PreprintCited by 1Generative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsDigital Media Forensic Detection

Proprio: Latent Self-Scoring and Inference-Time Refinement for Physically Plausible Video Generation

Open access
Hassan, Mariam, Messaoud, Kaouther, Li, Wuyang, Alahi, Alexandre·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Modern video generative models produce visually impressive results, yet frequently violate basic physical principles. We propose Proprio, a training-free framework that enables a frozen video generator to assess and improve the physical plausibility of its own outputs. Inspired by proprioception, the biological sense of one's own movement, Proprio treats the model's flow residual under controlled latent perturbations as a self-scoring signal. Samples that are better explained by the generator's learned dynamics induce smaller and more stable residuals. We aggregate this signal across timesteps and perturbations, focus it on motion-relevant regions with a dynamic spatiotemporal mask, and use it for best-of-N search, gradient-based self-refinement, or both. Across text-to-video and image-to-video benchmarks, Proprio consistently improves physical plausibility, outperforming VLM-based scoring, and external world-model baselines in several settings. With TurboWan2.2, Proprio improves Physics-IQ from 32.2 to 37.5 (+16.5%) and VideoPhy2-hard physical commonsense from 45.6 to 55.0 (+20.6%). Human evaluation further shows that raters prefer Proprio-selected or refined videos for physical plausibility in roughly two-thirds of comparisons. These results suggest that frozen video generators contain actionable internal signals for evaluating and improving the physical plausibility of their own outputs.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2605.28230

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The generalization frontier is not model capability but signal engineering-physics residuals, formal skill verification-modality by modality.

    “The generalization frontier is therefore not model capability but signal engineering - physics residuals [50], formal skill verification [82] - modality by modality.”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hassan, M., Messaoud, K., Li, W., & Alahi, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7162686099
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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 › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
text-to-video generation, image-to-video generation

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