli- gence version 0.9

    Yann LeCun. A path towards autonomous machine intelli- gence version 0.9. 2, 2022-06-27.Open Review, 62(1), 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  14. [22]

    Drivingdif- fusion: Layout-guided multi-view driving scene video generation with latent diffusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07771, 2023

    Xiaofan Li, Yifu Zhang, and Xiaoqing Ye. Drivingdif- fusion: Layout-guided multi-view driving scene video generation with latent diffusion model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07771, 2023. 7

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Learning to model the world with language

    Jessy Lin, Yuqing Du, Olivia Watkins, Danijar Hafner, Pieter Abbeel, Dan Klein, and Anca Dragan. Learning to model the world with language. 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Learning to model the world with language

    Jessy Lin, Yuqing Du, Olivia Watkins, Danijar Hafner, Pieter Abbeel, Dan Klein, and Anca Dragan. Learning to model the world with language. 2023. 3

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sora technical report

    OpenAI. Sora technical report. 2024. 1

    2024

  18. [26]

    Consisti2v: Enhanc- ing visual consistency for image-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04324, 2024

    Weiming Ren, Huan Yang, Ge Zhang, Cong Wei, Xinrun Du, Wenhao Huang, and Wenhu Chen. Consisti2v: Enhanc- ing visual consistency for image-to-video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04324, 2024. 5

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. InCVPR, pages 10684– 10695, 2022. 1, 3, 5

    2022

  20. [28]

    The optimal control of partially observable markov processes over a finite horizon.Operations research, 21(5):1071–1088, 1973

    Richard D Smallwood and Edward J Sondik. The optimal control of partially observable markov processes over a finite horizon.Operations research, 21(5):1071–1088, 1973. 1, 3

    1973

  21. [29]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset

    Pei Sun, Henrik Kretzschmar, Xerxes Dotiwalla, Aurelien Chouard, Vijaysai Patnaik, Paul Tsui, James Guo, Yin Zhou, Yuning Chai, Benjamin Caine, et al. Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. InCVPR, pages 2446–2454, 2020. 3

    2020

  22. [30]

    Deepmind control suite.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00690, 2018

    Yuval Tassa, Yotam Doron, Alistair Muldal, Tom Erez, Yazhe Li, Diego de Las Casas, David Budden, Abbas Ab- dolmaleki, Josh Merel, Andrew Lefrancq, et al. Deepmind control suite.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00690, 2018. 3

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    To- wards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717, 2018

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd Van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. To- wards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717, 2018. 5

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Magicvideo-v2: Multi- stage high-aesthetic video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04468, 2024

    Weimin Wang, Jiawei Liu, Zhijie Lin, Jiangqiao Yan, Shuo Chen, Chetwin Low, Tuyen Hoang, Jie Wu, Jun Hao Liew, Hanshu Yan, et al. Magicvideo-v2: Multi- stage high-aesthetic video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04468, 2024. 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Drivedreamer: Towards real-world-driven world models for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09777, 2023

    Xiaofeng Wang, Zheng Zhu, Guan Huang, Xinze Chen, and Jiwen Lu. Drivedreamer: Towards real-world-driven world models for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09777, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Worlddreamer: Towards general world models for video generation via predicting masked to- kens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09985, 2024

    Xiaofeng Wang, Zheng Zhu, Guan Huang, Boyuan Wang, Xinze Chen, and Jiwen Lu. Worlddreamer: Towards general world models for video generation via predicting masked to- kens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09985, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Driving into the future: Multiview visual forecasting and planning with world model for au- tonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17918, 2023

    Yuqi Wang, Jiawei He, Lue Fan, Hongxin Li, Yuntao Chen, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Driving into the future: Multiview visual forecasting and planning with world model for au- tonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17918, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16813, 2023

    Yuqing Wen, Yucheng Zhao, Yingfei Liu, Fan Jia, Yanhui Wang, Chong Luo, Chi Zhang, Tiancai Wang, Xiaoyan Sun, and Xiangyu Zhang. Panacea: Panoramic and controllable video generation for autonomous driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16813, 2023. 3, 7

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Philipp Wu, Alejandro Escontrela, Danijar Hafner, Pieter Abbeel, and Ken Goldberg. Daydreamer: World models for 3 T=1 T=10 T=20 T=30 T=40 T=50 T=60 T=70 T=80 T=90 T=100 T=145T=110 T=120 T=130 T=140 T=1 T=10 T=20 T=30 T=40 T=50 T=60 T=70 T=80 T=90 T=100 T=145T=110 T=120 T=130 T...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Generalized predictive model for autonomous driving

    Jiazhi Yang, Shenyuan Gao, Yihang Qiu, Li Chen, Tianyu Li, Bo Dai, Kashyap Chitta, Penghao Wu, Jia Zeng, Ping Luo, 4 et al. Generalized predictive model for autonomous driving. InCVPR, pages 14662–14672, 2024. 1, 2, 7

    2024

  31. [39]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiao- han Zhang, Guanyu Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024. 5, 6, 8

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nuwa-xl: Diffusion over diffusion for extremely long video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12346, 2023

    Shengming Yin, Chenfei Wu, Huan Yang, Jianfeng Wang, Xiaodong Wang, Minheng Ni, Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Shuguang Liu, Fan Yang, et al. Nuwa-xl: Diffusion over diffusion for extremely long video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12346, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Mag- ictime: Time-lapse video generation models as metamorphic simulators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05014, 2024

    Shenghai Yuan, Jinfa Huang, Yujun Shi, Yongqi Xu, Ruijie Zhu, Bin Lin, Xinhua Cheng, Li Yuan, and Jiebo Luo. Mag- ictime: Time-lapse video generation models as metamorphic simulators.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05014, 2024. 3, 5

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Llava- next: A strong zero-shot video understanding model, 2024

    Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, haotian Liu, Yong jae Lee, Liangke Gui, Di Fu, Jiashi Feng, Ziwei Liu, and Chunyuan Li. Llava- next: A strong zero-shot video understanding model, 2024. 5

    2024

  35. [43]

    Drivedreamer-2: Llm-enhanced world models for diverse driving video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06845,

    Guosheng Zhao, Xiaofeng Wang, Zheng Zhu, Xinze Chen, Guan Huang, Xiaoyi Bao, and Xingang Wang. Drivedreamer-2: Llm-enhanced world models for diverse driving video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06845,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.