Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

SparSTAR: Sparse Attention for SpaceTime AutoRegressive Video Synthesis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Recomputing sparse attention block selection at every scale lets InfinityStar video generation run about 1.6× faster while keeping VBench quality nearly unchanged.

desk verdict Solid, honestly-measured sparse-attention method for InfinityStar; the 1.6x/close-to-dense claim holds, but the fixed density schedule deserves a held-out sensitivity check before generalizing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10519 v1 pith:64K2VYCK submitted 2026-08-11 cs.CV

Jongbeom Lee , Hyunwoo Yu , Jincheol Yang , Jaemin Choi , Suk-Ju Kang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords sparseattentionvideogenerationvisualautoregressivemodelingtraining-freeaccelerationblock-sparsespacetimemodelInfinityStarFlex
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

Speedups from sparse attention in video generation usually come from reusing one sparse pattern across many denoising steps or scales. This paper argues that in InfinityStar's spacetime autoregressive setting, reuse is the wrong move: important key blocks shift from scale to scale and from clip to clip, so the pattern should be recomputed from current query and key activations at each expensive scale and attention head. It presents SparSTAR, a training-free block-sparse attention method that does exactly this, reporting that on 720p text-to-video and image-to-video generation it preserves every token and every refinement scale while delivering about 1.6× end-to-end speedup, with VBench scores within 0.04 and 0.08 points of the dense model. If the claim holds, dynamic block selection is a practical way to accelerate long video autoregressive generation without pruning tokens, skipping scales, or retraining.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-head aggregated query-key block score $S_{ij} = \tau \bar{q}_i^{\top} \bar{k}_j$, where $\bar{q}_i$ and $\bar{k}_j$ are block-averaged query and key vectors over contiguous 128-token blocks in attention-kernel order and $\tau = D^{-1/2}$. Because the dot product of block averages equals the average pairwise pre-softmax compatibility between tokens in the two blocks, this parameter-free score ranks which key blocks matter at each scale and head, and it is computed fresh from current activations rather than transferred. Around the score SparSTAR builds a clip-aware policy: text blocks (and, for Clip 1, the final image-pyramid reference) are always retained dense, while preceding-clip reference and current-scale blocks are jointly ranked under the density schedule $(0.625, 0.1875, 0.1875, 0.09375)$ over the four sparsified refinement scales, with the most aggressive budget on the largest 72,000-token scale. The chosen blocks are executed through a forward-only FlexAttention path, called FastFlex, which writes only the forward mask fields and skips reverse-index construction, keeping selection and mask overhead below 1.7% of end-to-end latency.

What would settle it

Run SparSTAR on held-out prompts outside the 96-prompt balanced subset at the fixed density schedule: if the PSNR gap to dense InfinityStar widens substantially beyond the reported level or any VBench dimension drops by more than about one point, the fixed-schedule and block-averaging assumptions are not generally valid. A sharper test replaces the aggregated block score with the exact token-wise Top-K oracle at the same densities: if the oracle's quality advantage over SparSTAR exceeds the paper's measured reuse-mismatch term, then block aggregation, not stale masks, is the dominant source of fidelity loss.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that attention patterns in InfinityStar do not transfer reliably across scales or across clip boundaries, and that the attention-mass loss from reusing them is worse than the latency cost of recomputing them. Reusing a block-selection pattern across scales drops retained attention mass by about 35.6% on average, while recomputing block-wise Top-K at every scale stays within 4.64% of the token-wise upper bound; across a clip boundary at a 15% reference-context budget, fresh selection retains 85% of attention mass versus 56% for reuse. SparSTAR operationalizes this by scoring contiguous 128-token key blocks with a per-head averaged query-key dot product, keeping text (and, for Clip 1, the final image-pyramid reference) dense, jointly ranking preceding-clip and current-scale blocks under a fixed per-scale density schedule, and executing the chosen blocks through a forward-only FlexAttention path. On 720p T2V and I2V this yields 1.60× and 1.62× end-to-end speedups with reconstruction and VBench fidelity close to dense InfinityStar, and the sparse operator is 7.08× faster than FlashAttention-2 while selection and mask construction add less than 1.7% end-to-end latency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single score from block-averaged query and key vectors ranks which key blocks matter for generation quality almost as accurately as full token-level attention, and that the same fixed per-scale density schedule works well for every prompt.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the default recipe for sparse attention in video autoregressive models should be to recompute block selection at every scale from current activations instead of transferring masks from earlier scales or from diffusion models.
  • Because SparSTAR keeps every token and every refinement scale, it composes with branch-level and scale-level accelerations: skipping the unconditional classifier-free-guidance branch on top of SparSTAR reaches about 2.50× speedup on 720p with only a small VBench drop.
  • Since selection cost scales with the number of 128-token block pairs rather than token pairs, per-scale dynamic recalibration stays practical even at the 72,000-token final scale, where the sparse operator itself runs 7.08× faster than a dense FlashAttention-2 kernel.
  • The paper's decomposition of the quality gap into blockization, aggregated-QK scoring, and reuse-induced mismatch gives a reusable diagnostic for locating where other sparse attention approximations lose fidelity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension, the same fresh-selection principle should apply to any autoregressive or world-model backbone whose visible key context changes across scales or clips; the paper's evidence suggests mask reuse will decay wherever the reference context is replaced.
  • The parameter-free block score is a likely bottleneck at very low densities, so a learned or entropy-weighted routing head could improve ranking when the budget is tight; that would trade away the training-free property and is a testable next step.
  • The fixed density schedule is the least-justified component of the method; per-prompt or per-head dynamic budgets could push the speed-quality frontier further, especially on the final scale where attention mass is most concentrated.
  • The gap-decomposition metrics the paper introduces could become a standard way to report sparse-attention fidelity, separating the cost of coarse block granularity from the cost of stale masks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SparSTAR, a training-free block-sparse attention method for the InfinityStar spacetime autoregressive video model. SparSTAR partitions queries and keys into 128-token blocks at the expensive late refinement scales, computes per-head aggregated query–key scores S_ij = tau * qbar_i^T kbar_j from current activations, keeps text and SSA reference context dense, and ranks the remaining current-scale and preceding-clip blocks under a fixed per-scale density schedule. It executes the selected blocks through a forward-only FlexAttention path (FastFlex), preserving all tokens and refinement scales. The paper first presents attention-map analyses showing that cross-scale and cross-clip pattern reuse loses substantial attention mass relative to fresh selection, then reports 720p T2V/I2V experiments with about 1.60x/1.62x end-to-end speedup, paired-output PSNR 31.22/27.96 dB, and VBench totals within 0.04/0.08 points of dense InfinityStar, plus 480p and 10-second multi-clip results.

Significance. If the reported results hold, SparSTAR provides a practical training-free acceleration for autoregressive video generation, and its per-scale recomputation of block support is a sensible design choice for the STAR setting. The paper has notable strengths: the attention-mass analyses in Figures 3–5 are clearly described and internally consistent; the evaluation separates the full VBench suite from the dimension-balanced analysis and ablation subsets (Supplementary A.9); dense and sparse runs use matched prompts, seeds, and hardware; and the provenance of the quoted baseline numbers is explicitly disclosed. The main residual risk is that the fixed operating point—density schedule and block size—is selected on a small internal subset and under an implementation constraint, with no held-out sensitivity check, so the generality of the headline fidelity and speedup numbers is conditional on that schedule.

major comments (3)
  1. [Figure 7, Table 12, Supplementary A.9] The headline fidelity and speedup claims rest on a single fixed operating point, and neither component is tested in a held-out fashion. The density schedule (0.625, 0.1875, 0.1875, 0.09375) is selected by ablation on the 96-prompt dimension-balanced subset (Figure 7, Table 11), and block size 128 is adopted in Table 12 in part because FlexAttention provides no valid kernel configuration below 128 in your environment. As the paper's own conclusion notes, sensitivity to block size and density schedules is deferred to future work. Because the full VBench suite used for Table 1 overlaps with the subset used for the ablations, the full-suite result is not a clean held-out test of the schedule. Please add a sensitivity analysis on a disjoint prompt split (e.g., perturb the per-scale densities and the block size while reporting VBench/PSNR and latency), and provide error bars or confidence intervals for the headline Table 1 means rather than point estimates only.
  2. [Quality and efficiency metrics; Table 3] The setup text states that VBench evaluates 5-second, 81-frame videos over all 16 dimensions, but Table 3 reports VBench scores for the 480p, 10-second, 161-frame long-video setting. The manuscript does not state whether the 10-second videos are scored directly with the VBench 5-second protocol, truncated to the first 5 seconds, or otherwise adapted. Please specify the exact procedure used for Table 3 and state whether those scores are directly comparable to the 5-second VBench numbers in Tables 1–2 and the supplementary tables.
  3. [Table 1 and Supplementary A.8] The baseline rows in Table 1 (SparseVAR, FastVAR, ToMe, FastSTAR) are quoted from the FastSTAR paper, which used a single H100 80GB GPU and a different reconstruction-metric sample (10 videos per dimension) than the full-suite protocol used for SparSTAR. The main-text sentence that SparSTAR 'improves PSNR by 2.92 dB on T2V and 2.31 dB on I2V' presents these as direct deltas, even though neither hardware nor evaluation sample is matched. The disclosure in Supplementary A.8 is helpful, but the main text should either re-evaluate the baselines under the same protocol or rephrase the comparison as being to published numbers from a different setup; otherwise the reader cannot infer a matched relative advantage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Method] There is a typo in the Method section: 'Based on the InfinitySTAR' should read 'Based on the InfinityStar'.
  2. [Eq. (2) and selector overhead] The text says selector arithmetic is 0.016% of dense query-key arithmetic across the sparsified late scales; a naive count with b=128 gives 1/b^2 approximately 0.0061% for the block-pair dot products, so please specify which operations (aggregation, Top-K, mask construction) are included in the 0.016% figure.
  3. [Eq. (8)] Please verify the VBench total formula: the 4:1 weighting of Quality over Semantic in Eq. (8) is unusual relative to the original VBench aggregate script's equal-weight combination of the two perspective scores, and the manuscript should either cite the exact script behavior or correct the formula.
  4. [Table 12] The block-size ablation is partly confounded by the use of a pure-tensor fallback for b=32 and b=64 because no FlexAttention kernel is available; the latency comparison across block sizes is therefore not purely an evaluation of block size, and this limitation should be stated in the main text when the deployed block size is selected.
  5. [Figure 3 and Table 11] The nomenclature 'Block-wise Top-K' in Figure 3 and 'Fresh aggregated-QK' in Table 11 should be explicitly defined as the same selection mechanism, since a reader may not immediately connect the two labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SparSTAR's fidelity and speed claims are measured against dense InfinityStar as an external reference, and the fixed density schedule is a tuned operating point evaluated on a separate full-suite scope, not a restatement of the target metrics.

full rationale

SparSTAR's derivation chain is self-contained against an external benchmark. The method sparsifies InfinityStar's SSA-visible attention by selecting key blocks via the aggregated score S_ij = tau qbar_i^T kbar_j (Eq. 2), and its headline claims are validated by paired-output reconstruction metrics (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS) and full-suite VBench against dense InfinityStar. Dense InfinityStar outputs are an independent reference: they are produced by the unmodified backbone, not by SparSTAR's own selector. The analyses that motivate fresh per-scale selection measure retained attention mass against token-level Top-K and dense attention maps, so the motivation does not presuppose the method's conclusion. The only fitted components are the block size b=128 and the density schedule (0.625, 0.1875, 0.1875, 0.09375). These are selected by ablations (Figure 7, Table 12) on dimension-balanced subsets and then evaluated on the complete VBench suite, which Section A.9 explicitly identifies as a distinct scope: 'Tables 1-3 of the main paper and the fine-grained per-dimension results of Section C.2 are computed with the official vbench_standard protocol over the complete benchmark.' Because the schedule is a tuned operating point rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and because the full-suite evaluation is held out from the ablation, this does not constitute circularity. The paper itself notes in the Conclusion that 'Future work should evaluate longer multi-clip generation, broader model families, sensitivity to block size and density schedules'; this is an acknowledged generality caveat, not a circular step. Baselines are quoted from FastSTAR with provenance disclosed in Table 5, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

Three hand-chosen or ablation-selected parameters (density schedule, sparsified scale set, block size) carry the latency-quality trade-off. The key domain assumption is that aggregated block scores and retained attention mass predict final video quality. No new physical or architectural entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Per-scale density schedule (rho_26..rho_29) = (0.625, 0.1875, 0.1875, 0.09375)
    Chosen by ablation among increasing, constant, and decreasing schedules (Figure 7). Applied identically to every prompt in the headline results.
  • Sparsified scale set = s26-s29 at 720p; s24-s27 at 480p; s38-s41 for Clip 2 in 10s
    Only the final four refinement scales are sparsified; this is a hand choice based on the observation that the final scale is 74.6% of attention cost.
  • Block size b = 128 tokens
    Selected via ablation in Table 12 because it is the smallest block with a valid FlexAttention kernel in the tested environment; smaller blocks improve PSNR by up to 1.28 dB but massively increase latency.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Block-level aggregated QK dot product (Eq. 2) ranks key blocks as effectively as token-level attention for generation quality.
    SparSTAR replaces token-level softmax attention with average-vector compatibility; the paper gives empirical support (Figure 3, Table 11) but no formal bound tying ranking error to output quality.
  • domain assumption Retained attention mass against dense attention is a valid proxy for generated-video fidelity.
    The motivating analyses measure mass retained by sparse patterns; the translation to PSNR and VBench is shown only in Table 11, not for all analysis configurations.
  • domain assumption InfinityStar's SSA context layout (Eq. 1) is fixed, with only text plus the preceding clip's final scale plus current scale visible.
    SparSTAR sparsifies exactly this context and does not consider alternative context designs; if the backbone changes, the clip-aware policy may need to change.
  • ad hoc to paper The density schedule tuned on the dimension-balanced subset generalizes to the full VBench suite.
    Figure 7 selects the decreasing schedule using the analysis subset; the same schedule is used for the full-suite headline numbers without a held-out check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SparSTAR: Sparse Attention for SpaceTime AutoRegressive Video Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64K2VYCK

@misc{pith2026260810519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SparSTAR: Sparse Attention for SpaceTime AutoRegressive Video Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64K2VYCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10519}
}
read the original abstract

InfinityStar extends visual autoregressive generation to video through a sequence of image and clip pyramids. Its changing scale and cross-clip context, however, leave late-scale attention costly and make sparse patterns reused from diffusion or image VAR models unreliable. We introduce SparSTAR, a training-free block-sparse attention method tailored to this setting. At each expensive scale and attention head, SparSTAR scores contiguous key blocks from the current query and key activations, retains required conditioning context, and executes the selected blocks through a forward-only sparse path. We analyze cross-scale consistency within a clip, pattern persistence across clip boundaries, and quality degradation as reuse spans increasingly distant scales. Across these analyses, important key blocks shift, showing that recomputing block selection at each target scale is more reliable than reusing a transferred mask. On 720p text-to-video and image-to-video generation, SparSTAR preserves every token and refinement scale while providing about a 1.6x end-to-end speedup and maintaining VBench and paired-output reconstruction fidelity close to dense InfinityStar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reused sparse support can miss newly active blocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dense-attention patterns across clips and scales in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scale-wise retained attention mass across Clip 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PSNR–latency trade-off for recalibration frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of SparSTAR, a training-free block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of increasing, constant, and decreasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison between dense InfinityStar (top) and SparSTAR (bottom) for 480p five-second T2V generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison between dense InfinityStar (top) and SparSTAR (bottom) for 480p five-second I2V generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative comparison between dense InfinityStar (top) and SparSTAR (bottom) for 480p ten-second T2V generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative comparison between dense InfinityStar (top) and SparSTAR (bottom) for 480p ten-second I2V generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative comparison between dense InfinityStar (top) and SparSTAR (bottom) for 720p five-second T2V generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative comparison between dense InfinityStar (top) and SparSTAR (bottom) for 720p five-second I2V generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    Visual Autoregressive Modeling: Scalable Image Generation via Next-Scale Prediction , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    work page

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

    Infinity: Scaling Bitwise AutoRegressive Modeling for High-Resolution Image Synthesis , author =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

    work page

  3. [3]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    InfinityStar: Unified Spacetime AutoRegressive Modeling for Visual Generation , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    work page

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year =

    Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers , author =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year =

  5. [5]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

    High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models , author =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03603 , year =

    HunyuanVideo: A Systematic Framework For Large Video Generative Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03603 , year =

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314 , year =

    Wan: Open and Advanced Large-Scale Video Generative Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314 , year =

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

    Real-Time Video Generation with Pyramid Attention Broadcast , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

    work page

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , year =

    Sparse VideoGen: Accelerating Video Diffusion Transformers with Spatial-Temporal Sparsity , author =. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , year =

  2. [10]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    Sparse VideoGen2: Accelerate Video Generation with Sparse Attention via Semantic-Aware Permutation , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

  3. [11]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    Radial Attention: O(n n) Sparse Attention with Energy Decay for Long Video Generation , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

  4. [12]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

    Timestep Embedding Tells: It's Time to Cache for Video Diffusion Model , author =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

  5. [13]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

    FasterCache: Training-Free Video Diffusion Model Acceleration with High Quality , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07192 , year =

    FastSTAR: Spatiotemporal Token Pruning for Efficient Autoregressive Video Synthesis , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07192 , year =

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems (MLSys) , year =

    Flex Attention: A Programming Model for Generating Optimized Attention Kernels , author =. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems (MLSys) , year =

  8. [16]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

    FlashAttention-2: Faster Attention with Better Parallelism and Work Partitioning , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598 , year =

    Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598 , year =

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

    Eliminating Oversaturation and Artifacts of High Guidance Scales in Diffusion Models , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year =

  11. [19]

    Ziqi Huang and Yinan He and Jiashuo Yu and Fan Zhang and Chenyang Si and Yuming Jiang and Yuanhan Zhang and Tianxing Wu and Qingyang Jin and Nattapol Chanpaisit and Yaohui Wang and Xinyuan Chen and Limin Wang and Dahua Lin and Yu Qiao and Ziwei Liu , booktitle =

  12. [20]

    Token Merging: Your

    Daniel Bolya and Cheng-Yang Fu and Xiaoliang Dai and Peizhao Zhang and Christoph Feichtenhofer and Judy Hoffman , booktitle =. Token Merging: Your

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year =

    FastVAR: Linear Visual Autoregressive Modeling via Cached Token Pruning , author =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year =

  14. [22]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

    SparVAR: Exploring Sparsity in Visual AutoRegressive Modeling for Training-Free Acceleration , author =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , year =

  15. [23]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

    Memory-Efficient Visual Autoregressive Modeling with Scale-Aware KV Cache Compression , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year =

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08908 , year =

    SkipVAR: Accelerating Visual Autoregressive Modeling via Adaptive Frequency-Aware Skipping , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08908 , year =

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year =

    Frequency-Aware Autoregressive Modeling for Efficient High-Resolution Image Synthesis , author =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , year =

  18. [26]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Hart: Efficient visual generation with hybrid autoregressive transformer , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  19. [27]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Visual autoregressive modeling: Scalable image generation via next-scale prediction , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16483 , year=

    StageVAR: Stage-Aware Acceleration for Visual Autoregressive Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16483 , year=

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pages=

    Collaborative decoding makes visual auto-regressive modeling efficient , author=. Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pages=

  22. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14070 , year=

    Fast autoregressive video generation with diagonal decoding , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14070 , year=

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04359 , year=

    PackCache: A Training-Free Acceleration Method for Unified Autoregressive Video Generation via Compact KV-Cache , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04359 , year=

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12706 , year=

    Animatediff-lightning: Cross-model diffusion distillation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12706 , year=

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Forty-third International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

    DFSAttn: Dynamic Fine-grained Sparse Attention for Efficient Video Generation , author=. Forty-third International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01801 , year=

    Fast autoregressive video diffusion and world models with temporal cache compression and sparse attention , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01801 , year=

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04507 , year=

    Fast video generation with sliding tile attention , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04507 , year=

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18137 , year=

    Spargeattention: Accurate and training-free sparse attention accelerating any model inference , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18137 , year=

  29. [37]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Training-free and adaptive sparse attention for efficient long video generation , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12675 , year=

    Sla2: Sparse-linear attention with learnable routing and qat , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12675 , year=

  31. [39]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Faster video diffusion with trainable sparse attention , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24006 , year=

    Sla: Beyond sparsity in diffusion transformers via fine-tunable sparse-linear attention , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.24006 , year=

  33. [41]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Sparse-vdit: Unleashing the power of sparse attention to accelerate video diffusion transformers , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.