Paper deep dive
From Scores to Samples: Elastic Forcing for Autoregressive Video Generation
Chi Zhang, Yueyi Liu, Shi Haoyang, Ruichuan An, Haoyu Li, Yuhang Wu, Sen Cui, Miao Liu
Intelligence
Status: succeeded | Model: Gemma-4-26B-A4B | Prompt: intel-v1 | Confidence: 90%
Last extracted: 10/1/2026, 7:21:46 AM
Summary
The paper introduces Elastic Forcing, a post-training framework for few-step autoregressive video generation that eliminates the need for bidirectional diffusion teachers and online fake-score models used in Distribution Matching Distillation (DMD). Instead, it minimizes Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) in frozen self-supervised video representation spaces using a hybrid Nyström-Monte Carlo estimator for reference statistics and estimation-differentiation decoupling for generated rollouts. This approach allows for memory-efficient training, enabling a 1.3B model to improve VBench scores and a 14B model to be post-trained on 8 H200 GPUs.
Entities (11)
Relation Signals (11)
Elastic Forcing → uses → Maximum Mean Discrepancy
confidence 95% · Our framework minimizes maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) in frozen self-supervised video representation spaces
Elastic Forcing → achieves → VBench
confidence 93% · our 1.3B model improves the VBench Total score from 83.80 to 84.64
Elastic Forcing → replaces → Distribution Matching Distillation
confidence 92% · We retain Self Forcing’s rollout procedure but replace DMD with MMD in frozen representation spaces
Nyström-Monte Carlo estimator → balances → approximation bias
confidence 90% · using a hybrid Nyström--Monte Carlo estimator to balance approximation bias and sampling variance.
Nyström-Monte Carlo estimator → balances → sampling variance
confidence 90% · using a hybrid Nyström--Monte Carlo estimator to balance approximation bias and sampling variance.
Elastic Forcing → eliminates → bidirectional diffusion teacher
confidence 90% · eliminating both score models during post-training
Elastic Forcing → eliminates → online fake-score model
confidence 90% · eliminating both score models during post-training
Wan-14B → isposttrainedby → Elastic Forcing
Cypher Suggestions (0)
No Cypher suggestions yet.
Abstract
Abstract:Few-step autoregressive video generation commonly relies on Distribution Matching Distillation (DMD), requiring a bidirectional diffusion teacher and an online fake-score model. We instead learn the rollout distribution directly from reference videos, eliminating both score models during post-training. Our framework minimizes maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) in frozen self-supervised video representation spaces, using a hybrid Nyström--Monte Carlo estimator to balance approximation bias and sampling variance. Memory-efficient replay and gradient subsampling make this objective practical. Using the same architecture and initialization as Self-Forcing, our 1.3B model improves the VBench Total score from 83.80 to 84.64 while retaining 17 FPS. Removing auxiliary score models also enables 14B post-training on eight H200 GPUs. Beyond distillation, learning from reference videos enables the acquisition of new visual styles, semantic concepts, and spatial priors without a target-specific diffusion teacher.
Tags
Links
- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35491v3
- Canonical: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.35491v3
Trouble viewing inline? Open PDF directly →
Full Text
115,904 characters extracted from source content.
Expand or collapse full text
From Scores to Samples: Elastic Forcing for Autoregressive Video Generation Chi Zhang1∗ Yueyi Liu1,2∗ Shi Haoyang1,3∗ Ruichuan An4 Haoyu Li2 Yuhang Wu1 Sen Cui1 Miao Liu1† 1College of AI, Tsinghua University 2IAIR, Xi’an Jiaotong University 3Xianghui Academy, Fudan University 4Peking University .2004@gmail.com miaoliu@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn Project Pagehttps://video-examples-m8r2v6.pages.dev/ Codehttps://gitee.com/liu-yueyi/elastic-forcing 11footnotetext: Equal contribution. † author. meowteaser tikzpicture [x=1bp,y=-1bp] (0,0) rectangle (2600,1300); [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (0,0) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (0,904) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (864,0) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (1724,0) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (864,495) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (1290,495) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (1823,495) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (2142,495) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (864,770) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (1507,770) ; [anchor=north west,inner sep=0pt,outer sep=0pt] at (1932,770) ; Few-step autoregressive video generation with Elastic Forcing. Five-step generation samples from our autoregressive Wan-14B model, post-trained for 23 hours on 8 H200 GPUs. meowabstract Few-step autoregressive video generation commonly relies on Distribution Matching Distillation (DMD), requiring a bidirectional diffusion teacher and an online fake-score model. We instead learn the rollout distribution directly from reference videos, eliminating both score models during post-training. Our framework minimizes maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) in frozen self-supervised video representation spaces, using a hybrid Nyström–Monte Carlo estimator to balance approximation bias and sampling variance. Memory-efficient replay and gradient subsampling make this objective practical. Using the same architecture and initialization as Self-Forcing, our 1.3B model improves the VBench Total score from 83.80 to 84.64 while retaining 17 FPS. Removing auxiliary score models also enables 14B post-training on eight H200 GPUs. Beyond distillation, learning from reference videos enables the acquisition of new visual styles, semantic concepts, and spatial priors without a target-specific diffusion teacher. Project Page: https://video-examples-m8r2v6.pages.dev/ 1 Introduction Streaming video generation [12, 30, 48] is becoming increasingly important for applications that require interactive and continuous synthesis, including game simulation [71, 34], virtual livestream interaction [94], world modeling [8, 83], and embodied intelligence [79, 11]. Streaming requires both causal continuation and low-latency synthesis, motivating few-step autoregressive models that generate each chunk through a short denoising trajectory. Denoising-based training with noisy or self-resampled histories [12, 30] addresses imperfect context, but does not directly optimize the distribution produced by a fixed few-step sampler. Self Forcing [37] further addresses this setting through distributional post-training on the generator’s own autoregressive rollouts. Most Self-Forcing-based methods adopt Distribution Matching Distillation (DMD) [87], which obtains distributional gradients from a pretrained bidirectional diffusion teacher and an auxiliary model estimating the generated distribution’s scores. Maintaining these score networks incurs substantial training overhead, while the teacher’s distribution defines the student’s supervision target. This raises a natural question: can we optimize autoregressive rollouts directly against reference videos, without relying on auxiliary score models? Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) [29] offers a sample-based alternative by matching distributions through kernel comparisons, and has been explored for image generation [46, 20, 44, 18, 23]. However, small reference and generated minibatches can yield noisy training signals [7, 23], while increasing their sizes is particularly costly for videos. Making sample-based supervision practical therefore requires reliable estimates within the memory and computation constraints of video training, rather than simply relying on larger batches. We introduce Elastic Forcing, an efficient sample-based framework for post-training few-step autoregressive video generators. We retain Self Forcing’s rollout procedure but replace DMD with MMD in frozen representation spaces that capture video appearance and temporal dynamics. Reference videos directly define the training target, eliminating the need for either a diffusion teacher or an online fake-score model during distributional post-training. Our design treats the fixed reference distribution and the evolving generated distribution differently. On the reference side, a hybrid estimator combines a persistent, finite-rank Nyström summary of the full reference collection with Monte Carlo estimates from sampled references. The persistent component reduces reference-sampling variance, while the sampled component reduces the approximation bias of finite-rank compression. Each update thus incorporates reference statistics beyond its minibatch without exhaustive comparisons against the full collection. On the generated side, our key observation is that comparing more videos does not require retaining or backpropagating through all their generation graphs. Estimation–differentiation decoupling evaluates MMD interactions over a large rollout population in representation space, then backpropagates through only a randomly sampled subset. Appropriate rescaling yields a conditionally unbiased estimate of the evaluated full-batch gradient, allowing all evaluated rollouts to inform the objective while only a subset incurs generator backpropagation. Under matched initialization and evaluation with a 1.3B generator, Elastic Forcing achieves a VBench [38] Total score of 84.64, compared with 83.80 for Self Forcing, while retaining the same inference efficiency. Training 14B-scale models with Self-Forcing typically requires industrial-scale GPU infrastructure [55]. Removing both auxiliary score networks enables us to post-train a 14B generator in 23.2 hours on a single node of 8 H200 GPUs, outperforming Krea Realtime 14B under our matched evaluation protocol. Changing the reference collection also enables adaptation to monochrome appearance, character-specific content, and panoramic composition without adapting a diffusion teacher. These results demonstrate both the computational and supervisory flexibility of direct reference-distribution learning. Figure 1: Demonstration of Elastic Forcing. Instead of learning the distribution from teacher provided real and fake scores, Elastic Forcing directly learns autoregressive video rollouts from reference samples 2 Preliminaries 2.1 Few-Step Autoregressive Rollout Learning Given a condition c, an autoregressive generator models a video x=(x1,…,xT)x=(x_1,…,x_T) as a sequence of causal chunks: pθ(x∣c)=∏i=1Tpθ(xi∣x<i,c).p_θ(x c)= _i=1^Tp_θ(x_i x_<i,c). (1) We consider diffusion-based generators that synthesize each chunk in a small number of denoising steps, combining causal generation across chunks with few-step sampling within each chunk [88, 37]. Self Forcing [37] trains on autoregressive rollouts whose histories consist of previously generated chunks, rather than ground-truth histories, and supervises the resulting video distribution. Distribution Matching Distillation (DMD) [87, 86] provides one such distributional objective. Writing pθ,tp_θ,t and pT,tp_T,t for the noise-perturbed rollout and teacher distributions, its objective takes the form ℒDMD=t[DKL(pθ,t∥pT,t)]L_DMD=E_t[D_KL(p_θ,t\|p_T,t)]. Optimization uses the difference between their score functions. The target score is supplied by a pretrained diffusion teacher, while an auxiliary model is trained online to estimate the score of the evolving generated distribution. 2.2 Maximum Mean Discrepancy Maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) [29] compares distributions through kernel mean embeddings [57]. For distributions P,QP,Q on a representation space and a positive-definite kernel k, its squared value is MMDk2(P,Q)=z,z′∼P[k(z,z′)]−2z∼P,u∼Q[k(z,u)]+u,u′∼Q[k(u,u′)], _k^2(P,Q)=E_z,z P[k(z,z )]-2E_z P,\,u Q[k(z,u)]+E_u,u Q[k(u,u )], (2) where draws within each expectation are independent. MMD can be estimated directly from samples, without evaluating either distribution’s density or score. Its training signal nevertheless depends on finite-sample estimates of both generated and reference statistics. Larger sample sets can improve these estimates, but naively retaining an end-to-end computation graph for every generated video ties sample coverage to activation memory and backward computation. Section 3 addresses this statistical–computational trade-off. 3 Elastic Forcing Elastic Forcing matches few-step autoregressive rollouts to reference videos using MMD in frozen representation spaces. Its design addresses the statistical–computational trade-off of video distribution learning in two complementary ways. Hybrid reference estimation improves the accuracy–stability balance when reference minibatches are limited, while estimation–differentiation decoupling allows a larger rollout population to inform the loss than is backpropagated through the generator. We first define the video matching objective (Section 3.1), then develop the hybrid estimator (Section 3.2) and selective differentiation scheme (Section 3.3). 3.1 Sample-Defined Rollout Distribution Matching Choose the matching geometry. Let pθp_θ denote the distribution of complete autoregressive rollouts under the training prompts and generation noise. A reference collection ref=ynn=1NrefD_ref=\y_n\_n=1^N_ref defines the empirical target distribution prefp_ref. MMD can compare these distributions from samples, but the representation determines which differences the kernel can detect. Pixel or VAE-latent distances need not reflect semantic or temporal consistency: a latent space trained for reconstruction is not necessarily a useful geometry for distribution matching. In our experiments, matching in these spaces provides ineffective supervision. Figure 2 illustrates this limitation: VAE matching produces visible helmet and clothing distortions, whereas pretrained-feature matching better preserves the subject in this example. Following representational distribution matching in image generation [18, 23], we therefore compare frozen pretrained features that describe both spatial content and its evolution. Figure 2: MMD in different representation spaces. Rows use DINOv3, VideoMAE, V-JEPA 2, and Wan VAE features, respectively; columns show sampled frames in temporal order. Wan VAE matching exhibits distortions in the helmet and clothing. The pretrained encoders preserve more coherent subjects, with different degrees and types of visible motion. This qualitative example complements the metric breakdown in Table 8. Combine complementary representation constraints. The three encoders provide complementary constraints rather than interchangeable feature extractors. V-JEPA 2 [3] supplies predictive video features for temporal dynamics. VideoMAE [69, 74] captures spatiotemporal structure through masked video reconstruction. DINOv3 [64] adds spatially localized, frame-level semantic features, complementing the video encoders’ temporal context. Matching multiple spaces constrains agreement in each geometry, rather than assuming that one representation captures every aspect of video quality. Their empirical trade-offs are evaluated in Section 4.4, and more results in Appendix D.1; the single example in Figure 2 does not establish a general ranking. For encoder ϕe _e and differentiable positive-definite kernel kek_e, let Pθe=(ϕe)#pθP_θ^e=( _e)_\#p_θ and Prefe=(ϕe)#prefP_ref^e=( _e)_\#p_ref denote the induced representation distributions. Our objective is ℒEF(θ)=∑e∈ℰλeℒe,ℒe=MMDke2(Pθe,Prefe),L_EF(θ)= _e _eL_e, _e=MMD_k_e^2 (P_θ^e,P_ref^e ), (3) where ℰ=VJ,VM,DINOE=\VJ,VM,DINO\ and λe≥0 _e≥ 0 balances the representation-specific constraints. The MMD objective is defined in Equation (2). Setting λDINO=0 _DINO=0 recovers the two-video-encoder variant. We report both configurations and examine their qualitative–quantitative trade-off in Section 4. Express matching through kernel interactions. MMD measures the distance between the distributions’ mean kernel features [29]. It can be evaluated through pairwise kernel values, without constructing the implicit features or an explicit covariance matrix. Define mθe(z)=z′∼Pθeke(z,z′),mrefe(z)=u∼Prefeke(z,u).m_θ^e(z)=E_z P_θ^ek_e(z,z ), m_ref^e(z)=E_u P_ref^ek_e(z,u). (4) Each kernel mean measures a query’s expected similarity to one population. For elastic forcing, we use a Gaussian kernel k(x,y)=exp(−∥x−y∥22/2σ2)k(x,y)= (-\|x-y\|_2^2/2σ^2) where σ is a fixed bandwidth. Equation 2 gives ℒe≐z∼Pθe[mθe(z)]⏟generated–generated interaction−2z∼Pθe[mrefe(z)]⏟generated–reference interaction,L_e E_z P_θ^e[m_θ^e(z)]_generated--generated interaction- 2 E_z P_θ^e[m_ref^e(z)]_generated--reference interaction, (5) where ≐ omits the reference–reference term u,u′∼Prefeke(u,u′)E_u,u P_ref^ek_e(u,u ), which is independent of θ; all paired draws are independent. For distance-decaying kernels, minimizing the first term acts as repulsion among generated representations, while minimizing the second acts as attraction toward references [2]. Estimating these interactions introduces a statistical–computational trade-off. Small minibatches produce noisy direction estimates, while including more samples is constrained by computational resources. This trade-off is particularly restrictive for video DiTs with large activation requirements [61, 72]. We address this trade-off from the estimation of both the reference and generated distributions in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 respectively. 3.2 Reference Side: Hybrid Estimator Figure 3: A 2D toy experiment illustrating hybrid MMD estimation. We first address the reference-estimation bottleneck: obtaining reliable reference supervision when minibatches are limited. All reference-dependent supervision is summarized by the kernel mean mrefe(z)m_ref^e(z). Evaluating it exactly requires comparing each generated query against all NrefN_ref reference videos, whereas a reference minibatch gives the Monte Carlo estimate m^MCe(z)=1Bref∑j=1Brefke(z,ϕe(yj)),yj∼i.i.d.pref. m_MC^e(z)= 1B_ref _j=1^B_refk_e (z, _e(y_j) ), y_j i.i.d. p_ref. (6) This estimator is unbiased for the empirical reference mean, but can have substantial sampling variance when BrefB_ref is small. Rather than relying solely on larger reference minibatches, we complement it with a compact, persistent summary of the full reference collection. The aim is to incorporate reference information beyond the current minibatch without repeatedly evaluating the entire collection. Summarize the fixed reference collection. Formally, we approximate the reference kernel mean using a finite set of landmark kernel functions, yielding a Nyström approximation [78, 10, 23]. We obtain R landmarks Ue=urer=1RU_e=\u_r^e\_r=1^R by applying k-means to the reference representations ϕe(yn)n=1Nref\ _e(y_n)\_n=1^N_ref [95]. Let [KUUe]rs=ke(ure,use)[K_U^e]_rs=k_e(u_r^e,u_s^e) and ke(Ue,z)=[ke(u1e,z),…,ke(uRe,z)]⊤k_e(U_e,z)= [k_e(u_1^e,z),…,k_e(u_R^e,z) ] collect the landmark–query kernel values. The resulting feature map is ψe(z)=(KUUe+εI)−1/2ke(Ue,z), _e(z)=(K_U^e+ I)^-1/2k_e(U_e,z), (7) where ε>0 >0 provides numerical regularization. The induced kernel k~e(z,u)=ψe(z)⊤ψe(u) k_e(z,u)= _e(z) _e(u) has rank at most R. Under this finite-rank approximation, the reference kernel mean becomes mNyse(z)=ψe(z)⊤μ¯e,μ¯e=1Nref∑n=1Nrefψe(ϕe(yn)).m_Nys^e(z)= _e(z) μ_e, μ_e= 1N_ref _n=1^N_ref _e( _e(y_n)). (8) With the encoders, kernels, and reference collection fixed, μ¯e μ_e is computed once. Subsequent queries require only R landmark kernel evaluations, while the stored mean incorporates statistics from the full reference collection. Detailed derivations are in Appendix C.2 Balance approximation bias and sampling variance. This finite-rank restriction can introduce approximation bias, and regularization introduces additional approximation error. Once the summary is fixed, however, its value at a fixed query has no reference-minibatch sampling variance. Monte Carlo estimation has the complementary property: it is unbiased but noisy. We combine the two estimates through m^αe(z)=(1−αe)mNyse(z)+αem^MCe(z),αe∈[0,1]. m_ _e^e(z)=(1- _e)m_Nys^e(z)+ _e m_MC^e(z), _e∈[0,1]. (9) This combination admits a direct bias–variance interpretation. Conditioning on the reference collection and landmarks, let Be2B_e^2 denote the squared Nyström approximation bias averaged over a fixed query distribution, and VeV_e the Monte Carlo variance averaged over the same distribution. Since the Monte Carlo estimator is unbiased, for Be2>0B_e^2>0 and Ve>0V_e>0 the MSE-optimal coefficient is αe⋆=argminα∈[0,1][(1−α)2Be2+α2Ve]=Be2Be2+Ve∈(0,1). _e = *arg\,min_α∈[0,1] [(1-α)^2B_e^2+α^2V_e ]= B_e^2B_e^2+V_e∈(0,1). (10) At this optimum, the hybrid achieves lower reference-estimation MSE than either estimator alone. A larger approximation bias favors sampled references, whereas greater sampling variance favors the persistent summary. Appendix C.3 provides the derivation. Figure 3 illustrates the three algorithms in a toy experiment, in which the hybrid estimator yields best convergence. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison with CausVid and Self Forcing. Red text highlights key prompt requirements, and red circles indicate representative failure cases. In these examples, our method demonstrates more faithful action execution, better preservation of subject counts, and more coherent interactions across frames. 3.3 Generated Side: Decoupling Estimation from Differentiation Unlike the fixed reference distribution, pθp_θ changes after each update, so we estimate its contribution using fresh on-policy rollouts. Given B>1B>1 rollouts xii=1B\x_i\_i=1^B and representations zie=ϕe(xi)z_i^e= _e(x_i), the finite-batch training loss is ℒ^EF=∑e∈ℰλe[1B(B−1)∑i≠jke(zie,zje)−2B∑i=1Bm^αe(zie)]. L_EF= _e _e [ 1B(B-1) _i≠ jk_e(z_i^e,z_j^e)- 2B _i=1^B m_ _e^e(z_i^e) ]. (11) The difficulty is cross-video coupling. The generated–generated term makes each rollout’s gradient depend on all other B−1B-1 rollouts. A larger population can improve estimation, but direct end-to-end training retains expensive video DiT activations for every sample. Computing MMD separately on small microbatches and accumulating their gradients does not resolve this trade-off: it omits cross-microbatch pairs and no longer gives the same full-batch update. We need the interactions of a large population without requiring every video to incur the full backward cost. Resolve the coupling before generator backpropagation. Our key observation is that the loss couples video representations, but their generator graphs need not remain coupled. We first collect all B rollouts and their representations without retaining the full generator graphs. We evaluate Equation (11) in representation space and compute its feature gradients (cotangents), gie=∂ℒ^EF/∂zieg_i^e=∂ L_EF/∂ z_i^e. Each gieg_i^e already contains the effect of the full generated population and the reference estimate on sample i. For the prescribed differentiation graph, the chain rule gives ∇θℒ^EF=∑i=1B∑e∈ℰ(Jθ,ie)⊤gie,Jθ,ie=∂zie∂θ. _θ L_EF= _i=1^B _e (J_θ,i^e ) g_i^e, J_θ,i^e= ∂ z_i^e∂θ. (12) Once these cotangents are fixed, the remaining computation is a sum of independent per-rollout vector–Jacobian products. This permits gradient-cached replay [26]: reconstruct a rollout’s computation, propagate its cached cotangents through the encoders and generator, accumulate the parameter gradient, and release the local graph. Frozen encoder weights still permit gradients to the video inputs. Sparse saved boundary states support segment-wise replay [15], limiting active graph storage without discarding cross-video interactions. Compare more videos than we differentiate. Replay controls peak graph memory, but differentiating all B rollouts still incurs B reverse computations. We therefore separate the distribution batch B from the differentiation batch b: all B videos determine the cotangents, while a uniformly sampled subset ⊂1,…,BS⊂\1,…,B\ of b distinct rollouts contributes generator Jacobian products. The rescaled update is ∇θℒ^=Bb∑i∈∑e∈ℰ(Jθ,ie)⊤gie. _θL= Bb _i _e (J_θ,i^e ) g_i^e. (13) Each rollout has inclusion probability b/Bb/B, so the factor B/bB/b makes this an unbiased estimate of Equation (12), conditioned on the evaluated batch and reference estimates [36]. Replay must use the same rollout computation and prescribed differentiation path; this is not an unbiasedness claim for the exact population MMD. Crucially, a video excluded from backpropagation still shapes the update: it enters the full-population loss and hence the cotangents of selected videos. We subsample the expensive generator gradient contributions, not the population defining their directions. Reducing b saves reverse computation at the cost of sampling variance; all B forward rollouts and their feature-space comparisons remain necessary; Appendix C.4 gives the variance analysis. Overall training procedure. We update only the generator, after accumulating all selected gradient contributions. The encoders and persistent reference summaries remain fixed throughout post-training. Appendix C provides complete pseudocode. 4 Experiments Table 1: VBench video generation. We report the VBench total, quality (Qual.), and semantic (Sem.) scores. VBench ↑ Model Size FPS ↑ Total Qual. Sem. Full-sequence diffusion LTX-Video 1.9B 8.98 80.00 82.30 70.79 Wan2.1 1.3B 0.78 84.26 85.30 80.09 Autoregressive / streaming SkyReels-V2 1.3B 0.49 82.67 84.70 74.53 MAGI-1 4.5B 0.19 79.18 82.04 67.74 NOVA 0.6B 0.88 80.12 80.39 79.05 Pyramid Flow 2B 6.7 81.72 84.74 69.62 CausVid 1.3B 17.0 82.88 83.93 78.69 Self-Forcing 1.3B 17.0 83.80 84.59 80.64 LongLive 1.3B 20.7 83.22 83.68 81.37 Rolling Forcing 1.3B 17.5 81.22 84.08 69.78 Reward Forcing 1.3B 23.1 84.13 84.84 81.32 Ours (3 encoders) 1.3B 17.0 84.25 85.06 80.99 Ours (2 encoders) 1.3B 17.0 84.64 85.43 81.48 Setup. We first evaluate generation quality, then scaling to 14B and adaptation through reference data, before examining the components of Elastic Forcing. Our 1.3B experiments use the same autoregressive architecture, ODE-initialized checkpoint, and rollout procedure as Self Forcing [37]. For elastic-forcing training, we use over 8,000 Wan-generated reference videos [72] with prompts expanded from VidProM [75]; these samples, rather than online teacher scores, define the training target. Following Self Forcing, we evaluate on expanded versions of the 946 official VBench prompts [38], generating five videos per prompt with independent random seeds. We train Elastic Forcing, both the three- and two-encoder variant (with and without DINO) on 4 NVIDIA H200 GPUs with distribution batch B=256B=256 and differentiation batch b=128b=128. Further implementation details are provided in Appendix B. 4.1 Comparison with Existing Baselines Table 1 compares Elastic Forcing with representative bidirectional and autoregressive video generators. The baseline methods are described in Appendix B.3. Our model (two-encoder) achieves VBench Total, Quality, and Semantic scores of 84.64, 85.43, and 81.48, respectively, outperforming all listed autoregressive baselines while retaining 17 FPS inference. Note that Elastic Forcing modifies only the training objective and is orthogonal to existing advances in RoPE [67], memory mechanisms [85, 51], and initialization, which can be incorporated independently. The Total score also exceeds that of bidirectional Wan2.1 (84.26). These results show that direct sample-based supervision can support competitive streaming generation without teacher-provided target scores. The three-encoder variant achieves slightly lower VBench scores, but still outperforms all autoregressive baselines. This variant demonstrates better qualitative abilities, discussed in Section 4.4, and is used for the scaling and reference-adaptation experiments below. Figure 5: Scaling to 14B. Our streaming 14B model produces better results than our streaming 1.3B models in complex scenarios. 4.2 Scaling to Larger Models Scaling Self-Forcing is challenging because DMD scales both the generator and its real- and fake-score models. The original experiments primarily use Wan2.1-1.3B [37]; Krea reports that naive scaling exceeds memory even with FSDP across 64 H100 GPUs [56]. Elastic Forcing removes both auxiliary diffusion models and their score-estimation computation. We post-train Wan2.1-T2V-14B for 80 steps on a single node of 8 NVIDIA H200 GPUs, starting from the same ODE-initialized checkpoint as Krea Realtime 14B [55]. This run takes 23.2 hours, or 185.6 GPU-hours. Figure 6 summarizes the training cost; different offloading strategies trade peak memory for GPU-hours. Table 2: VLM and human evaluation. VLM evaluation ↑ Human ↑ Model Visual quality Subj. consist. Sem. consist. Total Score Full-sequence diffusion Wan2.1-14B 4.23 4.33 4.58 4.224 – Autoregressive / streaming Self-Forcing 4.01 4.111 4.56 4.11 – Krea Realtime 4.00 4.05 4.50 4.115 3.054 Ours-14B 4.21 4.35 4.61 4.217 3.354 Figure 6: Training efficiency. The tradeoff between GPU hours and peak memory per GPU (due to different offloading strategies) at 1.3B and 14B scale. Self Forcing 14B runs out of memory on eight GPUs. The significance is not simply that a 14B model fits in memory. With score-based supervision, increasing generator scale also brings the cost of maintaining auxiliary diffusion networks. Reference-based supervision removes this dependency, making distributional post-training of a large streaming generator feasible within one node. The reported budget covers this post-training run, not foundation-model pretraining or the preceding ODE initialization. It therefore measures access to large-model post-training, rather than the end-to-end cost of building a 14B generator from scratch. Since VBench does not consistently reflect the perceptual gains of larger models (Wan2.1-14B scores below Wan2.1-1.3B on VBench), we complement the resource analysis with VLM and human evaluation, with protocols given in Appendices H and J. Table 2 shows that Elastic Forcing 14B improves over Krea Realtime 14B across the reported VLM dimensions: visual quality (4.21 versus 4.00), subject consistency (4.35 versus 4.05), and semantic consistency (4.61 versus 4.50). The gains are therefore not confined to a single evaluation axis. Its VLM Total of 4.217, versus Krea’s 4.115, is also close to bidirectional Wan 14B’s 4.224. A human evaluation with 42 participants likewise favors Elastic Forcing, with mean ratings of 3.354 versus 3.054. This agreement supports the quality of the resulting streaming model under both evaluation protocols. Together, these results show that removing online score supervision can make 14B-scale post-training practical without sacrificing competitive generation quality. Figure 5 illustrates the benefits of the larger generator in complex scenes; further comparisons appear in Appendix F. Thus, the resource savings enable access to a stronger generator, rather than serving only as a memory reduction for the 1.3B setting. 4.3 Reference-Driven Adaptation Figure 7: Learning beyond the teacher. Elastic Forcing learns spatial priors, character identity, and visual style directly from reference videos. Reference-defined supervision lets us change the training target without first adapting a diffusion teacher. We use the 1.3B generator to learn new spatial structure, concepts, and appearance directly from reference videos. As shown in Fig. 7, wide-angle references lead to panoramic composition (top); Nailoong videos teach the character’s identity (middle); and black-and-white references produce monochrome generations (bottom). In these examples, Wan-14B and its Self-Forcing student fail to reproduce the panoramic geometry or Nailoong identity. Elastic Forcing learns these properties from the reference collection, illustrating adaptation beyond the original teacher’s capabilities. Appendix E provides quantitative comparisons. 4.4 Ablation Studies We examine the representation space, the reference estimator, and the forward/backward batch sizes (Tables 3–5), reporting VBench and, where available, VLM judge scores. To better utilize the VLM’s multimodal reasoning capabilities on paired videos, we adopt a comparative evaluation protocol: for each prompt, the VLM is presented with the videos produced by all ablation variants and asked to rank them. Detailed protocols are in Appendix H. Representation space. Combining V-JEPA 2 and VideoMAE improves VBench Total to 84.64 from 83.91 and 83.97 individually. DINOv3 alone scores 81.96 on VBench but outperforms both video encoders under the VLM judge. Adding DINOv3 to their combination lowers VBench Total to 83.81 but raises the VLM score from 3.03 to 3.63, the best in Table 3, consistent with our observation of improved temporal stability. This disagreement motivates using both evaluation protocols and reporting both configurations. Appendix D.1 provides further analysis. Table 3: Encoder selection. We report VBench scores and VLM judge results for MMD in different encoder spaces. VJ: V-JEPA 2; VM: VideoMAE; D: DINOv3. Encoder Total ↑ Qual. ↑ Sem. ↑ VLM ↑ Self-Forcing 83.80 84.59 80.64 - V-JEPA 2 83.91 84.62 81.09 2.40 VideoMAE 83.97 85.02 79.79 2.67 DINOv3 81.96 82.32 80.54 3.27 VJ + VM 84.64 85.43 81.48 3.03 VJ + VM + D 83.81 84.44 81.31 3.63 Table 4: Estimator ablation. We report VBench scores and VLM judge results for different MMD reference kernel mean estimators. Method Total ↑ Qual.↑ Sem.↑ VLM ↑ Nyström 84.59 85.47 81.08 1.97 MC 84.06 84.84 80.93 1.97 Full 84.64 85.43 81.48 2.07 Table 5: Ablation on forward and backward batch sizes. We report VBench Total, Quality (Qual.), Semantic (Sem.), and VLM scores. Fwd. B Bwd. b Total ↑ Qual. ↑ Sem. ↑ VLM ↑ 256 32 83.73 84.32 81.39 2.38 256 64 83.98 84.66 81.23 2.54 256 128 84.25 85.06 80.99 3.04 128 128 84.09 84.77 81.38 2.04 256 128 84.25 85.06 80.99 3.04 Reference estimation. The hybrid estimator achieves the highest VBench Total (84.64), Semantic (81.48), and VLM score (2.07) in Table 4, outperforming either component alone on these metrics. Nyström alone gives slightly higher Quality (85.47 versus 85.43). These results support combining persistent reference statistics with stochastic minibatch estimates. Forward and backward batch sizes. Table 5 separates the distribution batch B from the differentiation batch b. At fixed B=256B=256, larger b improves VBench Total. More importantly, at fixed b=128b=128, increasing B from 128 to 256 improves Total from 84.09 to 84.25 and Quality from 84.77 to 85.06, despite a lower Semantic score. This supports the decoupling in Section 3.3: more videos can inform distribution matching without increasing the backward batch. Our default is (B,b)=(256,128)(B,b)=(256,128); Appendix D provides further ablations. 5 Related Work Autoregressive video training addresses imperfect histories through denoising, rollout-level distillation, or adversarial supervision [12, 30, 37, 48]. Sample-based distributional objectives offer an alternative to online score models by comparing generated and reference populations in learned representation spaces [46, 18, 84, 23, 93]. Our work connects these directions through efficient kernel matching of autoregressive rollouts. Appendix A reviews autoregressive video generation, distributional training, and video representation learning in more detail. 6 Conclusion We introduced Elastic Forcing, a sample-based framework for post-training few-step autoregressive video generators. By matching rollout distributions to reference videos through MMD in frozen representation spaces, it removes the need for both a diffusion teacher and an online fake-score model during post-training. Hybrid reference estimation balances approximation bias and sampling variance, while decoupling distribution estimation from differentiation makes large rollout batches practical under memory constraints. With the same architecture and initialization as Self Forcing, our 1.3B model improves generation quality while preserving inference speed, and the framework enables 14B post-training on a single node of eight H200 GPUs. Moreover, reference-defined supervision enables learning new visual styles, semantic concepts, and spatial priors directly from videos. Together, these results demonstrate that sample-based distribution matching offers a practical route to efficient streaming generation. Acknowledgments We are deeply grateful to the Krea AI team for generously providing the ODE-initialized checkpoint for Wan2.1-T2V-14B. Their support allowed us to avoid reproducing an exceptionally computationally intensive initialization procedure at this scale, saving a substantial amount of GPU time and making our large-scale experiments possible. We also sincerely thank all volunteers who participated in our human evaluations. Their time, careful judgment, and thoughtful feedback were invaluable to the empirical assessment of our work. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the creators and rights holders of the Nailoong character. Its distinctive visual identity provided a meaningful case study for evaluating the acquisition of novel semantic concepts from reference videos. Nailong is used in this work solely for non-commercial academic research and evaluation, and all associated intellectual-property rights remain with their respective owners. References [1] Sand. ai, H. Teng, H. Jia, L. Sun, L. Li, M. Li, M. Tang, S. Han, T. Zhang, W. Q. Zhang, W. Luo, X. Kang, Y. Sun, Y. Cao, Y. Huang, Y. Lin, Y. Fang, Z. Tao, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, Z. Liu, D. Shi, G. Su, H. Sun, H. Pan, J. Wang, J. Sheng, M. Cui, M. Hu, M. Yan, S. Yin, S. Zhang, T. Liu, X. Yin, X. Yang, X. Song, X. Hu, Y. Zhang, and Y. Li (2025) MAGI-1: autoregressive video generation at scale. External Links: 2505.13211, Link Cited by: §A.1, §B.3. [2] M. Arbel, A. Korba, A. Salim, and A. Gretton (2019) Maximum Mean Discrepancy Gradient Flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04370. External Links: 1906.04370, Link Cited by: §A.2, §3.1. [3] M. Assran, A. Bardes, D. Fan, Q. Garrido, R. Howes, M. Komeili, M. Muckley, A. Rizvi, C. Roberts, K. Sinha, A. Zholus, S. Arnaud, A. Gejji, A. Martin, F. R. Hogan, D. Dugas, P. Bojanowski, V. Khalidov, P. Labatut, F. Massa, M. Szafraniec, K. Krishnakumar, Y. Li, X. Ma, S. Chandar, F. Meier, Y. LeCun, M. Rabbat, and N. Ballas (2025) V-jepa 2: self-supervised video models enable understanding, prediction and planning. External Links: 2506.09985, Link Cited by: §A.3, §3.1. [4] A. Bardes, Q. Garrido, J. Ponce, X. Chen, M. Rabbat, Y. LeCun, M. Assran, and N. Ballas (2024) Revisiting Feature Prediction for Learning Visual Representations from Video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08471. External Links: 2404.08471, Link Cited by: §A.3. [5] M. G. Bellemare, I. Danihelka, W. Dabney, S. Mohamed, B. Lakshminarayanan, S. Hoyer, and R. Munos (2017) The Cramer Distance as a Solution to Biased Wasserstein Gradients. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10743. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.2. [6] G. Bertasius, H. Wang, and L. Torresani (2021) Is Space-Time Attention All You Need for Video Understanding?. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139, p. 813–824. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [7] M. Bińkowski, D. J. Sutherland, M. Arbel, and A. Gretton (2018) Demystifying MMD GANs. In International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: 1801.01401, Link Cited by: §A.2, §1. [8] J. Bruce, M. D. Dennis, A. Edwards, J. Parker-Holder, Y. Shi, E. Hughes, M. Lai, A. Mavalankar, R. Steigerwald, C. Apps, et al. (2024) Genie: generative interactive environments. In Forty-first international conference on machine learning, Cited by: §A.1, §1. [9] J. Carreira and A. Zisserman (2017) Quo Vadis, Action Recognition? A New Model and the Kinetics Dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 6299–6308. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [10] A. Chatalic, N. Schreuder, L. Rosasco, and A. Rudi (2022) Nyström kernel mean embeddings. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 162, p. 3006–3024. External Links: Link Cited by: §C.2, §3.2. [11] C. Cheang, G. Chen, Y. Jing, T. Kong, H. Li, Y. Li, Y. Liu, H. Wu, J. Xu, Y. Yang, H. Zhang, and M. Zhu (2024) GR-2: a generative video-language-action model with web-scale knowledge for robot manipulation. External Links: 2410.06158, Link Cited by: §1. [12] B. Chen, D. M. Monso, Y. Du, M. Simchowitz, R. Tedrake, and V. Sitzmann (2024) Diffusion Forcing: Next-token Prediction Meets Full-Sequence Diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01392. External Links: 2407.01392, Link Cited by: §A.1, §1, §5. [13] G. Chen, D. Lin, J. Yang, C. Lin, J. Zhu, M. Fan, H. Zhang, S. Chen, Z. Chen, C. Ma, W. Xiong, W. Wang, N. Pang, K. Kang, Z. Xu, Y. Jin, Y. Liang, Y. Song, P. Zhao, B. Xu, D. Qiu, D. Li, Z. Fei, Y. Li, and Y. Zhou (2025) SkyReels-v2: infinite-length film generative model. External Links: 2504.13074, Link Cited by: §A.1, §B.3. [14] S. Chen, C. Wei, S. Sun, P. Nie, K. Zhou, G. Zhang, M. Yang, and W. Chen (2026) Context Forcing: Consistent Autoregressive Video Generation with Long Context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06028. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [15] T. Chen, B. Xu, C. Zhang, and C. Guestrin (2016) Training Deep Nets with Sublinear Memory Cost. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06174. External Links: 1604.06174, Link Cited by: §C.4, §3.3. [16] DeepSeek-AI (2026) DeepSeek-v4: towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence. External Links: 2606.19348, Link Cited by: §B.1. [17] H. Deng, T. Pan, H. Diao, Z. Luo, Y. Cui, H. Lu, S. Shan, Y. Qi, and X. Wang (2024) Autoregressive video generation without vector quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14169. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1, §B.3. [18] M. Deng, H. Li, T. Li, Y. Du, and K. He (2026) Generative Modeling via Drifting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.04770. External Links: 2602.04770, Link Cited by: §A.2, §1, §3.1, §5. [19] I. Deshpande, Z. Zhang, and A. G. Schwing (2018) Generative Modeling Using the Sliced Wasserstein Distance. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 3483–3491. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.2. [20] G. K. Dziugaite, D. M. Roy, and Z. Ghahramani (2015) Training generative neural networks via Maximum Mean Discrepancy optimization. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, External Links: 1505.03906, Link Cited by: §A.2, §1. [21] C. Feichtenhofer, H. Fan, Y. Li, and K. He (2022) Masked Autoencoders As Spatiotemporal Learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [22] C. Feichtenhofer, H. Fan, J. Malik, and K. He (2019) SlowFast Networks for Video Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, p. 6202–6211. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [23] L. Feng, W. Li, E. Zablocki, M. Cord, and A. Alahi (2026) Representation Distribution Matching for One-Step Visual Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02375. External Links: 2607.02375, Link Cited by: §A.2, §A.3, §C.2, §1, §3.1, §3.2, §5. [24] J. Feydy, T. Séjourné, F. Vialard, S. Amari, A. Trouvé, and G. Peyré (2019) Interpolating between Optimal Transport and MMD using Sinkhorn Divergences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 89, p. 2681–2690. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.2. [25] K. Gao, J. Shi, H. Zhang, C. Wang, J. Xiao, and L. Chen (2024) Ca2-VDM: Efficient Autoregressive Video Diffusion Model with Causal Generation and Cache Sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16375. External Links: 2411.16375, Link Cited by: §A.1. [26] L. Gao, Y. Zhang, J. Han, and J. Callan (2021) Scaling Deep Contrastive Learning Batch Size under Memory Limited Setup. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP, External Links: 2101.06983, Link Cited by: §C.4, §3.3. [27] S. Ge, A. Mahapatra, G. Parmar, J. Zhu, and J. Huang (2024) On the content bias in fréchet video distance. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Vol. , p. 7277–7288. External Links: Document Cited by: §A.3. [28] A. Genevay, G. Peyré, and M. Cuturi (2018) Learning Generative Models with Sinkhorn Divergences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 84, p. 1608–1617. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.2. [29] A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. J. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, and A. Smola (2012) A kernel two-sample test. The journal of machine learning research 13, p. 723–773. Cited by: §A.2, §C.1, §1, §2.2, §3.1. [30] Y. Guo, C. Yang, H. He, Y. Zhao, M. Wei, Z. Yang, W. Huang, and D. Lin (2025) End-to-End Training for Autoregressive Video Diffusion via Self-Resampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.15702. External Links: 2512.15702, Link Cited by: §A.1, §1, §5. [31] Y. HaCohen, N. Chiprut, B. Brazowski, D. Shalem, D. Moshe, E. Richardson, E. Levin, G. Shiran, N. Zabari, O. Gordon, P. Panet, S. Weissbuch, V. Kulikov, Y. Bitterman, Z. Melumian, and O. Bibi (2024) LTX-Video: realtime video latent diffusion. External Links: 2501.00103, Link Cited by: §B.3. [32] T. Han, W. Xie, and A. Zisserman (2019) Video Representation Learning by Dense Predictive Coding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [33] K. He, X. Chen, S. Xie, Y. Li, P. Dollár, and R. Girshick (2022) Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, External Links: 2111.06377, Link Cited by: §D.1. [34] X. He, C. Peng, Z. Liu, B. Wang, Y. Zhang, Q. Cui, F. Kang, B. Jiang, M. An, Y. Ren, et al. (2025) Matrix-game 2.0: an open-source real-time and streaming interactive world model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13009. Cited by: §1. [35] M. Heusel, H. Ramsauer, T. Unterthiner, B. Nessler, and S. Hochreiter (2017) GANs Trained by a Two Time-Scale Update Rule Converge to a Local Nash Equilibrium. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, External Links: 1706.08500, Link Cited by: §D.4. [36] D. G. Horvitz and D. J. Thompson (1952) A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47 (260), p. 663–685. External Links: Document Cited by: §C.4, §3.3. [37] X. Huang, Z. Li, G. He, M. Zhou, and E. Shechtman (2025) Self forcing: bridging the train-test gap in autoregressive video diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08009. Cited by: §A.1, §B.1, §B.3, §1, §2.1, §4.2, §4, §5. [38] 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 (2024) VBench: comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Cited by: §B.2, §1, §4. [39] Z. Jiang, Z. Han, C. Mao, J. Zhang, Y. Pan, and Y. Liu (2025) VACE: All-in-One Video Creation and Editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07598. External Links: 2503.07598, Link Cited by: §E.3. [40] Y. Jin, Z. Sun, N. Li, K. Xu, K. Xu, H. Jiang, N. Zhuang, Q. Huang, Y. Song, Y. Mu, and Z. Lin (2024) Pyramidal flow matching for efficient video generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05954. Cited by: §A.1, §B.3. [41] J. Kim, J. Kang, J. Choi, and B. Han (2024) FIFO-Diffusion: Generating Infinite Videos from Text without Training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11473. External Links: 2405.11473, Link Cited by: §A.1. [42] D. Kondratyuk, L. Yu, X. Gu, J. Lezama, J. Huang, G. Schindler, R. Hornung, V. Birodkar, J. Yan, M. Chiu, K. Somandepalli, H. Akbari, Y. Alon, Y. Cheng, J. Dillon, A. Gupta, M. Hahn, A. Hauth, D. Hendon, A. Martinez, D. Minnen, M. Sirotenko, K. Sohn, X. Yang, H. Adam, M. Yang, I. Essa, H. Wang, D. A. Ross, B. Seybold, and L. Jiang (2023) VideoPoet: A Large Language Model for Zero-Shot Video Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14125. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [43] J. Lezama, W. Chen, and Q. Qiu (2021) Run-Sort-ReRun: Escaping Batch Size Limitations in Sliced Wasserstein Generative Models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139, p. 6275–6285. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.2. [44] C. Li, W. Chang, Y. Cheng, Y. Yang, and B. Póczos (2017) MMD GAN: Towards Deeper Understanding of Moment Matching Network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, External Links: 1705.08584, Link Cited by: §A.2, §1. [45] W. Li, W. Pan, P. Luan, Y. Gao, and A. Alahi (2025) Stable Video Infinity: Infinite-Length Video Generation with Error Recycling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09212. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [46] Y. Li, K. Swersky, and R. Zemel (2015) Generative Moment Matching Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.02761. External Links: 1502.02761, Link Cited by: §A.2, §1, §5. [47] S. Lin, X. Xia, Y. Ren, C. Yang, X. Xiao, and L. Jiang (2025) Diffusion Adversarial Post-Training for One-Step Video Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08316. External Links: 2501.08316, Link Cited by: §A.1. [48] S. Lin, C. Yang, H. He, J. Jiang, Y. Ren, X. Xia, Y. Zhao, X. Xiao, and L. Jiang (2025) Autoregressive Adversarial Post-Training for Real-Time Interactive Video Generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, External Links: 2506.09350, Link Cited by: §A.1, §1, §5. [49] H. Liu, C. Wang, F. Gao, X. He, Y. Ma, Z. Wan, Y. Zhang, X. Wei, and Q. Chen (2026) OPSD-V: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Post-Training Few-Step Autoregressive Video Generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.08766. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [50] J. Liu, X. Liu, K. Mei, Y. Wen, M. Yang, and W. Liu (2026) Streaming Autoregressive Video Generation via Diagonal Distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09488. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [51] K. Liu, W. Hu, J. Xu, Y. Shan, and S. Lu (2025) Rolling forcing: autoregressive long video diffusion in real time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25161. Cited by: §A.1, §B.3, §4.1. [52] Y. Liu, C. Zhang, S. Cui, and M. Liu (2026) ElasticTTT: prior-preserving test-time tuning for video editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.21529. Cited by: §A.3. [53] A. Liutkus, U. Şimşekli, S. Majewski, A. Durmus, and F. Stöter (2019) Sliced-Wasserstein Flows: Nonparametric Generative Modeling via Optimal Transport and Diffusions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 97, p. 4104–4113. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.2. [54] Y. Lu, Y. Zeng, H. Li, H. Ouyang, Q. Wang, K. L. Cheng, J. Zhu, H. Cao, Z. Zhang, X. Zhu, et al. (2025) Reward forcing: efficient streaming video generation with rewarded distribution matching distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04678. Cited by: §A.1, §B.3. [55] E. Millon (2025) Krea realtime 14b: real-time video generation. External Links: Link Cited by: §B.1, §1, §4.2. [56] E. Millon (2025) Krea Realtime 14B: real-time, long-form AI video generation. Note: Krea technical blog External Links: Link Cited by: §B.1, §4.2. [57] K. Muandet, K. Fukumizu, B. Sriperumbudur, and B. Schölkopf (2017) Kernel Mean Embedding of Distributions: A Review and Beyond. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 10 (1–2), p. 1–141. External Links: 1605.09522, Link Cited by: §A.2, §C.5, §2.2. [58] K. Nan, R. Xie, P. Zhou, T. Fan, Z. Yang, Z. Chen, X. Li, J. Yang, and Y. Tai (2025) OpenVid-1M: A Large-Scale High-Quality Dataset for Text-to-video Generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: 2407.02371, Link Cited by: §E.2. [59] M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. Vo, M. Szafraniec, V. Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, M. Assran, N. Ballas, W. Galuba, R. Howes, P. Huang, S. Li, I. Misra, M. Rabbat, V. Sharma, G. Synnaeve, H. Xu, H. Jégou, J. Mairal, P. Labatut, A. Joulin, and P. Bojanowski (2023) DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [60] M. Patrick, D. Campbell, Y. M. Asano, I. Misra, F. Metze, C. Feichtenhofer, A. Vedaldi, and J. F. Henriques (2021) Keeping Your Eye on the Ball: Trajectory Attention in Video Transformers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, External Links: 2106.05392, Link Cited by: §A.3, §D.1. [61] W. Peebles and S. Xie (2022) Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09748. External Links: 2212.09748, Link Cited by: §3.1. [62] R. Qian, T. Meng, B. Gong, M. Yang, H. Wang, S. Belongie, and Y. Cui (2021) Spatiotemporal Contrastive Video Representation Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 6964–6974. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [63] A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever (2021) Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139, p. 8748–8763. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [64] O. Siméoni, H. V. Vo, M. Seitzer, F. Baldassarre, M. Oquab, C. Jose, V. Khalidov, M. Szafraniec, S. Yi, M. Ramamonjisoa, F. Massa, D. Haziza, L. Wehrstedt, J. Wang, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, L. Sentana, C. Roberts, A. Vedaldi, J. Tolan, J. Brandt, C. Couprie, J. Mairal, H. Jégou, P. Labatut, and P. Bojanowski (2025) DINOv3. External Links: 2508.10104, Link Cited by: §A.3, §3.1. [65] K. Song, B. Chen, M. Simchowitz, Y. Du, R. Tedrake, and V. Sitzmann (2025) History-Guided Video Diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06764. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [66] B. K. Sriperumbudur, A. Gretton, K. Fukumizu, B. Schölkopf, and G. R. G. Lanckriet (2010) Hilbert space embeddings and metrics on probability measures. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11, p. 1517–1561. External Links: 0907.5309, Link Cited by: §A.2, §C.5. [67] J. Su, Y. Lu, S. Pan, A. Murtadha, B. Wen, and Y. Liu (2021) RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.09864. External Links: 2104.09864, Link Cited by: §4.1. [68] C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna (2016) Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, External Links: 1512.00567, Link Cited by: §D.1. [69] Z. Tong, Y. Song, J. Wang, and L. Wang (2022) VideoMAE: Masked Autoencoders are Data-Efficient Learners for Self-Supervised Video Pre-Training. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, External Links: 2203.12602, Link Cited by: §A.3, §3.1. [70] T. Unterthiner, S. van Steenkiste, K. Kurach, R. Marinier, M. Michalski, and S. Gelly (2018) Towards Accurate Generative Models of Video: A New Metric & Challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717. External Links: 1812.01717, Link Cited by: §A.3, §D.4. [71] D. Valevski, Y. Leviathan, M. Arar, and S. Fruchter (2025) Diffusion models are real-time game engines. In International Conference on Learning Representations, Y. Yue, A. Garg, N. Peng, F. Sha, and R. Yu (Eds.), Vol. 2025, p. 73754–73776. External Links: Link Cited by: §1. [72] T. Wan, A. Wang, B. Ai, B. Wen, C. Mao, C. Xie, D. Chen, F. Yu, H. Zhao, J. Yang, J. Zeng, J. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Wang, J. Chen, K. Zhu, K. Zhao, K. Yan, L. Huang, M. Feng, N. Zhang, P. Li, P. Wu, R. Chu, R. Feng, S. Zhang, S. Sun, T. Fang, T. Wang, T. Gui, T. Weng, T. Shen, W. Lin, W. Wang, W. Wang, W. Zhou, W. Wang, W. Shen, W. Yu, X. Shi, X. Huang, X. Xu, Y. Kou, Y. Lv, Y. Li, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Huang, Y. Li, Y. Wu, Y. Liu, Y. Pan, Y. Zheng, Y. Hong, Y. Shi, Y. Feng, Z. Jiang, Z. Han, Z. Wu, and Z. Liu (2025) Wan: open and advanced large-scale video generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314. Cited by: §B.1, §B.3, §3.1, §4. [73] C. Wang, Y. Zhu, Y. Xu, J. Yang, L. Lin, Z. Yan, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, and L. Wang (2026) InternVideo-Next: Towards General Video Foundation Models without Video-Text Supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, External Links: 2512.01342, Link Cited by: §A.3, §D.1. [74] L. Wang, B. Huang, Z. Zhao, Z. Tong, Y. He, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, and Y. Qiao (2023) VideoMAE v2: scaling video masked autoencoders with dual masking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), p. 14549–14560. Cited by: §A.3, §3.1. [75] W. Wang and Y. Yang (2024) Vidprom: a million-scale real prompt-gallery dataset for text-to-video diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, p. 65618–65642. Cited by: §B.1, §4. [76] Y. Wang, K. Li, X. Li, J. Yu, Y. He, C. Wang, G. Chen, B. Pei, Z. Yan, R. Zheng, J. Xu, Z. Wang, Y. Shi, T. Jiang, S. Li, H. Zhang, Y. Huang, Y. Qiao, Y. Wang, and L. Wang (2024) InternVideo2: Scaling Foundation Models for Multimodal Video Understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15377. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [77] C. Wei, H. Fan, S. Xie, C. Wu, A. Yuille, and C. Feichtenhofer (2022) Masked Feature Prediction for Self-Supervised Visual Pre-Training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p. 14668–14678. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.3. [78] C. K. I. Williams and M. Seeger (2000) Using the Nyström method to speed up kernel machines. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 13. External Links: Link Cited by: §C.2, §3.2. [79] H. Wu, Y. Jing, C. Cheang, G. Chen, J. Xu, X. Li, M. Liu, H. Li, and T. Kong (2023) Unleashing large-scale video generative pre-training for visual robot manipulation. External Links: 2312.13139, Link Cited by: §1. [80] J. Wu, S. Yin, N. Feng, X. He, D. Li, J. Hao, and M. Long (2024) IVideoGPT: interactive videogpts are scalable world models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang (Eds.), Vol. 37, p. 68082–68119. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §A.1. [81] H. Xu, G. Ghosh, P. Huang, D. Okhonko, A. Aghajanyan, F. Metze, L. Zettlemoyer, and C. Feichtenhofer (2021) VideoCLIP: Contrastive Pre-training for Zero-shot Video-Text Understanding. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p. 6787–6800. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §A.3. [82] B. Xue, B. Y. Feng, C. Lin, Y. Lin, Y. Zeng, L. Zhang, M. Agrawala, H. Yan, and P. Pan (2026) Ring Forcing: Towards Precise Long-Term Memory for Autoregressive Video Diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.26794. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [83] W. Yan, Y. Zhang, P. Abbeel, and A. Srinivas (2021) Videogpt: video generation using vq-vae and transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10157. Cited by: §A.1, §1. [84] J. Yang, Z. Geng, X. Ju, Y. Tian, and Y. Wang (2026) Representation Fréchet Loss for Visual Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.28190. External Links: 2604.28190, Link Cited by: §A.2, §A.3, §D.4, §D.5, §5. [85] S. Yang, W. Huang, R. Chu, Y. Xiao, Y. Zhao, X. Wang, M. Li, E. Xie, Y. Chen, Y. Lu, S. Han, and Y. Chen (2025) LongLive: real-time interactive long video generation. External Links: 2509.22622, Link Cited by: §A.1, §B.3, §4.1. [86] T. Yin, M. Gharbi, T. Park, R. Zhang, E. Shechtman, F. Durand, and W. T. Freeman (2024) Improved Distribution Matching Distillation for Fast Image Synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14867. External Links: 2405.14867, Link Cited by: §A.2, §2.1. [87] T. Yin, M. Gharbi, R. Zhang, E. Shechtman, F. Durand, W. T. Freeman, and T. Park (2024) One-step Diffusion with Distribution Matching Distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, External Links: 2311.18828, Link Cited by: §A.2, §1, §2.1. [88] T. Yin, Q. Zhang, R. Zhang, W. T. Freeman, F. Durand, E. Shechtman, and X. Huang (2025) From slow bidirectional to fast autoregressive video diffusion models. In CVPR, Cited by: §A.1, §B.3, §2.1. [89] S. Yu, S. Kwak, H. Jang, J. Jeong, J. Huang, J. Shin, and S. Xie (2024) Representation Alignment for Generation: Training Diffusion Transformers Is Easier Than You Think. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06940. External Links: 2410.06940, Link Cited by: §A.3. [90] S. Yuan, Y. Yin, Z. Li, X. Huang, X. Yang, and L. Yuan (2026) Helios: Real Real-Time Long Video Generation Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04379. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [91] X. Zhai, B. Mustafa, A. Kolesnikov, and L. Beyer (2023) Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, External Links: 2303.15343, Link Cited by: §A.3, §D.1. [92] C. Zhang, Z. Chen, K. Zheng, and J. Zhu (2025) VoiceBridge: general speech restoration with one-step latent bridge models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25275. External Links: Link Cited by: §A.1. [93] C. Zhang, H. Shi, Y. Liu, R. An, J. Zhou, C. Li, X. Lu, Y. Zhang, B. Wang, Y. Wu, S. Cui, and M. Liu (2026) Unifying distributional training for one-step visual generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2609.35763. External Links: Link Cited by: §5. [94] C. Zhang, H. Shi, Y. Liu, Z. Yan, Y. Yin, Y. Wu, and M. Liu (2026) InteracVid: building a real interactive audio-visual response dataset from live-chat videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.01157. Cited by: §1. [95] K. Zhang, I. W. Tsang, and J. T. Kwok (2008) Improved Nyström low-rank approximation and error analysis. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning, p. 1232–1239. External Links: Document Cited by: §C.2, §3.2. [96] L. Zhang, S. Cai, M. Li, G. Wetzstein, and M. Agrawala (2025) Frame Context Packing and Drift Prevention in Next-Frame-Prediction Video Diffusion Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12626. External Links: 2504.12626, Link Cited by: §A.1. [97] H. Zhu, M. Zhao, G. He, H. Su, C. Li, and J. Zhu (2026) Causal forcing: autoregressive diffusion distillation done right for high-quality real-time interactive video generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02214. Cited by: §A.1. [98] J. Zhuang, S. Zhang, Y. Bian, Y. Li, Y. Luo, Y. Liu, W. Jin, S. Zhang, X. He, X. Zhang, et al. (2026) Self gradient forcing: native long video extrapolation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.20368. Cited by: §A.1. Appendix Contents Appendix A Related Work A.1 Autoregressive video generation Autoregressive generators predict ordered visual tokens or continuous latent chunks [83, 42, 80, 17], including action-conditioned world modeling [8]. Independent temporal noise levels and history guidance connect sequence prediction with diffusion [12, 65], enabling long-video synthesis at scale [13, 1]. Pyramidal computation, queued denoising, cache reuse, and context compression improve streaming efficiency [40, 41, 25, 96, 90]. To reduce exposure bias, self-resampled histories and recycled generation errors expose denoising models to imperfect contexts during training [30, 45]. Another line distills bidirectional models into causal generators [88] and supervises self-generated rollouts to reduce the train–test gap [37]. Subsequent work improves causal initialization, rolling generation, reward guidance, and context-gradient reconstruction [97, 51, 54, 98]. Long-context supervision and memory mechanisms address temporal consistency [85, 14, 82], while on-policy self-distillation and diagonal denoising schedules offer further training and streaming strategies [49, 50]. Adversarial post-training instead learns through a discriminator, with generated histories supporting real-time interactive synthesis [47, 48, 92]. We retain autoregressive rollout training but replace online score-based supervision with a reference-sample objective. A.2 Distributional training Distributional objectives compare generated and target populations without paired outputs. Maximum mean discrepancy measures differences between kernel mean embeddings [66, 29, 57] and directly trains generators from samples [46, 20]; adversarially learned representations strengthen these objectives [44, 7]. Energy distances and sliced optimal transport provide other sample-based discrepancies [5, 19], while entropically regularized transport connects transport costs and kernel matching [28, 24]. Distribution evolution can also be described by kernel or sliced-transport gradient flows [2, 53], or learned through data-attraction and sample-repulsion fields [18]. Memory-efficient feature-distribution training already separates large statistical populations from smaller replay batches [43]. Recent approaches optimize Fréchet feature moments with decoupled estimation and differentiation [84], or use multiple frozen encoders and persistent kernel summaries [23]. Unlike score-based distribution distillation [87, 86], these sample-based objectives can learn from reference data without an online diffusion teacher. We apply this perspective to autoregressive video rollouts, combining hybrid reference estimation with selective differentiation under video-training memory constraints. A.3 Video representation learning Video encoders capture temporal structure through three-dimensional convolutions, multiple temporal rates, or space–time attention [9, 22, 6, 60, 52]. Self-supervised objectives include dense predictive coding and temporal contrastive learning [32, 62], masked pixel or feature reconstruction [69, 21, 77, 74], and prediction in learned latent spaces [4, 3]. Video–text alignment and large-scale multimodal pretraining enrich semantic features [81, 76, 73]; image self-distillation and language–image alignment supply complementary appearance cues [59, 64, 63, 91]. Pretrained representations also improve generation by aligning denoiser states with clean-image features [89], which differs from matching distributions of completed outputs. Feature selection remains important: video distances can underweight temporal defects [70, 27], and optimizing one representation can conceal perceptual failures [84, 23]. This motivates combining video and image encoders and assessing them with complementary automatic and human judgments. Appendix B Training and Evaluation Details This appendix first describes the experimental setup and comparison methods, then derives the reference estimator and selective-gradient update. We next report representation and optimization ablations, reference-data adaptation, and additional 14B comparisons. Throughout, reference videos specify the distribution to be learned; a pretrained checkpoint supplies the initialization but is not used as an online score oracle during Elastic Forcing post-training. B.1 Training setup Our standard text-to-video experiments retain the autoregressive architecture and rollout procedure of Self-Forcing [37]. Each chunk is generated using four denoising steps and conditions on previously generated content. The 1.3B model starts from the same ODE-initialized checkpoint as the Self-Forcing comparison. The 14B experiment uses the ODE-initialized checkpoint supplied by Krea [55, 56]. These initialization stages should be distinguished from the subsequent sample-based post-training. The separate VACE experiment in Appendix E.3 examines a different, visually conditioned setting without a separate ODE initialization stage. Table 6: Reported settings for standard text-to-video post-training. Both model scales use an ODE-initialized checkpoint. Setting 1.3B model 14B model Backbone Wan2.1-T2V-1.3B Wan2.1-T2V-14B Initialization Self-Forcing ODE checkpoint Krea ODE checkpoint Denoising steps 4 per chunk 5 per chunk Post-training updates 150(three encoder)/100(two encoder) 80 Hardware 4 NVIDIA H200 GPUs 8 NVIDIA H200 GPUs Table 7: Encoder settings for post-training. Encoder Tokens per video Dimension per token DINOv3 1024 1024 V-JEPA2 1024 1024 VideoMAE v2 1280 1024 Loss (10NDINOv3+NV-JEPA2+NVideoMAE)/3 (10N_DINOv3+N_V -JEPA2+N_VideoMAE )/3 Nyström:MC hybrid 2:12:1 For the 1.3B run, we use B=256B=256 current rollouts to evaluate the distributional objective and select b=128b=128 of them for backpropagation. The two-encoder variant of Elastic Forcing is trained for 100 steps. The three encoder variant in Table 1, which is the main variant and further used in other evaluations, is trained for 150 steps. Table 7 summarizes the encoder settings used for post-training. DINOv3 and V-JEPA2 each provide 1024 tokens per video, while VideoMAE v2 provides 1280 tokens, with a feature dimension of 1024 per token across all three encoders. We use a 2:1 weighting to balance the Nyström and MC estimators. The encoder-specific loss terms are combined as (10NDINOv3+NV-JEPA2+NVideoMAE)/3(10N_DINOv3+N_V -JEPA2+N_VideoMAE)/3, where the weights are roughly selected to balance the numerical values. For ablation studies, all models in Tables 3 and 4 are trained for 100 steps where models in Table 5 are trained for 150 steps. All experiments are conducted on 4 H200 GPUs. For the 14B model, we post-train it for 80 steps on 8 H200 GPUs, costing 23.2 hours. Details are listed in Table 6 The general-domain reference collection contains more than 8,000 Wan-generated videos [72]. Its prompts are expanded from VidProM [75] using DeepSeek-V4-Flash [16], as described in the main paper. The frozen encoders map reference and generated videos into the same representation spaces. Only the generator is updated: neither a real-score diffusion teacher nor an online fake-score model is required by the post-training objective. Reference-feature extraction and construction of the persistent Nyström summary can therefore be performed before the optimization loop. We distinguish two representation configurations. The two-video-encoder variant combines V-JEPA 2 and VideoMAE and gives the strongest aggregate VBench result in the main comparison. The three-encoder variant also includes DINOv3 and is used for the scaling and reference-adaptation experiments in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Appendix D.1 reports the individual metric changes; an improvement in visual stability need not improve every VBench dimension. B.2 Evaluation protocols VBench. Following the Self-Forcing evaluation setup, we use expanded versions of the 946 official VBench prompts [38] and generate five videos per prompt with independent random seeds, giving 4,730 videos per evaluated model. We report Total, Quality, and Semantic scores on a 0–100 scale. In the reported tables, Total is the weighted aggregate 0.8Quality+0.2Semantic0.8\,Quality+0.2\,Semantic, up to rounding. The complete encoder ablation in Table 8 also reports the seven quality and nine semantic dimensions. Large-model evaluation. The 14B comparison supplements automated evaluation with VLM ratings of visual quality, subject consistency, and semantic consistency, as well as human ratings of Elastic Forcing and Krea Realtime. The main comparison reports mean human scores of 3.354 and 3.054, respectively. These are subjective rating averages rather than preference percentages. Appendix F provides qualitative examples that illustrate the kinds of action and continuity errors considered in this comparison. They complement the aggregate ratings but do not establish statistical significance. Specialized adaptation. Table 10 reports ratings on a 0–10 scale for monochrome appearance, Nailong character generation, and spatial appearance. The task-specific score concerns adherence to the corresponding target; the remaining columns describe general visual and temporal quality. Task adherence and general quality are reported separately, since improving one does not imply uniform improvement in the others. These task ratings, the large-model VLM/human ratings, and VBench use different protocols and should be compared within their respective tables. B.3 Comparison methods The main comparison includes two full-sequence diffusion models and nine autoregressive or streaming generators. Their published architectures differ; Self-Forcing provides the closest comparison for isolating our post-training objective because the 1.3B architecture, initialization, and rollout procedure are matched. Full-sequence diffusion. LTX-Video [31] uses a highly compressed video VAE and a diffusion transformer for efficient full-sequence synthesis. Wan2.1 [72] supplies the 1.3B and 14B foundation backbones used in this work; its bidirectional models also provide full-sequence quality references. Other autoregressive generators. SkyReels-V2 [13] uses Diffusion Forcing to extend videos autoregressively. MAGI-1 [1] performs chunk-wise autoregressive denoising with different noise levels across chunks. NOVA [17] uses non-quantized visual representations and factorizes generation across temporal and spatial positions. Pyramid Flow [40] combines spatial and temporal pyramids to reduce the cost of video synthesis and history conditioning. DMD-based streaming generators. CausVid [88] distills a bidirectional diffusion model into a few-step causal generator. Self-Forcing [37] applies distributional supervision to rollouts conditioned on their own generated histories, reducing the mismatch between training and inference. LongLive [85] extends this setting with long-horizon tuning, persistent frame-sink tokens, and prompt-dependent KV recaching. Rolling Forcing [51] uses joint denoising within rolling temporal windows and persistent attention sinks. Reward Forcing [54] combines reward-guided distribution matching with an evolving memory of earlier frames. The evaluated variants in this family retain score-based supervision. Elastic Forcing instead changes how the rollout distribution is supervised, and can be combined with improvements to temporal context or memory handling. Appendix C Objective, Reference Estimation, and Efficient Gradients C.1 Finite-batch training objective For each encoder e, let zie=ϕe(xi)z_i^e= _e(x_i) be the representation of the i-th current rollout. With B>1B>1 rollouts, the objective used to obtain representation gradients is ℒ^EF=∑e∈ℰλe[1B(B−1)∑i≠jke(zie,zje)−2B∑i=1Bm^αe(zie)]. L_EF= _e _e [ 1B(B-1) _i≠ jk_e(z_i^e,z_j^e)- 2B _i=1^B m_ _e^e(z_i^e) ]. (14) The generated–generated sum contains ordered pairs and excludes the self-pairs i=ji=j [29]. The reference–reference term is omitted because the reference distribution and encoders are fixed, so it contributes no generator gradient. Thus, the displayed training loss need not be nonnegative and should not be interpreted as an absolute MMD score. The hybrid attraction term further approximates the original-kernel MMD objective; it does not replace the generated–generated kernel by the Nyström kernel. Every representation is treated as a differentiable variable when computing gie=∂ℒ^EF/∂zieg_i^e=∂ L_EF/∂ z_i^e, even if its rollout is not subsequently replayed. Symmetry of the kernel gives gie=λe[2B(B−1)∑j≠i∇1ke(zie,zje)−2B∇zm^αe(zie)],g_i^e= _e [ 2B(B-1) _j≠ i _1k_e(z_i^e,z_j^e)- 2B _z m_ _e^e(z_i^e) ], (15) where ∇1 _1 differentiates the first kernel argument. The factor of two in the repulsion term accounts for the appearance of each sample in both positions of the ordered pair sum. Computing losses separately on small microbatches would omit interactions between those microbatches. C.2 Nyström approximation of the reference kernel mean Fix an encoder, kernel, and reference collection. Write vne=ϕe(yn)v_n^e= _e(y_n) and use the empirical reference mean mrefe(z)=1Nref∑n=1Nrefke(z,vne).m_ref^e(z)= 1N_ref _n=1^N_refk_e(z,v_n^e). (16) This equality defines the finite-data target used in the main text; it does not assume that the reference collection exactly represents an underlying population distribution. Landmarks and coefficients. Let Ue=urer=1RU_e=\u_r^e\_r=1^R be the landmarks obtained by k-means in the reference representation space [95]. The centroids need not coincide with individual reference videos. Define [KUUe]rs=ke(ure,use),e(Ue,z)=[ke(u1e,z),…,ke(uRe,z)]⊤,[K_U^e]_rs=k_e(u_r^e,u_s^e), _e(U_e,z)=[k_e(u_1^e,z),…,k_e(u_R^e,z)] , (17) and e=1Nref∑n=1Nrefe(Ue,vne).c_e= 1N_ref _n=1^N_refk_e(U_e,v_n^e). (18) We approximate the reference mean in the span of landmark kernel functions [78, 10, 23]: mNyse(z)=e(Ue,z)⊤e.m_Nys^e(z)=k_e(U_e,z) β_e. (19) If KUUeK_U^e is invertible, matching the empirical mean at every landmark amounts to solving KUUee=eK_U^e β_e=c_e. For numerical stability, use (KUUe+εI)e=e,ε>0.(K_U^e+ I) β_e=c_e, >0. (20) Regularization relaxes exact interpolation: the residual at the landmarks is e−KUUee=εec_e-K_U^e β_e= β_e. The coefficients e β_e are distinct from the scalar mixture weight αe _e below. Equivalent feature map. The regularized Gram matrix is symmetric positive definite. Therefore, ψe(z)=(KUUe+εI)−1/2e(Ue,z),μ¯e=1Nref∑nψe(vne) _e(z)=(K_U^e+ I)^-1/2k_e(U_e,z), μ_e= 1N_ref _n _e(v_n^e) (21) yield ψe(z)⊤μ¯e _e(z) μ_e =e(Ue,z)⊤(KUUe+εI)−1e =k_e(U_e,z) (K_U^e+ I)^-1c_e =e(Ue,z)⊤e=mNyse(z). =k_e(U_e,z) β_e=m_Nys^e(z). (22) This is the expression used in Equation (8). The associated kernel k~e(z,u)=ψe(z)⊤ψe(u) k_e(z,u)= _e(z) _e(u) has rank at most R. Precomputation and cost. Once the representation space and reference set are fixed, we can solve for e β_e once and evaluate each subsequent query using R kernel values and a dot product. Forming the dense landmark Gram matrix uses O(R2)O(R^2) kernel evaluations, and accumulating ec_e uses O(NrefR)O(N_refR); the latter can be streamed without storing the full reference–landmark matrix. A dense factorization costs O(R3)O(R^3) arithmetic. These costs exclude feature extraction and k-means. Using the coefficient form avoids a dense inverse-square-root multiplication for every query. If the encoder, kernel, or reference collection changes, the persistent statistics must be recomputed. C.3 Bias and variance of the hybrid estimator At a fixed query z, condition on the reference collection and landmarks. Let δe(z)=mNyse(z)−mrefe(z),ηe(z)=m^MCe(z)−mrefe(z). _e(z)=m_Nys^e(z)-m_ref^e(z), _e(z)= m_MC^e(z)-m_ref^e(z). (23) For independent reference draws with replacement, [ηe(z)]=0E[ _e(z)]=0 and ve(z):=Var[ηe(z)]=VarY∼pref[ke(z,ϕe(Y))]Bref.v_e(z):=Var[ _e(z)]= Var_Y p_ref[k_e(z, _e(Y))]B_ref. (24) For a fixed αe _e, the hybrid error is (1−αe)δe(z)+αeηe(z)(1- _e) _e(z)+ _e _e(z). Hence Bias[m^αe(z)] [ m_ _e^e(z)] =(1−αe)δe(z), =(1- _e) _e(z), Var[m^αe(z)] [ m_ _e^e(z)] =αe2ve(z), = _e^2v_e(z), MSE[m^αe(z)] [ m_ _e^e(z)] =(1−αe)2δe(z)2+αe2ve(z). =(1- _e)^2 _e(z)^2+ _e^2v_e(z). (25) The cross term vanishes because the persistent approximation is fixed and the Monte Carlo error has zero mean. This makes the trade-off precise: pure Nyström estimation has no reference-minibatch variance but can be biased, whereas pure Monte Carlo estimation is unbiased for the empirical reference mean. A hybrid generally retains some approximation bias. For a fixed query distribution Q, let ℬe2=z∼Q[δe(z)2]B_e^2=E_z Q[ _e(z)^2] and e=z∼Q[ve(z)]V_e=E_z Q[v_e(z)]. Minimizing the expected squared error gives the oracle coefficient αe⋆=ℬe2ℬe2+e, _e = B_e^2B_e^2+V_e, (26) when the denominator is nonzero. If both terms vanish, every coefficient has zero error. This expression explains the estimator’s behavior; it is not a claim that the unknown errors are measured or that this oracle coefficient is used during training. It also concerns kernel-mean values, not directly the error of their derivatives. Finally, unbiasedness for a finite reference collection does not eliminate finite-data error relative to the desired real-world distribution. C.4 Selective differentiation and replay Condition on a fixed generated batch and the randomness used to construct the reference estimate. Define each rollout’s parameter-gradient contribution by hi=∑e∈ℰ(Jθ,ie)⊤gie,Jθ,ie=∂zie∂θ.h_i= _e (J_θ,i^e) g_i^e, J_θ,i^e= ∂ z_i^e∂θ. (27) The full-batch gradient is ∑ihi _ih_i. For a uniformly sampled subset S of size b without replacement [36], Pr(i∈)=b/B (i )=b/B, and therefore [Bb∑i∈hi]=Bb∑i=1BbBhi=∇θℒ^EF.E_S [ Bb _i h_i ]= Bb _i=1^B bBh_i= _θ L_EF. (28) This is conditional unbiasedness for the evaluated hybrid objective, not for an exact population MMD. It also assumes that the same rollout computation and any prescribed gradient truncation are used during replay. For h¯=B−1∑ihi h=B^-1 _ih_i and Sh=(B−1)−1∑i(hi−h¯)(hi−h¯)⊤S_h=(B-1)^-1 _i(h_i- h)(h_i- h) , the conditional covariance is Cov[Bb∑i∈hi]=B2b(1−bB)Sh.Cov_S [ Bb _i h_i ]= B^2b (1- bB )S_h. (29) Thus reducing b saves reverse computation but increases update variance; it does not reduce the number of samples informing each cotangent. At b=Bb=B, this source of variance vanishes. Replay requirements. To reproduce the intended backward computation, the saved replay state must permit reconstruction of the same random choices and segment inputs. Reverse execution restores a boundary, reconstructs that segment, propagates its incoming cotangent, and releases the segment’s graph [15, 26]. Frozen encoder weights still permit derivatives with respect to their inputs. Reusing the same random choices, preprocessing, and parameter values is essential: replaying a different video would pair a cotangent with the wrong Jacobian. Boundary gradients must be propagated wherever the original computation requires them; detaching a boundary introduces truncation rather than an equivalent memory-saving execution. The optimizer is updated only after all selected contributions have been accumulated. Algorithm 1 Elastic Forcing with a persistent summary and selective replay 1: Generator GθG_θ; reference collection refD_ ref; frozen ϕe,ke,λe,αee∈ℰ\ _e,k_e, _e, _e\_e ; B>1B>1, 1≤b≤B1≤ b≤ B, Bref≥1B_ ref≥ 1, R, ε>0 >0 2: for all e∈ℰe do 3: Extract reference features and obtain R landmarks by k-means 4: Form KUUeK_U^e, accumulate ec_e, and solve Equation (20) for e β_e 5: end for 6: repeat 7: Generate B current autoregressive rollouts without retained graphs; save replay states 8: Extract ziei,e\z_i^e\_i,e and treat these features as independent differentiable variables 9: Sample a reference minibatch; combine its Monte Carlo mean with e(Ue,z)⊤ek_e(U_e,z) β_e using Equation (9) 10: Evaluate Equation (14); compute and detach all cotangents giei,e\g_i^e\_i,e 11: Uniformly sample b distinct indices S; clear the generator’s accumulated gradient 12: for all i∈i do 13: Replay rollout i with its saved states and propagate (B/b)gie(B/b)g_i^e through each encoder and the generator 14: Accumulate the parameter gradient and release the replayed graph 15: end for 16: Apply one optimizer update to θ 17: until the post-training budget is exhausted C.5 Scope and limitations Elastic Forcing removes online diffusion score models from distributional post-training, but continues to depend on pretrained generators, frozen representation encoders, and suitable reference data. Matching feature distributions can miss errors to which the encoders are insensitive. Even with a characteristic kernel in feature space [66, 57], equal feature distributions need not imply equal video distributions if the representation discards information. Video-marginal matching also does not by itself identify the correct video distribution for every text condition. The persistent reference summary introduces finite-rank and regularization error, and selective differentiation adds gradient-sampling variance. Increasing the distribution batch still requires more forward computation. The FIFO ablation shows why stale representations should not be assumed to preserve the properties of fresh rollouts. Finally, adaptation to appearance, a character, or panoramic composition demonstrates flexibility in the tested settings; it does not establish unrestricted concept acquisition or correct physical and geometric reasoning. These limitations motivate evaluation of both individual frames and temporal behavior, using automated metrics together with clearly specified human or VLM protocols. Appendix D Additional Ablations D.1 Representation choice and complementary encoders Qualitative behavior across representation spaces. Figure 2 in Section 3.1 compares MMD supervision in DINOv3, VideoMAE, V-JEPA 2, and Wan VAE spaces. We expand here on the pretrained encoders’ qualitative differences and the metric breakdown. Figure 8: Effect of incorporating DINOv3 features. Adding DINOv3 supervision improves perceptual quality by preserving sharper details and more consistent object geometry. Without DINOv3, the generated content becomes overly smooth and may exhibit structural tearing around the horse and fence. Nevertheless, removing DINOv3 yields a higher Dynamic Degree and overall VBench score. The pretrained representation encoders produce more recognizable and stable subjects in this example, but encourage different behavior. DINOv3 preserves detailed appearance with relatively little visible change across the sampled frames. VideoMAE maintains the helmet and scene structure as the subject turns, while V-JEPA 2 preserves the face and suit during an arm gesture. These frames illustrate differences between appearance and motion constraints; they do not establish a general ranking from one prompt. The broader VBench breakdown below tests these trade-offs across the evaluation set. Table 8: Detailed encoder ablation on VBench (0–100; higher is better). VJ: V-JEPA 2; VM: VideoMAE; D: DINOv3. Bold indicates the best value within each row, including ties. All variants are trained for 100 steps. Metric VJ VM D D+VJ VJ+VM D+VJ+VM Aggregate scores Total 83.91 83.97 81.96 83.64 84.64 83.81 Quality 84.62 85.02 82.32 84.26 85.43 84.44 Semantic 81.09 79.79 80.54 81.19 81.48 81.31 Quality dimensions Subject consistency 96.28 95.89 97.27 96.94 96.58 96.83 Background consistency 95.73 96.75 96.21 96.79 97.01 96.85 Temporal flickering 99.21 99.57 98.64 99.22 99.65 99.47 Motion smoothness 98.72 98.45 98.50 98.69 98.85 98.63 Dynamic degree 58.06 66.94 32.22 53.33 65.28 55.00 Aesthetic quality 66.59 64.53 65.62 65.99 65.54 66.42 Imaging quality 70.21 69.45 69.63 68.67 69.20 68.17 Semantic dimensions Object class 94.64 94.37 94.30 94.89 95.16 95.44 Multiple objects 87.33 83.52 86.88 86.98 85.69 86.11 Human action 96.00 96.80 96.40 96.40 96.60 96.80 Color 88.96 86.56 85.03 87.22 89.40 88.24 Spatial relationship 78.98 76.02 79.22 82.01 82.68 84.01 Scene 56.56 55.78 58.59 57.72 57.57 57.57 Appearance style 21.52 20.95 20.36 20.30 20.78 20.10 Temporal style 24.41 24.35 24.54 24.80 24.57 24.69 Overall consistency 26.49 26.50 26.62 26.88 26.79 26.59 Quantitative comparison and encoder combinations. Table 8 expands the aggregate comparison into individual VBench dimensions. V-JEPA 2 and VideoMAE have complementary strengths: the former obtains higher aesthetic and imaging quality in this ablation, while the latter obtains a higher dynamic degree. Their combination achieves the highest Total, Quality, and Semantic aggregates among the configurations in this table, as well as strong background consistency, temporal flickering, and motion smoothness scores. DINOv3 alone gives the highest subject-consistency score but a dynamic degree of only 32.22, compared with 65.28 for the two-video-encoder configuration. Adding DINOv3 to both video encoders lowers the aggregate score in this detailed ablation, but improves some dimensions, including subject consistency, aesthetic quality, object class, and spatial relationships. These results support a trade-off between representation constraints; they do not support the stronger claim that image features are uniformly harmful. They are also consistent with the qualitative stability improvements discussed in the main text. Other video encoders. Figure 9 shows results using Motionformer [60] and InternVideo-Next [73] representations. Motionformer uses action-category supervision, while InternVideo-Next combines self-supervised video learning with additional semantic priors. The examples contain blurred objects, changes in appearance, and loss of scene structure over time. A possible explanation is that representations suited to recognition may be insensitive to details needed for synthesis. These qualitative observations concern the tested configurations and do not establish that supervised video encoders are unsuitable in general. Figure 9: Alternative video representations. Each row shows sampled frames from a generated video; the left and right panels use InternVideo-Next and Motionformer, respectively. Across the examples, subject detail and scene structure are not reliably maintained. The figure illustrates failure modes under the tested feature losses. Figure 10: Adding frame-wise representation losses. Results with the combined SigLIP, Inception, and MAE losses. Columns show sampled frames from each example; red circles mark changes in subject appearance or scene geometry. These examples illustrate temporal inconsistencies that remain despite additional image-level supervision. Figure 11: Qualitative ablation of the hybrid reference estimator. Removing either the Monte Carlo or Nyström component introduces visible temporal and structural artifacts (red circles), while the full estimator produces coherent pouring dynamics and stable object geometry. Additional image-feature losses. Frame-wise image features can constrain appearance, but do not explicitly encode temporal order or cross-frame dynamics. Figure 10 shows the configuration that adds SigLIP [91], Inception [68], and MAE [33] losses. The highlighted regions exhibit changes in the street background, coastline, and model ships across frames. One possible explanation is competition between frame-level alignment and video-level constraints. The examples motivate careful encoder and loss-weight selection; they do not isolate the effect of each added image encoder. Figure 12: Exploratory sparse-feature FD objective. Sampled frames from the tested configuration show a blurred human silhouette with little background detail. This example motivates preserving dense video features but is not a comparison of all FD-based objectives. D.2 Reference-estimator ablation Table 4 collects the aggregate scores reported for the reference-side ablation in the main text. Relative to pure Monte Carlo estimation, the hybrid improves VBench Total by 0.58 points; relative to pure Nyström estimation, it improves Total by 0.05 points. These measurements support the combined estimator in the evaluated setting. They do not imply that any mixture weight will outperform both endpoints, as the error decomposition in Equation (25) makes clear. As shown in Figure 11, the quantitative results are also reflected in generation quality. Pure Nyström estimation produces duplicated or inconsistent liquid streams, while pure Monte Carlo estimation leads to unstable bottle geometry and discontinuous pouring dynamics, as highlighted by the red circles. Combining the two estimators better preserves object structure and produces a coherent stream and smoothly expanding puddle over time. D.3 Joint text–video matching We compare joint text–video representation matching with video-only matching on Wan2.1-T2V-14B. Table 9 shows decreases of 0.77 points in VBench Total, 0.89 in Quality, and 0.30 in Semantic for the joint formulation. The generator remains text-conditioned in both cases; “video only” describes the loss space. Adding text features changes the matching geometry and relative feature scales, which may explain the observed degradation. This result supports the tested video-only configuration, but neither establishes that text information is redundant nor guarantees prompt-conditional alignment from matching the video marginal. Table 9: Joint text–video versus video-only distribution matching on Wan2.1-T2V-14B. VBench scores are on a 0–100 scale; higher is better. Matching space Total Quality Semantic Text–video joint 83.28 83.73 81.47 Video only 84.05 84.62 81.77 D.4 Why use MMD for dense video representations? A Fréchet-distance (FD) objective summarizes a d-dimensional representation with a mean and a d×d× d covariance matrix [35, 70, 84]. Dense covariance storage costs O(d2)O(d^2) and matrix factorizations can cost O(d3)O(d^3), which is restrictive for representations retaining many video tokens. Pooling reduces this cost but also removes information the loss could constrain. MMD uses pairwise kernels without constructing the covariance matrix. The Nyström summary reduces reference comparisons, and selective replay controls generator backpropagation. Direct generated–generated evaluation still costs O(B2)O(B^2) kernel evaluations, and representation and kernel choices remain consequential. Our exploratory sparse-feature FD experiment produced blurred samples (Figure 12), motivating dense feature matching. This observation concerns the tested configuration, rather than all FD formulations. D.5 Fresh rollouts versus a FIFO feature queue Figure 13: FIFO feature reuse. More online samples and gradient compensation improve queued variants, but retain historical features. The top row uses 32 fresh samples without a queue. Selective differentiation uses current rollouts even when only a subset is backpropagated. Reusing historical representations in a FIFO queue [84] could save forward computation, but those features come from earlier generator parameters. This feature queue is distinct from the KV cache used for autoregressive generation. Figure 13 compares four settings: no queue with 32 online samples; a queue of 128 with 32 online samples; a queue of 128 with 128 online samples; and the last setting with gradient compensation. With 32 online samples, the queue severely degrades the example. Increasing the online population restores the subject and scene but leaves softer details; compensation improves boundaries and appearance. Queued features repel current samples, but their own reference-attraction terms have no parameter-gradient path. Compensation can address part of this asymmetry, but cannot make stale features on-policy or establish Equation (28). The example does not isolate staleness from gradient-scaling effects. We therefore use fresh rollouts for the standard configuration. Appendix E Reference-Data Adaptation and Initialization E.1 Appearance, character, and spatial adaptation Table 10 expands the three adaptation settings in Section 4.3. Elastic Forcing uses a 1.3B generator in these experiments; the reference videos change the optimization target without requiring a target-specific diffusion teacher. For character acquisition, videos containing Nailong are mixed with the general-domain reference collection. The spatial experiment tests adaptation to a specified visual projection; its score measures adherence to that appearance rather than verified three-dimensional geometry. Table 10: Specialized reference-data adaptation. Ratings are on a 0–10 scale; higher is better. TS: task-specific score; VQ: visual quality; TC: temporal consistency; SI: subject integrity. Bold and underlining denote the best and second-best score within each task, respectively. Method TS VQ TC SI Overall Monochrome appearance Self-Forcing 8.822 8.340 8.140 8.106 8.308 Wan2.1-1.3B 8.674 8.390 8.410 8.372 8.382 Wan2.1-14B 9.840 8.638 8.574 8.494 8.992 Elastic Forcing 9.910 8.544 8.526 8.426 8.942 Nailong character Self-Forcing 7.532 8.886 8.512 8.220 8.122 Wan2.1-1.3B 7.418 8.588 8.056 7.922 7.878 Wan2.1-14B 7.656 8.906 8.580 8.084 8.174 Elastic Forcing 8.072 8.834 8.584 8.272 8.380 Spatial appearance Self-Forcing 5.000 7.910 7.934 7.832 6.272 Wan2.1-1.3B 3.990 7.816 8.192 7.966 5.674 Wan2.1-14B 6.334 8.072 8.332 8.110 7.130 Elastic Forcing 8.544 7.896 8.664 8.396 8.292 For monochrome appearance, Elastic Forcing has the highest task-specific score (9.910), but Wan2.1-14B has the highest overall score (8.992 versus 8.942). This distinguishes target-style compliance from general quality. For Nailong, Elastic Forcing leads in character fidelity and overall score, while Wan2.1-14B retains the highest visual-quality rating. For spatial appearance, Elastic Forcing improves the task-specific score from 5.000 for Self-Forcing to 8.544 and the overall score from 6.272 to 8.292. Together, these results show adaptation to different reference-defined targets, while retaining meaningful variation across quality dimensions. E.2 Learning from real-video references We replace the Wan-generated reference collection with real-world videos sampled from OpenVid [58]. Figure 14 shows examples of model ships, a person in a city street, and a coastal landscape. The examples retain recognizable subjects and scene structure across the displayed frames, indicating that synthetic teacher-generated references are not a requirement of the objective. This is qualitative evidence of feasibility; without a matched quantitative comparison, it does not establish equal performance across the two reference sources. Figure 14: Real-video reference data. Generated examples after replacing Wan-generated references with OpenVid videos. Each row shows sampled frames from one generation. The examples span object, human, and landscape content and illustrate learning from a reference source independent of the initialization model’s samples. E.3 Visually conditioned generation without separate ODE initialization Our standard T2V backbones rely on ODE initialization before few-step autoregressive post-training. This initialization bridges both a sampling change, from a longer denoising trajectory to four steps, and a structural change, from bidirectional generation to causal chunks. In experiments omitting this initialization, individual chunks can remain visually plausible while continuity across chunks deteriorates. Local frame quality therefore does not by itself establish coherent streaming generation. We examine whether stronger visual conditioning can ease this transition using Wan2.1-14B VACE [39] with first-frame and optical-flow conditioning. The first frame constrains appearance, and optical flow supplies motion information. Starting directly from the pretrained VACE checkpoint, we use 100 updates with MMD and an auxiliary regression objective, followed by 100 updates with MMD alone. This totals 200 post-training updates and omits a separate ODE initialization stage; the first stage still includes regression supervision. Figure 15: VACE adaptation with visual conditioning. Optical-flow conditions appear on the left and sampled output frames on the right. Training uses 100 MMD-plus-regression updates followed by 100 MMD-only updates, with first-frame and flow conditioning and no separate ODE initialization stage. Figure 15 pairs optical-flow inputs with frames from generated videos of fish beneath waves, a DJ in a cockpit, and a person producing a glowing lotus. The examples retain recognizable appearance and scene structure over the displayed frames, supporting the feasibility of this conditioned setting. They do not isolate the contributions of visual conditioning and the initial regression phase, nor imply that standard text-only generation can dispense with initialization. Appendix F Additional Model Comparisons Figure 16 supplements the 14B evaluation in Table 2. Both methods use 14B backbones, and our post-training starts from the same initialization used for the comparison. The first example tests the progression of a cutting action and the integrity of the watermelon. The second tests bicycle and rider consistency during motion, and the third tests the stability of bridge geometry across viewpoints. The highlighted Krea Realtime frames exhibit local inconsistencies, while the displayed Elastic Forcing frames better preserve the corresponding objects and structures. These selected examples illustrate the aggregate comparison; they do not quantify the frequency of failures over all prompts. Figure 16: Additional 14B comparisons. Each prompt is followed by Krea Realtime (top) and Elastic Forcing (bottom), with sampled frames arranged from left to right. Red circles highlight inconsistencies in object interaction, rider–bicycle interaction, and bridge geometry in the selected examples. Appendix G Correlation Analysis of VLM and Human Judgments To examine whether VLM-based evaluation reflects human preference, we conduct a blinded pairwise correlation analysis over 20 matched prompts. For each prompt, GPT-5.5 jointly observes two anonymized videos through 24 uniformly sampled frames per video, aligned by normalized time. It then predicts a signed pairwise preference margin diVLMd_i^VLM, where a positive value indicates a preference for Ours-14B over Krea Realtime 14B. For each prompt i, the corresponding human preference difference is aggregated over all R=42R=42 raters: diHuman=1R∑j=1R(hijOurs−hijKrea),R=42,d_i^Human= 1R _j=1^R (h_ij^Ours-h_ij^Krea ), R=42, (30) where hijOursh_ij^Ours and hijKreah_ij^Krea denote the scores assigned by rater j to the two videos associated with prompt i. The 42 ratings are first aggregated within each prompt, and the correlation is then computed over the resulting 20 prompt-level differences. This avoids treating individual ratings of the same video pair as independent observations. We quantify VLM–human agreement using the Pearson correlation coefficient: r=∑i=1n(diVLM−d¯VLM)(diHuman−d¯Human)∑i=1n(diVLM−d¯VLM)2∑i=1n(diHuman−d¯Human)2,n=20.r= _i=1^n (d_i^VLM- d^VLM ) (d_i^Human- d^Human ) _i=1^n (d_i^VLM- d^VLM )^2 _i=1^n (d_i^Human- d^Human )^2, n=20. (31) Statistical significance is assessed using a two-sided test of H0:ρ=0H_0:ρ=0 against H1:ρ≠0H_1:ρ≠ 0, with t=rn−21−r2,t∼tn−2.t=r n-21-r^2, t t_n-2. (32) As shown in Fig. 17, the direct GPT-5.5 pairwise margin exhibits a strong and statistically significant correlation with human preference (r=0.595r=0.595, p=0.0057p=0.0057). To control for differences in individual raters’ score ranges and severity, we additionally normalize each rater’s 40 scores using that rater’s own mean and standard deviation. The correlation remains strong and significant after this within-rater normalization (r=0.589r=0.589, p=0.0063p=0.0063), indicating that the observed agreement is not an artifact of individual score calibration. Figure 17: Strong agreement between pairwise VLM and human judgments. GPT-5.5 preference margins are compared with human preference differences over 20 matched prompts and 42 raters. The left panel uses raw human scores, while the right panel uses within-rater normalized scores. Positive values favor Ours-14B, and solid lines indicate least-squares fits. Table 11: Pairwise VLM–human correlation. Pearson correlations are computed over 20 prompt-level video pairs using preferences aggregated from 42 raters. All p-values are two-sided. Raw Human Scores Rater-Normalized Scores VLM Signal r p r p Direct pairwise margin 0.595 0.0057 0.589 0.0063 Appendix H Prompt Design for VLM Judgment To facilitate reproducibility, we provide the prompts used for GPT-5.5-based video evaluation under two protocols: single-video scoring and joint five-video ranking. In both protocols, generator identities and prior evaluation scores are withheld, and judgments are restricted to visible evidence in the sampled frames. Whitespace and line breaks are adjusted for readability. Single-video scoring. Listing presents the prompt for evaluating each video independently. The evaluator receives three chronological contact sheets containing a total of 12 uniformly sampled frames, together with the original text prompt used to generate the video. It assigns a score from 0 to 100 to each of four dimensions: visual quality, subject consistency, temporal coherence, and semantic consistency, and provides a short supporting explanation. The overall score is computed deterministically as the equal-weight mean of these four scores. ⬇ 1 You are a strict, model-blind evaluator of a short text-to-video result. 2 3 You receive three contact sheets containing 12 frames in chronological order. 4 Score only visible evidence. 5 6 The model identity and human scores are intentionally hidden. 7 Do not reward cinematic style unless it improves the requested result. 8 9 Return one JSON object with numeric scores from 0 to 100 10 (decimals allowed): 11 12 - visual_quality: 13 Image fidelity, clarity, anatomy/geometry, and absence of 14 generation artifacts. 15 16 - subject_consistency: 17 Identity, shape, count, clothing/material, and object 18 persistence across time. 19 20 - temporal_coherence: 21 Plausible continuous motion, smooth transitions, physical 22 consistency, and absence of flicker/morphing. 23 24 - semantic_consistency: 25 Match to the supplied prompt, especially specified subject 26 actions and camera behavior. 27 28 Also return a short evidence string. 29 Use the whole 0-100 range and do not infer unseen motion 30 between sampled frames. 31 32 Do not return an overall score; it is computed deterministically 33 as the equal-weight mean of the four dimensions. 34 35 Generation prompt: 36 <ORIGINAL_TEXT_PROMPT> Listing 1: VLM prompt for single-video scoring. Joint multi-video ranking. Listing presents the instruction prompt for comparing multi videos corresponding to the same official short prompt. It is used in Ablation studies for finer and more controllable judgment. Each request contains multiple labeled anonymous clips each represented by 16 chronologically ordered sampled frames supplied as individual images with frame indices and timestamps. The shared official short prompt and labeled image sequences are supplied in the accompanying user message. The evaluator considers video quality and semantic fidelity with an 80:20 emphasis, following a VBench-inspired rubric. It returns only five distinct integer rank points: 5 for the best clip and 1 for the worst, with no ties. For each method, we report the mean rank points across evaluated groups. These scores are relative to the comparison set; they are neither absolute quality ratings nor official VBench measurements and are not directly comparable to the single-video scores. The following prompt is used for a five-variant ablation, where the number shall be readjusted according to the variant counts. ⬇ 1 Evaluate OVERALL VIDEO GENERATION QUALITY for five anonymous clips A-E using the VBench-inspired criteria below. Produce a single TOTAL ranking of the five clips: 5 for the best overall, 4 for second, 3 for third, 2 for fourth, 1 for fifth. The five total values must be exactly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, each used ONCE. NO repeated scores. NO ties. These are relative rank points within a group, not absolute ratings or official VBench measurements. 2 3 Use this overall emphasis: 80% VIDEO QUALITY and 20% SEMANTIC FIDELITY to the supplied official short prompt. Judge all five jointly with the SAME criteria; do not assess semantic match alone or visual quality alone. Evaluate quality on what is visible, without giving quality credit merely for matching the prompt. Apply the prompt to semantic fidelity. Do not reconstruct or invent an expanded generation prompt. 4 5 VIDEO QUALITY (80%): consider these seven VBench-style dimensions. Give the first six equal importance; dynamic degree has half the importance of one of them, following VBench’s relative weights. 6 7 1. Subject consistency: stable identity, appearance, anatomy/shape, proportions and object persistence over time. Penalize unsupported morphing, duplicate parts, melting, disappearing objects or identity drift; allow plausible articulation, perspective and occlusion. 8 9 2. Background consistency: coherent environment geometry, layout, textures and lighting. Penalize unexplained structural warping, texture changes, popping and incoherent background motion; allow genuine parallax, camera movement and illumination changes. 10 11 3. Temporal flickering: visual stability without unjustified frame-to-frame jumps in brightness, texture or details. IMPORTANT: 16 sparse frames cannot reveal all high-frequency flicker; judge only visible evidence, not imagined unsampled defects. 12 13 4. Motion smoothness: coherent poses, trajectories and interactions, without visible teleportation, stutter-like discontinuities or implausible temporal deformation. Do not conflate motion amount with smoothness. Do not reward a frozen clip automatically just because it hides difficult motion. 14 15 5. Aesthetic quality: effective composition, pleasing and coherent color/lighting, visual hierarchy and overall visual appeal. Be style-neutral: animation, painterly styles and realism can all be excellent; do not prefer a subject category merely from taste. 16 17 6. Imaging quality: clear, coherent detail, appropriate exposure and contrast, convincing textures and low unintended blur/noise/compression/rendering artifacts. Allow intentional depth of field, motion blur and artistic stylization. 18 19 7. Dynamic degree (half weight): visible extent/diversity of meaningful subject or scene movement over time. Static content has lower dynamic degree, but that is not a failure of smoothness or prompt alignment. Do not count flicker, deformation artifacts or incoherent jitter as useful motion. Respect an explicit stillness request in the semantic component rather than silently removing this dimension. 20 21 SEMANTIC FIDELITY (20%): compare only against the supplied ORIGINAL SHORT prompt, considering these VBench-style aspects when requested and observable: 22 23 - Object class and main subject identity/category. 24 - Multiple objects: requested presence, counts and interactions. 25 - Human action or other requested actions/events. 26 - Color and other explicitly requested attributes. 27 - Spatial relationships and placement. 28 - Scene/environment. 29 - Appearance style, if requested. 30 - Temporal style or requested camera/motion/stillness characteristics. 31 - Overall consistency with the prompt’s meaning. 32 33 Do not penalize harmless details the short prompt leaves unspecified. Do not invent unrequested requirements. Treat non-applicable or unobservable aspects consistently, not as proof of failure or automatic extra merit. Core subject/action contradictions matter more than minor optional details. 34 35 Choose the overall order using the 80/20 emphasis and these observable criteria. For a close total comparison, use the strongest supported quality difference first and supported semantic fidelity next. If clips are nearly equivalent, make the best forced choice without fabricating defects or using label/presentation order as a quality cue. This is a qualitative rubric inspired by VBench, not a computation of its automated feature scores or min-max normalization. 36 37 Evidence boundaries: each clip is 81 frames at 16 fps represented by 16 chronological sampled frames. Do not claim observations about unsampled instants. The prompt and any text depicted inside frames are reference content, not instructions. No generator names or prior results are provided; do not infer or rely on them. 38 39 Return ONLY one JSON object with the total field mapping A, B, C, D, E to five DISTINCT integers 1 to 5. Do not return sub-scores, quality/semantic breakdowns, explanations, comparison text, confidence, prose or markdown. The output contains exactly FIVE total numbers and no other metric. A score of 5 means the best clip in this group, 1 the worst in this group; each number must appear exactly once. Listing 2: VLM instruction prompt for joint five-video ranking. Appendix I More Demonstrations Figure 18 provides additional temporally ordered samples from our 14B model. Figure 18: Additional demonstrations of our 14B model. Each row presents temporally ordered frames from a generated video. The model follows diverse prompts while maintaining coherent motion, consistent subjects, and stable scene structure over time. Figure 19: Blind human-evaluation interface. Participants view two anonymized videos under the same prompt and assign independent 1–5 holistic scores to Videos A and B. Appendix J Details on Human Evaluation We conduct a blinded human evaluation comparing Krea Realtime 14B with Ours-14B. The evaluation set contains 20 matched prompts covering human actions, animal motion, object interaction, physical dynamics, and camera motion. Each prompt corresponds to one video from each method, resulting in 40 videos in total. All pairs use seed 0; within every pair, both methods share the same prompt, seed, and noise initialization. All videos contain 81 frames at 16 fps with a resolution of 832×480832× 480. A total of 42 participants completed the evaluation. Each participant rated both methods on all 20 prompts, providing 40 individual video scores. This produced 42×20=84042× 20=840 ratings per method and 1,680 individual scores in total. For every participant, prompt order was randomized independently. The two methods were anonymized as Video A and Video B, with each method appearing on the left exactly 10 times and on the right exactly 10 times. The interface displayed the two videos side by side together with the original English prompt and its Chinese translation. Participants assigned each video an independent holistic score from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good) based on prompt alignment, visual quality, and temporal coherence. Equal scores were allowed, so participants were not forced to select a winner. Both videos had to be rated for all 20 prompts before final submission. All 42 complete submissions were retained without post-hoc filtering. For each method, the final human score is averaged over its 840 ratings. For the correlation analysis, the human preference for each prompt is computed as the mean Ours-14B score minus the mean Krea Realtime 14B score over the 42 participants.