Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

The paper claims attention maps in video diffusion transformers are a dynamic mixture of three geometric patterns whose intensities become linearly predictable after warm-up, enabling sampling-free dynamic sparse attention.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

MOD-DiT accelerates video DiTs by extrapolating fitted attention-pattern intensities across denoising steps to build dynamic block masks, achieving 1.8–2.3× speedups on CogVideoX, HunyuanVideo, and Wan2.1.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful new sparse-attention idea for video DiTs with plausible speedups, but the mask predictor rests on an unaddressed non-uniqueness in the least-squares fit. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.11641 v3 pith:EA6HO65W submitted 2026-01-14 cs.CV cs.LG

Mixture of Distributions Matters: Dynamic Sparse Attention for Efficient Video Diffusion Transformers

Yuxi Liu , Yipeng Hu , Zekun Zhang , Kunze Jiang , Kun Yuan This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.LG
keywords video diffusion transformersdynamic sparse attentionattention sparsity mapmixture of distributionsblock-diagonal patternspiecewise-linear predictiontraining-free accelerationdenoising-step adaptation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 the quadratic cost of video diffusion transformers can be cut without sampling by noticing that attention maps are a dynamic mixture of three geometric patterns—block-diagonal, parallel-to-main-diagonal, and vertical—whose intensities become piecewise linear after the first denoising steps. On that basis it proposes MOD-DiT: run a short full-attention warm-up, fit a linear model of the pattern mixture, extrapolate the intensities to predict masks for the next denoising interval, and apply the masks at block level. The method is training-free and reports 1.8–2.3× speedups on three large video DiTs with higher sparsity than prior sparse-attention baselines while keeping quality close to full attention. A sympathetic reader would care because it turns dynamic sparsity from an expensive sampling problem into a cheap prediction problem.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that attention sparsity maps in video DiTs are not static or randomly structured: they converge to a mixture of three patterns—block-diagonal for intra-frame coherence, parallel-to-main-diagonal for inter-frame spatial correlation, and vertical for global token dependencies—and after a 12-step warm-up the intensities of the vertical and parallel-diagonal components evolve in a piecewise-linear way with the denoising step. Using this, masks can be predicted by linear extrapolation instead of estimated by sampling, and block-diagonal regions can be kept via a simple threshold. The authors show that a linear approximation of the sparsity map keeps low normalized err

What carries the argument

The generalized linear approximation model expresses the block-level attention sparsity map as a sum of binary basis matrices for the three pattern families weighted by intensity scalars; solving the least-squares problem gives those intensities, and their piecewise linearity across denoising steps is what makes sampling-free prediction possible. Around that core, the method uses iterative temporal fusion to reconstruct complete attention maps from masked ones, a Top-K router that merges predicted vertical and parallel-diagonal intensities to build the mask, a threshold check for block-diagonal existence, and a custom GPU least-squares kernel that reduces solving time by roughly two orders o

Load-bearing premise

The predicted masks are only as good as the claim that vertical and parallel-diagonal intensity coefficients become piecewise linear after warm-up; that claim was validated on 300 samples from a single model, and the coefficients themselves are non-unique because the design matrix is rank-deficient.

What would settle it

Run full-attention inference on a video DiT not used in the paper, extract vertical and parallel-diagonal intensities via the paper's Eq. (4) over many heads and layers, and fit piecewise lines; if a substantial fraction of heads exceed the paper's NRE threshold of 0.1, the predictor's premise breaks. Also check whether different least-squares solutions (e.g., different pseudoinverse tolerances) change the Top-K ordering enough to alter output quality.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Dynamic sparsity becomes a cheap prediction problem rather than a sampling problem, so per-step overhead stays at roughly 1–2% of full attention.
  • Masks update every few denoising steps, so both the selected patterns and the sparsity ratio track the denoising trajectory instead of being fixed.
  • Because the method is training-free and block-level, it can plug into existing video DiTs and hardware attention kernels without retraining.
  • Reported speedups of about 1.8–2.3× come with the highest sparsity among compared methods and near-full-attention similarity metrics.
  • The gains grow with sequence length, making the approach more valuable for longer and higher-resolution video generation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the pattern-mixture behavior generalizes beyond the tested models, the same predictor could apply to other long-sequence generation tasks such as image or audio diffusion, where attention cost is also quadratic.
  • The paper's quality metrics measure similarity to full attention; a more direct test would evaluate the generated videos themselves, since matching a slow baseline does not by itself certify absolute quality.
  • The linear model's basis could be learned or tuned per head and layer instead of solved by least squares, potentially improving mask accuracy at the same cost.
  • Since the block-diagonal component is treated as static after confirmation, one could skip reconstructing those blocks entirely, reducing overhead further.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MOD-DiT, a training-free dynamic sparse attention framework for video Diffusion Transformers (vDiTs). It claims that attention sparsity maps in vDiTs can be represented as a mixture of three structured patterns — block-diagonal, parallel-to-main-diagonal, and vertical — whose intensities evolve piecewise-linearly during denoising. A warm-up phase with full attention is followed by a sampling-free linear prediction of pattern intensities, from which dynamic block-level masks are generated and applied via hardware-efficient sparse attention. The method is evaluated on CogVideoX-v1.5, HunyuanVideo, and Wan2.1, reporting 1.8–2.3× speedups with quality close to full attention, and is compared against several sparse-attention baselines on the VBench benchmark.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, MOD-DiT offers a practical and conceptually interesting approach to reducing the quadratic cost of 3D full attention in large video DiTs, with the distinction of being sampling-free and adapting masks over denoising steps. The paper provides a detailed algorithm, an explicit linear approximation model, a custom least-squares kernel, and an ablation with 300 data points supporting the piecewise-linearity claim on one model. The empirical speedups and quality scores on multiple architectures are encouraging and the method is a plausible candidate for deployment. However, the technical foundation is weakened by an unaddressed identifiability issue in the coefficient estimation, and by the transfer of a key empirical law to models on which it has not been validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (3)-(4)] The design matrix M is rank-deficient: sum_k C_k = sum_k D_k = all-ones matrix, so columns in M are linearly dependent and the least-squares solution to Eq. (4) is not unique. The main text does not state which solution is selected, and Appendix B.6 offers several alternatives (Cholesky, LU, Moore-Penrose, Tikhonov with lambda=1e-8). Since Sec. 5.3 ranks coefficients {c_k, d_k} for Top-K selection, different equally valid solutions can reorder the selected patterns and change the mask. Please specify the exact estimator, justify its choice, and demonstrate that the resulting masks and speed/quality trade-off are stable across reasonable solution choices (e.g., varying the ridge penalty).
  2. [Sec. 5.2 / Appendix A.1.7] The piecewise-linearity of pattern intensities is validated with 300 data points from CogVideoX-v1.5 only, yet it is assumed as a universal property for HunyuanVideo and Wan2.1, forming the basis of the mask predictor. No analogous NRE histograms or linearity checks are shown for the other two models. Since the predictor's accuracy is load-bearing, please provide the same linearity validation on HunyuanVideo and Wan2.1, or otherwise justify why the CogVideoX observation transfers.
  3. [Table 1 / Abstract / Figure 1] The reported speedups and quality scores are internally inconsistent. The abstract and introduction state 1.89x for CogVideoX-v1.5, but Table 1 gives 1.82x; Figure 1 and Appendix A.2 state 2.2x for HunyuanVideo while Table 1 gives 2.29x. Moreover, the claim of 'highest scores in all quality metrics' is contradicted by Table 1: for HunyuanVideo, Radial achieves higher SSIM (0.885 vs 0.879), and for Wan2.1, LiteAttention achieves better LPIPS (0.148 vs 0.152). Please reconcile these numbers and qualify the claims accordingly.
  4. [Sec. 6.2, Table 1] The quantitative comparison reports a single latency measurement per method/model with no error bars or number of runs. Video generation and attention masking are stochastic and hardware-dependent; a single run cannot establish the claimed efficiency ranking. Please report mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds and, if possible, over multiple hardware instances.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The symbol A is used both for the set of block-diagonal indices and for the attention map A_h, which is confusing. Please rename one of them.
  2. [Sec. 5.3] The mask definition uses K^t but the set is not formally defined; please define K^t as the union of selected block indices from the Top-K diagonal/vertical patterns.
  3. [Algorithm 1, line 22] 'Top-K patterns' is ambiguous: K is the number of selected diagonal/vertical strips in Sec. 5.3, but the algorithm also says 'mark valid/invalid B×B blocks'. Clarify the mapping from pattern strips to block positions.
  4. [References] References [13] and [14] are identical (both 'Adaptive caching for faster video generation with diffusion transformers'). Please remove the duplicate.
  5. [Figure 5 caption] The caption does not specify which model, layer, head, or sparsity threshold is used. Please add these details.
  6. [Table 1] The Full row shows '-' for PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS; state that these metrics are computed relative to the full-attention output, making the full row the identity reference.
  7. [Figure 7 caption] Caption says 'CogVideo[35]' but the text and experiments refer to CogVideoX-v1.5. Fix the model name.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: mask prediction is an extrapolation with external full-attention validation, and final comparisons are measured against independent baselines.

full rationale

MOD-DiT's derivation chain is not circular. The sparsity-map model (Eq. 3) and least-squares coefficient estimation (Eq. 4) are standard regression on observed attention sparsity maps; the piecewise-linearity assumption is validated as an empirical claim on 300 full-attention data points (Appendix A.1.7), not derived from the predictor itself. The mask at step t is a top-K selection over extrapolated intensities (Sec. 5.2-5.3), and the final speedup/quality numbers are measured against full attention and external baselines on VBench, PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS—not read off from the fitted coefficients. The reconstructed-map feedback in Eq. (5) is a potential self-confirmation risk, but the paper explicitly measures reconstruction error against ground-truth full attention (A.1.6), and no equation reduces the claimed prediction to its inputs by construction. Concerns about the rank-deficiency of M (sum_k C_k = sum_k D_k = all-ones), the limited linearity validation on CogVideoX only, and VBench-based hyperparameter selection are correctness/robustness limitations, not circularity under the stated criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method depends on an empirical pattern taxonomy and on a least-squares fit whose design matrix has a linear dependence (sum of diagonal bases = sum of column bases = all-ones). The fitted intensity scalars are therefore non-unique, yet they drive mask selection; this is the largest structural assumption in the ledger.

free parameters (7)
  • m warm-up full-attention steps = 12
    Chosen by ablation (Fig. 12); warm-up pattern-capture is load-bearing and adds overhead.
  • Δt prediction/reconstruction interval = 10
    Chosen by ablation (Table 2); controls how often masks are refreshed.
  • η sparsity threshold = 1e-4
    Ablation in Fig. 10; threshold for defining informative blocks.
  • τ_e block-diagonal preservation threshold = not specified in main text
    Controls whether block-diagonal pattern is kept; no ablation reported.
  • K Top-K number of patterns = not specified (varies with sequence length)
    Ablated in Fig. 9; default value not stated; directly sets sparsity and speedup.
  • B block size = 128
    Implementation choice for block-wise attention; not ablated.
  • λ Tikhonov regularization = 1e-8
    Used in B.6 for numerical stability of least-squares; not ablated.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption vDiT attention sparsity maps are mixtures of block-diagonal, parallel-to-main-diagonal, and vertical patterns
    Sec 4.1/Figure 2: asserted from visual inspection of CogVideoX full-attention maps; no quantitative identification or convergence proof.
  • ad hoc to paper After warm-up, vertical and parallel pattern intensities evolve piecewise-linearly in denoising step t
    Sec 5.2/A.1.7: verified by NRE fitting on 300 points from CogVideoX-v1.5 only; assumed to transfer to Hunyuan/Wan.
  • domain assumption The reconstructed attention map Eq. (5) closely approximates the true full-attention map during sparse phase
    Sec 5.1/A.1.6: NRE measured on 6 sampled heads; not all layers/steps.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard least-squares/pseudoinverse linear algebra gives meaningful pattern intensities despite rank deficiency
    Eq. (4)/B.6: M is rank-deficient because sum C_k = sum D_k = all-ones; uniqueness is not discussed.
  • standard math Attention kernels (FlashAttention-2, SageAttention) perform as assumed and implement block skipping correctly
    Sec 5.4: relies on third-party kernels; no verification provided.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixture of Distributions Matters: Dynamic Sparse Attention for Efficient Video Diffusion Transformers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EA6HO65W

@misc{pith2026260111641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixture of Distributions Matters: Dynamic Sparse Attention for Efficient Video Diffusion Transformers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EA6HO65W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.11641}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

While Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have achieved notable progress in video generation, this long-sequence generation task remains constrained by the quadratic complexity inherent to self-attention mechanisms, creating significant barriers to practical deployment. Although sparse attention methods attempt to address this challenge, existing approaches either rely on oversimplified static patterns or require computationally expensive sampling operations to achieve dynamic sparsity, resulting in inaccurate pattern predictions and degraded generation quality. To overcome these limitations, we propose a \underline{\textbf{M}}ixture-\underline{\textbf{O}}f-\underline{\textbf{D}}istribution \textbf{DiT} (\textbf{MOD-DiT}), a novel sampling-free dynamic attention framework that accurately models evolving attention patterns through a two-stage process. First, MOD-DiT leverages prior information from early denoising steps and adopts a {distributed mixing approach} to model an efficient linear approximation model, which is then used to predict mask patterns for a specific denoising interval. Second, an online block masking strategy dynamically applies these predicted masks while maintaining historical sparsity information, eliminating the need for repetitive sampling operations. Extensive evaluations demonstrate consistent acceleration and quality improvements across multiple benchmarks and model architectures, validating MOD-DiT's effectiveness for efficient, high-quality video generation while overcoming the computational limitations of traditional sparse attention approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11641 by Kun Yuan, Kunze Jiang, Yipeng Hu, Yuxi Liu, Zekun Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the visualization effects of different sparse attention methods on HunyuanVideo[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visualization of the four attention patterns in CogVideoX-v1.5[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the Attention Sparsity Map in CogVideoX-v1.5[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized approximation error of linear approximation model (eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of vertical and parallel-diagonal pattern intensities across denoising steps, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Workflow of MOD-DiT ˆd (t) k = ˆd (t (i+1) p ) k + ˆd (t (i+1) p ) k − ˆd (t (i) p ) k t (i+1) p − t (i) p ·  t − t (i+1) p  where cˆ (t (i) p ) k , ˆd (t (i) p ) k are extracted from Sˆ(t (i) p ) ; cˆ (t (i+1) p ) k , ˆd (t (i+1) p ) k are derived from Sˆ(t (i+1) p ) (via Eq. (3)). This piecewise linear prediction is critical for quality preservation. Ablation shows static one-time prediction degrades p… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of various sparse attention methods (Radial attention[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of inference time between Full Attention and MOD-DiT under varying sequence lengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ablation study on the Top K hyperparameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablation study on sparsity threshold η in Eq.(2). We evaluated the performance of MOD-DiT by adjusting the sparsity calculation threshold η. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Normalized reconstruction error (NRE) results for 6 randomly sampled attention heads across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ablation results of warm-up steps m on CogVideoX-V1.5. Experiments are conducted with 89-frame videos at 640×512 resolution using VBench prompts, on NVIDIA A100 80G GPUs. We use Subject Consistency (SubConsist) and Imaging Quality (ImageQual) as evaluation metrics. As observed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Normalized reconstruction error (NRE) results for 6 randomly sampled attention heads across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Histograms of NRE for vertical and parallel-to-main-diagonal patterns, which are based on 300 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the visualization effects of different sparse attention methods on HunyuanVideo[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of the visualization effects of different sparse attention methods on Wan 2.1[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison of the visualization effects of different sparse attention methods on Wan 2.1[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. DFSAttn: Dynamic Fine-grained Sparse Attention for Efficient Video Generation

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    DFSAttn is a training-free framework for dynamic fine-grained sparse attention in video DiTs that achieves up to 2.1x speedup while preserving generation quality via Hilbert reordering, hierarchical scoring, and adapt...

  2. DynamicRad: Content-Adaptive Sparse Attention for Long Video Diffusion

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    DynamicRad achieves 1.7x-2.5x inference speedups in long video diffusion with over 80% sparsity by grounding adaptive selection in a radial locality prior, using dual-mode static/dynamic strategies and offline BO with...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Beltagy, M

    I. Beltagy, M. E. Peters, and A. Cohan. Longformer: The long-document transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Blattmann, R

    A. Blattmann, R. Rombach, H. Ling, T. Dockhorn, S. W. Kim, S. Fidler, and K. Kreis. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. InThirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    H. Chen, Y. Zhang, X. Cun, M. Xia, X. Wang, C. Weng, and Y. Shan. Videocrafter2: Overcoming data limitations for high-quality video diffusion models, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    P. Chen, X. Zeng, M. Zhao, P. Ye, M. Shen, W. Cheng, G. Yu, and T. Chen. Sparse-vdit: Unleashing the power of sparse attention to accelerate video diffusion transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03065, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    T. Dao. Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08691, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Guo et al

    C. Guo et al. Sparse transformers for efficient video understanding.IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Y. Guo, C. Yang, A. Rao, Y. Wang, Y. Qiao, B. Lin, and X. Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text-to-image diffusion models without specific tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13715, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Y. Guo, Y. Zheng, M. Tan, Q. Chen, J. Chen, P. Zhao, and J. Huang. Nat: Neural architecture transformer for accurate and compact architectures, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Henschel, L

    R. Henschel, L. Khachatryan, H. Poghosyan, D. Hayrapetyan, V. Tadevosyan, Z. Wang, S. Navasardyan, and H. Shi. Streamingt2v: Consistent, dynamic, and extendable long video generation from text, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  11. [11]

    Huang, Y

    Z. Huang, Y. He, J. Yu, F. Zhang, C. Si, Y. Jiang, Y. Zhang, T. Wu, Q. Jin, N. Chanpaisit, Y. Wang, X. Chen, L. Wang, D. Lin, Y. Qiao, and Z. Liu. Vbench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Jiang, Y

    H. Jiang, Y. Li, C. Zhang, Q. Wu, X. Luo, S. Ahn, Z. Han, A. H. Abdi, D. Li, C.-Y. Lin, Y. Yang, and L. Qiu. Mlinference 1.0: Accelerating pre-filling for long-context llms via dynamic sparse attention, 2024

    2024

  13. [14]

    Kahatapitiya, H

    K. Kahatapitiya, H. Liu, S. He, D. Liu, M. Jia, C. Zhang, M. S. Ryoo, and T. Xie. Adaptive caching for faster video generation with diffusion transformers, 2024

    2024

  14. [15]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    X. Lai, J. Lu, Y. Luo, Y. Ma, and X. Zhou. Flexprefill: A context-aware sparse attention mechanism for efficient long-sequence inference, 2025

    2025

  16. [17]

    X. Li, M. Li, T. Cai, H. Xi, S. Yang, Y. Lin, L. Zhang, S. Yang, J. Hu, K. Peng, et al. Radial attention:O(nlogn ) sparse attention with energy decay for long video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19852, 2025. 12

    arXiv 2025

  17. [18]

    F. Liu, S. Zhang, X. Wang, Y. Wei, H. Qiu, Y. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Q. Ye, and F. Wan. Timestep embedding tells: It’s time to cache for video diffusion model, 2025

    2025

  18. [19]

    Z. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Cao, H. Hu, Y. Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and B. Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2021

    2021

  19. [20]

    Z. Lv, C. Si, J. Song, Z. Yang, Y. Qiao, Z. Liu, and K.-Y. K. Wong. Fastercache: Training-free video diffusion model acceleration with high quality, 2025

    2025

  20. [21]

    J. Ma, Q. Peng, X. Zhu, P. Xie, C. Chen, and H. Lu. Pluggable pruning with contiguous layer distillation for diffusion transformers, 2025

    2025

  21. [22]

    Melnik, M

    A. Melnik, M. Ljubijanac, C. Lu, Q. Yan, W. Ren, and H. Ritter. Video diffusion models: A survey, 2024

    2024

  22. [23]

    G. Y. Park, S. W. Lee, and J. C. Ye. Inference-time diffusion model distillation, 2024

    2024

  23. [24]

    Peebles and S

    W. Peebles and S. Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4195–4205, 2023

    2023

  24. [25]

    C. Qi, X. Cun, Y. Zhang, X. Lei, X. Wang, Y. Shan, and Q. Chen. Fatezero: Fusing attentions for zero-shot text-based video editing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15932–15942, 2023

    2023

  25. [26]

    J. Qiu, L. Liu, S. Wang, J. Lu, K. Chen, and Y. Hao. Accelerating diffusion transformer via gradient-optimized cache, 2025

    2025

  26. [27]

    Rombach, A

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  27. [28]

    Shmilovich, T

    D. Shmilovich, T. Wu, A. Dahan, and Y. Domb. Liteattention: A temporal sparse attention for diffusion transformers.arXiv preprint, nov 2025. Submitted on 14 November 2025

    2025

  28. [29]

    X. Tan, Y. Chen, Y. Jiang, X. Chen, K. Yan, N. Duan, Y. Zhu, D. Jiang, and H. Xu. Dsv: Exploiting dynamic sparsity to accelerate large-scale video dit training, 2025

    2025

  29. [30]

    O. Team. Opensora: Democratizing efficient video generation for all.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11455, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    S. Tian, H. Chen, C. Lv, Y. Liu, J. Guo, X. Liu, S. Li, H. Yang, and T. Xie. Qvd: Post-training quantization for video diffusion models. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’24), pages 10572–10581. ACM, 2024

    2024

  31. [32]

    A. Wang, B. Ai, B. Wen, C. Mao, C.-W. Xie, D. Chen, F. Yu, H. Zhao, J. Yang, J. Zeng, et al. Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [33]

    H. Xi, S. Yang, Y. Zhao, C. Xu, M. Li, X. Li, Y. Lin, H. Cai, J. Zhang, D. Li, J. Chen, I. Stoica, K. Keutzer, and S. Han. Sparse videogen: Accelerating video diffusion transformers with spatial-temporal sparsity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01776, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [34]

    Y. Xia, S. Ling, F. Fu, Y. Wang, H. Li, X. Xiao, and B. Cui. Training-free and adaptive sparse attention for efficient long video generation, 2025

    2025

  34. [35]

    Z. Yang, J. Teng, W. Zheng, M. Ding, S. Huang, J. Xu, Y. Yang, W. Hong, X. Zhang, G. Feng, et al. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06072, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [36]

    Q. Zeng, C. Hu, M. Song, and J. Song. Diffusion model quantization: A review, 2025

    2025

  36. [37]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Wei, H. Huang, P. Zhang, J. Zhu, and J. Chen. Sageattention: Accurate 8-bit attention for plug-and-play inference acceleration. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025. Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025; arXiv:2410.02367

    arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    Zhang, C

    J. Zhang, C. Xiang, H. Huang, J. Wei, H. Xi, J. Zhu, and J. Chen. Spargeattention: Accurate and training-free sparse attention accelerating any model inference. InProceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. ICML 2025. 13

    2025

  38. [39]

    Zhang, Y

    P. Zhang, Y. Chen, R. Su, H. Ding, I. Stoica, Z. Liu, and H. Zhang. Fast video generation with sliding tile attention, 2025

    2025

  39. [40]

    strong linearity

    R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 586–595, 2018. 14 A Additional Experiments A.1 Ablation Study A.1.1 Ablation study on the TopKhyperparameter Figure 9: Ablation study on t...

    2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.