Autoregression-free video prediction using diffusion model for mitigating error propagation

Il Yong Chun; Jin Bok Park; Woonho Ko

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Autoregression-free video prediction using diffusion model for mitigating error propagation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 ARFree predicts any future frame tuple directly from context frames, bypassing autoregressive rollout and the error buildup it causes.

desk verdict A sensible non-autoregressive video prediction framework with a genuinely useful consistency loss, but the reported SOTA gains are undercut by unequal class-label conditioning between ARFree and the baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22111 v2 pith:QTS6PQ3S submitted 2025-05-28 cs.CV

Woonho Ko , Jin Bok Park , Il Yong Chun This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords videopredictiondiffusionmodelsautoregression-freeerrorpropagationmotioncross-attentionlong-term

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

The paper proposes ARFree, a video prediction framework that does not feed its own predictions back in as inputs. Given a short context tuple of past frames, it directly predicts any chosen future frame tuple by first estimating a motion feature for that tuple and then running a diffusion denoiser conditioned on the context and on that motion feature. The aim is to remove the main failure mode of autoregressive video prediction: errors in early predicted frames contaminating all later frames. The paper argues that this design predicts distant future frames more accurately, and reports that it outperforms several state-of-the-art diffusion video predictors on the KTH and NATOPS benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the motion prediction module. It computes $m_0 = E(D_0)$, where $D_0$ is the tuple of pixel-wise differences between adjacent context frames, then predicts $m_n = P(m_0, k_n, c)$ through $L$ multi-head cross-attention blocks, with the embedded frame index $k_n$ and class label $c$ as key and value while $m_0$ serves as the query. The predicted motion feature is concatenated into the denoiser input, so it explicitly carries the temporal relation between the context tuple and the $n$-th future tuple. The second mechanism is the training objective: the model denoises two future tuples whose time windows overlap and adds a consistency term $L_{cst}$ that forces the overlapping frames to agree, improving motion continuity and contextual consistency between adjacent tuples.

What would settle it

Run the model on a benchmark where motion direction or speed changes within the predicted horizon (for example, a person who walks forward and then turns around, or a gesture with a reversal), and compare per-tuple PSNR and FVD against a rollout method that consumes predicted intermediate frames. If ARFree's error for the farthest tuple grows faster than the rollout method's, the motion extrapolation is failing and the benefit of avoiding autoregressive propagation disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ARFree's central claim is that long-term video prediction can be made autoregression-free without losing temporal coherence. Instead of predicting frame by frame, the model predicts the whole future tuple $V_n$ for any $n$ using only the context tuple $V_0$, with the temporal gap encoded by a predicted motion feature $m_n$. The motion feature is produced by a cross-attention module that takes a motion feature extracted from the context frame differences, the initial frame index of the target tuple, and the action class label as key and value information. A modified diffusion transformer denoises noise into the future tuple conditioned on $V_0$ and $m_n$, and a training objective enforces consistency between overlapping windows of adjacent future tuples. On KTH and NATOPS, the paper reports that this approach improves PSNR, LPIPS, and FVD over the compared autoregressive and non-autoregressive diffusion baselines, and shows smaller per-frame degradation for distant future frames.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the model can guess what the motion will look like many frames ahead from only the opening frames, the target time index, and the action label; if that guess is wrong, the whole block of predicted frames is wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because each future tuple is generated from the context alone, errors cannot cascade across tuples; a mistake in one tuple does not contaminate later tuples.
Any future tuple index $n$ can be targeted directly, so generating a distant frame does not require sequentially generating all intermediate frames.
The cross-attention motion feature provides an explicit conditioning signal that ties the move from context to a specific future time, making the temporal relation inspectable.
The overlap-consistency loss offers a way to keep independently sampled adjacent tuples coherent, which is the main obstacle for non-autoregressive video generation.
On the reported benchmarks, the method improves FVD and LPIPS while running faster than most compared diffusion baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the extrapolation mechanism would be to evaluate on actions whose motion reverses or changes speed mid-sequence; the cross-attention module sees only the initial motion feature and the target index, so such sequences would reveal whether it learns kinematics or dataset-specific averages.
The framework naturally supports parallel or sparse sampling of future time points: because tuples are generated independently given context and motion feature, one could predict every other tuple and fill gaps later without retraining.
The same conditioning idea transfers to other diffusion-based generation tasks that must jump across a large time or condition gap, such as keyframe animation or long-stride frame interpolation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the framework is a reasonable new combination: a GRU motion extractor, cross-attention motion extrapolation conditioned on the frame index, and an overlap-consistency loss that improves continuity between adjacent predicted tuples. Second, the headline empirical claim is not yet trustworthy. ARFree receives the action/gesture class label c at test time (Sections 4.1 and 5.1), while the baselines are described as using their default setups, which do not include class labels. On NATOPS with 24 gestures, that is a large privileged signal, and the +3.25 dB PSNR gain over LFDM is exactly the regime where knowing the gesture helps most. The stress-test note is on target; the paper needs a label ablation before Table 1 can be read as a like-for-like comparison of autoregression-free versus autoregressive prediction.

The paper does real work. The method is clearly described, code is released, and the ablations in Table 2 show that both the motion module and the consistency loss contribute. The frame-wise plots in Fig. 5 are a useful way to visualize error propagation, and the consistency loss is a genuinely nice idea that could be reused elsewhere.

Soft spots beyond the conditioning confound: no error bars or significance tests, so even if the comparison were fair, the margins on KTH are small. The "first autoregression-free framework" claim is overbroad; STDiff also predicts future frames without iterating from previously predicted frames, though it does not use the same cross-attention extrapolation. The distant-tuple risk is real: for large n, m_n is extrapolated directly from m_0 with no intermediate observations, so a bad extrapolation would corrupt an entire tuple. The paper partially addresses this with the consistency loss, but a failure mode analysis would help.

This paper deserves a serious referee. It is a sound engineering contribution with a defensible novelty in the training loss, but the empirical superiority claim needs to be re-established under equal conditioning. I would send it to peer review with a request for a label ablation, error bars, and a more careful positioning against STDiff.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ARFree, a non-autoregressive video prediction framework based on diffusion models. Instead of iteratively feeding previously predicted frames back into the model, ARFree directly predicts any future frame tuple V_n from the context tuple V_0, using a learned motion feature m_n generated by a cross-attention motion prediction module conditioned on the frame index k_n and a class label c. A training-time overlap consistency loss is introduced to encourage adjacent future frame tuples to agree on overlapping frames, and the denoiser is a modified Hourglass Diffusion Transformer with spatio-temporal attention. Experiments on KTH and NATOPS report improvements in PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and FVD over ExtDM, LFDM, RVD, STDiff, and MCVD, plus an ablation study for the two proposed components.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper offers a conceptually interesting alternative to autoregressive video prediction, with the potential to reduce long-horizon error accumulation, and the public code release is a valuable strength. However, the central empirical claim—that ARFree outperforms state-of-the-art methods—is not yet established because the evaluation is confounded by class-label conditioning and lacks statistical grounding. The proposed training loss is a reasonable self-supervised regularizer and the method is described clearly, but the current evidence does not separate the benefit of the autoregression-free design from the benefit of privileged action/gesture information.

major comments (3)

[§4.1, Eq. (4); §5.1; Table 1] The proposed method receives the ground-truth class label c at test time (Section 5.1), and c is used as key/value in the motion prediction module (Eq. (4), Fig. 2). The manuscript does not state whether the comparison methods—ExtDM, LFDM, RVD, STDiff, and MCVD—were also provided class labels. On KTH (6 classes) and NATOPS (24 classes), c is strong privileged information: it narrows the space of possible motions and makes long-horizon prediction substantially easier. The NATOPS gain over LFDM (+3.25 dB PSNR) is exactly the regime where knowing the gesture class could have the largest effect. Since the headline claim is outperformance over these baselines, the paper must include a label ablation (ARFree without c) and, where feasible, a version of the baselines with c, before the comparison in Table 1 can be interpreted.
[§5.1, §5.3] All results in Tables 1 and 2 are reported as point estimates from a single test sample of 128 clips, with no error bars, multiple random seeds, or significance tests. Differences such as KTH (F_total=20) PSNR 26.83 vs. MCVD 26.07 may be within run-to-run variation. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three seeds, and state the random seed used for the 128-sample test set so the comparison is reproducible.
[§4.1, Eq. (4); §5.5] For distant future tuples (large n), the motion prediction module extrapolates m_n from m_0 and (k_n, c) without access to intermediate frames. The paper's claim that ARFree mitigates error propagation is supported only by aggregate F_total values and a frame-wise comparison against two baselines (MCVD and STDiff). A per-tuple or per-horizon breakdown, and a comparison against an autoregressive variant using the same backbone and conditioning, would directly test whether the observed gains come from avoiding autoregressive propagation rather than from the overall architecture or label conditioning.

minor comments (4)

[§5.1] The descriptions 'randomly sampled 120,000 samples' and 'randomly sampled 128 samples' should specify the random seed and the sampling scheme (with or without replacement) to allow exact reproduction.
[§5.3, Fig. 5] The frame-wise comparison in Fig. 5 includes only MCVD and STDiff; if the error-propagation mitigation claim is to be supported by this figure, the other baselines should be included or the choice should be justified.
[§4.3, Eq. (6)] The consistency loss L_cst is computed on denoised outputs from a single diffusion step during training, but the paper does not discuss whether this could reduce sample diversity or lead to over-smoothing; reporting a diversity metric alongside FVD would make the trade-off explicit.
[§1, Contributions] The paper claims the 'first AutoRegression-Free video prediction framework'; a brief discussion of prior non-diffusion or non-autoregressive video prediction attempts would help calibrate this claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is trained with a self-supervised consistency loss and evaluated on held-out test frames, so the empirical claims are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard supervised training and held-out evaluation pipeline, not a circular reduction. The motion feature m_n is defined as the output of a learned module P_theta_p applied to m_0, k_n, and c (Eq. 4), and the diffusion model is trained to denoise future frame tuples conditioned on this feature and V_0; neither quantity is defined in terms of the evaluation metrics. The consistency loss L_cst (Eq. 6) encourages the model's own denoised outputs to agree on overlapping frames, but overlap agreement is not one of the reported metrics (PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, FVD), and it is applied during training only. Reported numbers in Tables 1 and 2 are computed on test samples (Section 5.1), so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper cites external prior work for the GRU extractor [15], EDM [13], HDiT [14], and mixed noise prior [22]; there are no load-bearing self-citations or importation of a self-authored uniqueness theorem. One evaluation-fairness concern is that ARFree receives the class label c at test time while the baseline comparisons are not described as doing so, which could confound the claimed superiority, but this is an empirical validity issue rather than a circularity of the derivation. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation reduces by construction to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard diffusion model components (EDM, HDiT) from prior work and introduces a motion prediction module and a consistency loss. The main free parameters are hyperparameters chosen without sensitivity analysis. The class-label conditioning is an assumption about test-time availability.

free parameters (3)

lambda (consistency loss weight) = 0.1
Chosen by hand in Section 4.3; no sensitivity analysis.
F_o (overlap length between future tuples) = not specified
The paper defines F_o as variable in Section 4.3 but never states the value used in experiments, making an unlisted hyperparameter.
L (number of cross-attention blocks) = 6
Set in Section 5.2 without ablation.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The diffusion denoiser can be effectively conditioned by concatenating the predicted motion feature m_n with its input.
Section 4.2 states the conditioning method without alternative comparison or analysis.
domain assumption The class label c is available at test time and is necessary for motion prediction.
Section 4.1 takes c as input, and Section 5.1 uses c for test samples; this limits deployment to labeled action settings.
ad hoc to paper Training with overlapping time windows and L_cst improves motion continuity between independently predicted future tuples at test time.
Section 4.3 proposes this training method, but there is no explicit test-time consistency mechanism, and the paper does not measure boundary consistency directly.
domain assumption The GRU-based motion feature extractor from Villegas et al. [15] provides a sufficient representation of motion.
The extractor is adopted from prior work without re-validation in this framework.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autoregression-free video prediction using diffusion model for mitigating error propagation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTS6PQ3S

@misc{pith2026250522111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autoregression-free video prediction using diffusion model for mitigating error propagation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTS6PQ3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22111}
}

read the original abstract

Existing long-term video prediction methods often rely on an autoregressive video prediction mechanism. However, this approach suffers from error propagation, particularly in distant future frames. To address this limitation, this paper proposes the first AutoRegression-Free (ARFree) video prediction framework using diffusion models. Different from an autoregressive video prediction mechanism, ARFree directly predicts any future frame tuples from the context frame tuple. The proposed ARFree consists of two key components: 1) a motion prediction module that predicts a future motion using motion feature extracted from the context frame tuple; 2) a training method that improves motion continuity and contextual consistency between adjacent future frame tuples. Our experiments with two benchmark datasets show that the proposed ARFree video prediction framework outperforms several state-of-the-art video prediction methods.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Autoregression-free video prediction using diffusion model for mitigating error propagation

INTRODUCTION Video prediction is a challenging computer vision task. It aims to predict plausible future frames from past frames. By predicting future frames at the pixel level, video pre- diction can be used in various downstream tasks, such as decision-making systems [1], autonomous driving [2], and robotic navigation [3]. However, predicting future fra...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[2]

With the emergence of diffusion models [6], there have been efforts to improve prediction quality in video prediction using diffusion models

RELATED WORKS This section reviews existing video prediction diffusion mod- els. With the emergence of diffusion models [6], there have been efforts to improve prediction quality in video prediction using diffusion models. Residual Video Diffusion (RVD) pre- dicts residual error of the next video frame using diffusion models [7]. Masked Conditional Video ...

work page
[3]

Diffusion models [6] are defined by the forward and reverse processes

BACKGROUNDS This section includes some backgrounds of diffusion models. Diffusion models [6] are defined by the forward and reverse processes. The forward process iteratively adds isotropic Gaussian noise to a clean samplex 0:x σ =x 0 +σϵ, where ϵ∼ N(0,I). The standard deviationσof the Gaussian noise is predefined by a monotonically increasing noise level...

work page
[4]

METHODOLOGY This section proposes the first ARFree video prediction diffu- sion framework. Fig. 1 illustrates its overall architecture. The Fig. 2: The architecture of the proposed motion prediction module. For query, we extract the motion feature forV 0,m 0 in (3). For key and value, we use transformedc n’s. We pass query, key, and value throughLmulti-he...

work page
[5]

We compared the proposed AR- Free video prediction framework with several SOTA video prediction methods

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section describes the experimental setups and presents results with some discussion. We compared the proposed AR- Free video prediction framework with several SOTA video prediction methods. In addition, we investigate the contribu- tion of different ARFree variants. 5.1. Datasets and evaluation metrics We ran experiments with t...

work page
[6]

To moderate this issue, we propose the first AR- Free video prediction framework capable of predicting any future frame tuples, given the context frame tuple

CONCLUSION Error propagation is a critical challenge in long-term video prediction. To moderate this issue, we propose the first AR- Free video prediction framework capable of predicting any future frame tuples, given the context frame tuple. In future work, we aim to extend the proposed framework with datasets with more dynamic motions and improve its co...

work page
[7]

Visual foresight: Model-based deep reinforce- ment learning for vision-based robotic control,

F. Ebert, C. Finn, S. Dasari, A. Xie, A. X. Lee, and S. Levine, “Visual foresight: Model-based deep reinforce- ment learning for vision-based robotic control,” inarXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00568, 2018

arXiv 2018
[8]

Long-term on-board prediction of people in traffic scenes under un- certainty,

A. Bhattacharyya, M. Fritz, and B. Schiele, “Long-term on-board prediction of people in traffic scenes under un- certainty,” inProc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018

work page 2018

Show all 28 references

[9]

Anticipating human ac- tivities using object affordances for reactive robotic re- sponse,

H. S. Koppula and A. Saxena, “Anticipating human ac- tivities using object affordances for reactive robotic re- sponse,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 14–29, 2016

2016
[10]

Recognizing hu- man actions: a local svm approach,

C. Schuldt, I. Laptev, and B. Caputo, “Recognizing hu- man actions: a local svm approach,” inProc. Interna- tional Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), 2004

2004
[11]

Tracking body and hands for gesture recognition: Natops aircraft han- dling signals database,

Y . Song, D. Demirdjian, and R. Davis, “Tracking body and hands for gesture recognition: Natops aircraft han- dling signals database,” inProc. IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), 2011, pp. 500–506

2011
[12]

Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models,

J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models,” inProc. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020, vol. 33

2020
[13]

Diffusion prob- abilistic modeling for video generation,

R. Yang, P. Srivastava, and S. Mandt, “Diffusion prob- abilistic modeling for video generation,”Entropy, vol. 25, no. 10, 2023

2023
[14]

Mcvd: Masked conditional video diffusion for prediction, gen- eration, and interpolation,

V . V oleti, A. Jolicoeur-Martineau, and C. Pal, “Mcvd: Masked conditional video diffusion for prediction, gen- eration, and interpolation,” inProc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

2022
[15]

Stdiff: Spatio-temporal diffusion for continuous stochastic video prediction,

X. Ye and G.-A. Bilodeau, “Stdiff: Spatio-temporal diffusion for continuous stochastic video prediction,” inProc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2024, vol. 38, pp. 6666–6674

2024
[16]

Neural sde: Stabilizing neural ode networks with stochastic noise,

X. Liu, T. Xiao, S. Si, Q. Cao, S. Kumar, and C.-J. Hsieh, “Neural sde: Stabilizing neural ode networks with stochastic noise,” inarXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02355, 2019

1906 arXiv
[17]

Conditional image-to-video generation with latent flow diffusion models,

H. Ni, C. Shi, K. Li, S. X. Huang, and M. R. Min, “Conditional image-to-video generation with latent flow diffusion models,” inProc. IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023

2023
[18]

Extdm: Distribution extrapolation diffusion model for video prediction,

Z. Zhang, J. Hu, W. Cheng, D. Paudel, and J. Yang, “Extdm: Distribution extrapolation diffusion model for video prediction,” inProc. IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 19310–19320

2024
[19]

Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,

T. Karras, M. Aittala, T. Aila, and S. Laine, “Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models,” inProc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

2022
[20]

Scalable high- resolution pixel-space image synthesis with hourglass diffusion transformers,

K. Crowson, S. A. Baumann, A. Birch, T. M. Abra- ham, D. Z. Kaplan, and E. Shippole, “Scalable high- resolution pixel-space image synthesis with hourglass diffusion transformers,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024

2024
[21]

Decomposing motion and content for natural video se- quence prediction,

R. Villegas, J. Yang, S. Hong, X. Lin, and H. Lee, “Decomposing motion and content for natural video se- quence prediction,” inProc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

2017
[22]

Real-time sin- gle image and video super-resolution using an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network,

W. Shi, J. Caballero, F. Husz´ar, J. Totz, A. P. Aitken, R. Bishop, D. Rueckert, and Z. Wang, “Real-time sin- gle image and video super-resolution using an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network,” inProc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (...

2016
[23]

Mvdream: multi-view diffusion for 3d generation,

Y . Shi, P. Wang, J. Ye, M. Long, K. Li, and X. Yang, “Mvdream: multi-view diffusion for 3d generation,” in Proc. International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (ICLR), 2024

2024
[24]

Video diffusion models,

J. Ho, T. Salimans, A. Gritsenko, W. Chan, M. Norouzi, and D. J. Fleet, “Video diffusion models,” inProc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

2022
[25]

Align your latents: High- resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models,

A. Blattmann, R. Rombach, H. Ling, T. Dockhorn, S. W. Kim, S. Fidler, and K. Kreis, “Align your latents: High- resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models,” inProc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), 2023

2023
[26]

Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding,

J. Su, M. Ahmed, Y . Lu, S. Pan, W. Bo, and Y . Liu, “Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding,”Neurocomputing, vol. 568, pp. 127063, 2024

2024
[27]

Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds,

L. Liu, Y . Ren, Z. Lin, and Z. Zhao, “Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds,” inProc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

2022
[28]

Preserve your own correlation: A noise prior for video diffu- sion models,

S. Ge, S. Nah, G. Liu, T. Poon, A. Tao, B. Catanzaro, D. Jacobs, J.-B. Huang, M.-Y . Liu, and Y . Balaji, “Preserve your own correlation: A noise prior for video diffu- sion models,” inProc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Autoregression-free video prediction using diffusion model for mitigating error propagation

INTRODUCTION Video prediction is a challenging computer vision task. It aims to predict plausible future frames from past frames. By predicting future frames at the pixel level, video pre- diction can be used in various downstream tasks, such as decision-making systems [1], autonomous driving [2], and robotic navigation [3]. However, predicting future fra...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

With the emergence of diffusion models [6], there have been efforts to improve prediction quality in video prediction using diffusion models

RELATED WORKS This section reviews existing video prediction diffusion mod- els. With the emergence of diffusion models [6], there have been efforts to improve prediction quality in video prediction using diffusion models. Residual Video Diffusion (RVD) pre- dicts residual error of the next video frame using diffusion models [7]. Masked Conditional Video ...

work page

[3] [3]

Diffusion models [6] are defined by the forward and reverse processes

BACKGROUNDS This section includes some backgrounds of diffusion models. Diffusion models [6] are defined by the forward and reverse processes. The forward process iteratively adds isotropic Gaussian noise to a clean samplex 0:x σ =x 0 +σϵ, where ϵ∼ N(0,I). The standard deviationσof the Gaussian noise is predefined by a monotonically increasing noise level...

work page

[4] [4]

METHODOLOGY This section proposes the first ARFree video prediction diffu- sion framework. Fig. 1 illustrates its overall architecture. The Fig. 2: The architecture of the proposed motion prediction module. For query, we extract the motion feature forV 0,m 0 in (3). For key and value, we use transformedc n’s. We pass query, key, and value throughLmulti-he...

work page

[5] [5]

We compared the proposed AR- Free video prediction framework with several SOTA video prediction methods

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section describes the experimental setups and presents results with some discussion. We compared the proposed AR- Free video prediction framework with several SOTA video prediction methods. In addition, we investigate the contribu- tion of different ARFree variants. 5.1. Datasets and evaluation metrics We ran experiments with t...

work page

[6] [6]

To moderate this issue, we propose the first AR- Free video prediction framework capable of predicting any future frame tuples, given the context frame tuple

CONCLUSION Error propagation is a critical challenge in long-term video prediction. To moderate this issue, we propose the first AR- Free video prediction framework capable of predicting any future frame tuples, given the context frame tuple. In future work, we aim to extend the proposed framework with datasets with more dynamic motions and improve its co...

work page

[7] [7]

Visual foresight: Model-based deep reinforce- ment learning for vision-based robotic control,

F. Ebert, C. Finn, S. Dasari, A. Xie, A. X. Lee, and S. Levine, “Visual foresight: Model-based deep reinforce- ment learning for vision-based robotic control,” inarXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00568, 2018

arXiv 2018

[8] [8]

Long-term on-board prediction of people in traffic scenes under un- certainty,

A. Bhattacharyya, M. Fritz, and B. Schiele, “Long-term on-board prediction of people in traffic scenes under un- certainty,” inProc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018

work page 2018