The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
The paper investigates why latent‑flow world models that use a frozen self‑supervised latent space lose the ability to manipulate motion. It shows that the pretrained flow does not move the manipulated object and that training with latent‑only losses only produces stillness or teleport‑like motion. The authors introduce Decode‑Augmented Rollout Training (DART), which keeps the representation frozen but retrains the flow using decode‑path supervision, restoring temporal motion structure and improving prediction quality, even closing much of the gap to an oracle‑informed reference. The study also notes that pixel error alone can favor frozen predictions.
arXiv:2608.23526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: World models can predict video without learning dynamics that they reliably preserve. We test whether a frozen DreamerV3 trained only on pendulum video...
arXiv:2609.32551v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Text-conditioned human-object interaction (HOI) generation requires body motion, object trajectories & rotations, and hand articulation to re...
arXiv:2606. 07687v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Video world models are increasingly used to provide predictive visual representations, yet it remains unclear which pretraining signals induce action-relevant structure in their latent spaces.
arXiv:2608.24855v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Latent world models are inherently strong encoders that transform image pixel to latent embedding, yet existing world models still rely on online traje...
The paper introduces Action Forcing, a method that transforms ordinary unlabeled video into action‑supervised training data by extracting egomotion bases through principal component analysis of pixel displacements. This approach yields grounded throttle–yaw control signals without requiring instrumented platforms or manual annotation, and it trains a high‑capacity video model while preventing pixel‑level overfitting via an online latent critic. The authors also critique standard video generation metrics and propose a reference‑free evaluation that measures controllability, plausibility, conjuring, and geometric integrity, showing that their model can reverse, scale, and compose actions despite limited reverse‑action data.