PreprintCited by 93Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAdvanced Image Processing Techniques

Scaling Autoregressive Video Models

Open access
Weissenborn, Dirk, Täckström, Oscar, Uszkoreit, Jakob·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Due to the statistical complexity of video, the high degree of inherent stochasticity, and the sheer amount of data, generating natural video remains a challenging task. State-of-the-art video generation models often attempt to address these issues by combining sometimes complex, usually video-specific neural network architectures, latent variable models, adversarial training and a range of other methods. Despite their often high complexity, these approaches still fall short of generating high quality video continuations outside of narrow domains and often struggle with fidelity. In contrast, we show that conceptually simple autoregressive video generation models based on a three-dimensional self-attention mechanism achieve competitive results across multiple metrics on popular benchmark datasets, for which they produce continuations of high fidelity and realism. We also present results from training our models on Kinetics, a large scale action recognition dataset comprised of YouTube videos exhibiting phenomena such as camera movement, complex object interactions and diverse human movement. While modeling these phenomena consistently remains elusive, we hope that our results, which include occasional realistic continuations encourage further research on comparatively complex, large scale datasets such as Kinetics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1906.02634

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing autoregressive models either suffer from excessively large computational resource requirements for high-dimensional data, or make compromises in distribution expressiveness or ease of implementation to decrease resource requirements.

    “Existing autoregressive models either suffer from excessively large computational resource requirements for high dimensional data, or make compromises in terms of distribution expressiveness or ease of implementation in order to decrease resource requirements.”

    From Axial Attention in Multidimensional Transformers (2019) · cites this paper as Weissenborn et al., 2019

    The Introduction (p. 1) and Related Work (p. 2) say that autoregressive video models are slow to generate high-dimensional data, and Related Work notes the quadratic space complexity of self-attention. The paper discusses limited modeling power in faster, non-autoregressive approaches, but does not establish that existing autoregressive models sacrifice distribution expressiveness or ease of implementation to reduce resource requirements. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • To our knowledge, sampling speedups of this type are not possible with contemporary work on scaling Transformers to images and videos.

    “To our knowledge, sampling speedups of this type are not possible with contemporary work on scaling Transformers to images and videos (Child et al., 2019; Weissenborn et al., 2019).”

    From Axial Attention in Multidimensional Transformers (2019) · cites this paper as Weissenborn et al., 2019

    Related Work (p. 2) calls autoregressive generation notoriously slow, and Models & Setup (p. 7) says the paper's video sampling takes about eight minutes for a batch of four. The paper anticipates that advances in parallel sampling could improve speed; it does not establish that the particular speedups meant by “of this type” are impossible with contemporary image and video Transformers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Weissenborn et al. (2019) scale video autoregressive models by restricting the context, preventing their model from expressing all joint distributions over pixels.

    “Weissenborn et al. (2019) similarly scale video autoregressive models by restricting the context, again preventing their model from expressing all joint distributions over pixels.”

    From Axial Attention in Multidimensional Transformers (2019) · cites this paper as Weissenborn et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Mohammad Babaeizadeh, Chelsea Finn, Dumitru Erhan, Roy H. Campbell, and Sergey Levine. Stochastic variational video prediction. ICLR , 2018.
  2. Alexei Baevski and Michael Auli. Adaptive input representations for neural language modeling. In ICLR , 2019.
  3. Mikoaj Bikowski, Dougal J. Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. Demystifying MMD GANs. In ICLR , 2018.
  4. Antonio Torralba Carl Vondrick, Hamed Pirsiavash. Anticipating visual representations from unlabeled video. In CVPR , 2016.
  5. Jo˜ ao Carreira, Eric Noland, Andras Banki-Horvath, Chloe Hillier, and Andrew Zisserman. A short note about kinetics-600. arXiv , abs/1808.01340, 2018. · arXiv
  6. Llu´ ıs Castrej´ on, Nicolas Ballas, and Aaron Courville. Improved conditional vrnns for video prediction. arXiv , abs/1904.12165, 2019. · arXiv
  7. XI Chen, Nikhil Mishra, Mostafa Rohaninejad, and Pieter Abbeel. PixelSNAIL: An improved autoregressive generative model. In ICML , 2018.
  8. Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. OpenAI Preprint , 2019.
  9. Jeffrey De Fauw, Sander Dieleman, and Karen Simonyan. Hierarchical autoregressive image models with auxiliary decoders. In CVPR , 2019.
  10. Emily Denton and Rob Fergus. Stochastic video generation with a learned prior. In ICML , 2018.
  11. Frederik Ebert, Chelsea Finn, Alex Lee, and Sergey Levine. Self-supervised visual planning with temporal skip connections. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2017.
  12. Chelsea Finn, Ian Goodfellow, and Sergey Levine. Unsupervised learning for physical interaction through video prediction. In NIPS , 2016a.
  13. Chelsea Finn, Ian Goodfellow, and Sergey Levine. Unsupervised learning for physical interaction through video prediction. In NIPS , 2016b.
  14. Rohit Girdhar, Jo˜ ao Carreira, Carl Doersch, and Andrew Zisserman. Video action transformer network. arXiv , abs/1812.02707, 2018. · arXiv
  15. Xu Jia, Bert De Brabandere, Tinne Tuytelaars, and Luc V Gool. Dynamic filter networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2016.
  16. Alexander Kaplan, Harshit Khaitan, Daniel Killebrew, Andy Koch, Naveen Kumar, Steve Lacy, James Laudon, James Law, Diemthu Le, Chris Leary, Zhuyuan Liu, Kyle Lucke, Alan Lundin, Gordon MacKean, Adriana Maggiore, Maire Mahony, Kieran Miller, Rahul Nagarajan, Ravi Narayanaswami, Ray Ni, Kathy Nix, Thomas Norrie, Mark Omernick, Narayana Penukonda, Andy Phelps, Jonathan Ross, Matt Ross, Amir Salek, Emad Samadiani, Chris Severn, Gregory Sizikov, Matthew Snelham, Jed Souter, Dan Steinberg, Andy Swing, Mercedes Tan, Gregory Thorson, Bo Tian, Horia Toma, Erick Tuttle, Vijay Vasudevan, Richard Walter, Walter Wang, Eric Wilcox, and Doe Hyun Yoon. In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit. In ISCA , 2017.
  17. Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Babaeizadeh, Piotr Milos, Blazej Osinski, Roy H. Campbell, Konrad Czechowski, Dumitru Erhan, Chelsea Finn, Piotr Kozakowski, Sergey Levine, Ryan Sepassi, George Tucker, and Henryk Michalewski. Model-based reinforcement learning for atari. arXiv , abs/1903.00374, 2019. · arXiv
  18. Nal Kalchbrenner, A¨ aron van den Oord, Karen Simonyan, Ivo Danihelka, Oriol Vinyals, Alex Graves, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Video pixel networks. In ICML , 2016.
  19. Will Kay, Jo˜ ao Carreira, Karen Simonyan, Brian Zhang, Chloe Hillier, Sudheendra Vijayanarasimhan, Fabio Viola, Tim Green, Trevor Back, Apostol Natsev, Mustafa Suleyman, and Andrew Zisserman. The kinetics human action video dataset. arXiv , abs/1705.06950, 2017. · arXiv
  20. Manoj Kumar, Mohammad Babaeizadeh, Dumitru Erhan, Chelsea Finn, Sergey Levine, Laurent Dinh, and Durk Kingma. Videoflow: A flow-based generative model for video. arXiv , abs/1903.01434, 2019. · arXiv
  21. Alex X. Lee, Richard Zhang, Frederik Ebert, Pieter Abbeel, Chelsea Finn, and Sergey Levine. Stochastic adversarial video prediction. arXiv , abs/1804.01523, 2018. · arXiv
  22. Ziwei Liu, Raymond A Yeh, Xiaoou Tang, Yiming Liu, and Aseem Agarwala. Video frame synthesis using deep voxel flow. In ICCV , 2017.
  23. Jiasen Lu, Caiming Xiong, Devi Parikh, and Richard Socher. Knowing when to look: Adaptive attention via a visual sentinel for image captioning. CVPR , 2017.
  24. Micha¨ el Mathieu, Camille Couprie, and Yann LeCun. Deep multi-scale video prediction beyond mean square error. In ICLR , 2016.
  25. Jacob Menick and Nal Kalchbrenner. Generating high fidelity images with subscale pixel networks and multidimensional upscaling. In ICLR , 2019.
  26. Junhyuk Oh, Xiaoxiao Guo, Honglak Lee, Richard L Lewis, and Satinder Singh. Action-conditional video prediction using deep networks in atari games. In NIPS , 2015.
  27. Ankur P. Parikh, Oscar T¨ ackstr¨ om, Dipanjan Das, and Jakob Uszkoreit. A decomposable attention model for natural language inference. In EMNLP , 2016.
  28. Niki Parmar, Ashish Vaswani, Jakob Uszkoreit, Lukasz Kaiser, Noam Shazeer, and Alexander Ku. Image transformer. In ICML , 2018.
  29. Viorica Ptrucean, Ankur Handa, and Roberto Cipolla. Spatio-temporal video autoencoder with differentiable memory. In ICLR (Workshop track) , 2016.
  30. Scott Reed, A¨ aron van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, Sergio G´ omez Colmenarejo, Ziyu Wang, Yutian Chen, Dan Belov, and Nando de Freitas. Parallel multiscale autoregressive density estimation. In ICML , 2017.
  31. Mitchell Stern, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. Blockwise parallel decoding for deep autoregressive models. In NeurIPS , 2018.
  32. Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges. arXiv , abs/1812.01717, 2018. · arXiv
  33. A¨ aron van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, Lasse Espeholt, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Oriol Vinyals, and Alex Graves. Conditional image generation with pixelcnn decoders. In NIPS , 2016a.
  34. A¨ aron van den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Pixel recurrent neural networks. In ICML , 2016b.
  35. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In NIPS , 2017.
  36. Carl Vondrick, Hamed Pirsiavash, and Antonio Torralba. Generating videos with scene dynamics. In NIPS , 2016.
  37. Jiheng Wang and Qiang Li. Video quality assessment using a statistical model of human visual speed perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision , 24 12:B61-9, 2007.
  38. Jiheng Wang, Ligang Lu, and Alan C. Bovik. Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Sig. Proc.: Image Comm. , 19, 2004a.
  39. Saining Xie, Chen Sun, Jonathan Huang, Zhuowen Tu, and Kevin Murphy. Rethinking spatiotemporal feature learning: Speed-accuracy trade-offs in video classification. In ECCV , 2018.
  40. SHI Xingjian, Zhourong Chen, Hao Wang, Dit-Yan Yeung, Wai-Kin Wong, and Wang-chun Woo. Convolutional lstm network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting. In NIPS , 2015.
  41. Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR , 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weissenborn, D., Täckström, O., & Uszkoreit, J.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2948412951
Cited by
93
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image Processing Techniques
Keywords
autoregressive video generation, video diffusion models, large-scale video datasets

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review