Looking Ahead makes Wan video models more physically plausible, with generation unchanged

Video models that build a clip chunk by chunk get physics right more often when training also makes them predict further ahead. The method is Future Chunk Prediction, and generation runs exactly as before.

Slide text

Looking Ahead makes Wan video models more physically plausible, with generation unchanged

Ruopeng Gao, Yukun Huang, Limin Wang and colleagues · Nanjing University, ARC Lab at Tencent IEG, Zhejiang University

Gao et al. · Looking Ahead · arXiv 2610.29989v1 · submitted 21 Oct 2026

These models train with teacher forcing. The model always sees the real chunks right before the one it denoises. Those look nearly identical, so it can copy them and learn little about change.

Future Chunk Prediction adds small side branches. Each predicts a chunk one to five steps ahead from the current chunk alone. They get no prompt and no chunks in between. Generation drops them.

Plain teacher forcing is on top, Future Chunk Prediction underneath. The baseline's dominoes collapse in the middle, while the new model topples them along the line. Only the new model shows melting ice raising the water.

Slide text

01 02 03 The results

Dominoes fall along the line, and melting ice raises the water

teacher forcing, top row Future Chunk Prediction, bottom row

Baseline collapses in the centre

Water level rises only in the bottom row

Gao et al. · Looking Ahead · arXiv 2610.29989v1 · Figure 3, Wan 2.2 5B

Physics-IQ Verified scores a generated clip against a real recording of the same experiment. With the same data and budget, both model sizes score roughly a tenth higher. The 5 billion parameter model edges past Wan 2.2 at 14 billion.

The branches only help when they can't peek. Chained, each branch sees the last one's guess, and the 5 billion parameter model barely improved. Giving them the text prompt also lowered the score.

Next Forcing, the closest related method, predicts from the whole history. Using only the current chunk reaches the same physics score with roughly half the training compute. At equal compute it still beats teacher forcing.

Both test models start from pretrained Wan checkpoints and make five-second clips. Bigger models and longer videos are untested. Gains on three benchmarks judged by vision-language models are small. Some training data is private.

The code and four checkpoints, both Wan sizes with and without Future Chunk Prediction, are out under Apache 2.0. If you train a chunk-by-chunk video model, which one would you try this on?