Organizations: iComAI Lab, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China · School of Data Science, Lingnan University, Hong Kong SAR, China
Latent diffusion models have enabled high-quality video synthesis, yet their inference remains costly and time-consuming. As diffusion transformers become increasingly efficient, the latency bottleneck inevitably shifts to VAE decoders. To reduce their latency while maintaining quality, we propose a universal acceleration framework for VAE decoders that preserves full alignment with the original latent distribution. Specifically, we propose (1) an independence-aware channel pruning method to effectively mitigate severe channel redundancy, and (2) a stage-wise dominant operator optimization strategy to address the high inference cost of the widely used causal 3D convolutions in VAE decoders. Based on these innovations, we construct a Flash-VAED family. Moreover, we design a three-phase dynamic distillation framework that efficiently transfers the capabilities of the original VAE decoder to Flash-VAED. Extensive experiments on Wan and LTX-Video VAE decoders demonstrate that our method outperforms baselines in both quality and speed, achieving approximately a 6× speedup while maintaining the reconstruction performance up to 96.9%. Notably, Flash-VAED accelerates the end-to-end generation pipeline by up to 36% with negligible quality drops on VBench-2.0. Our code is available at https://github.com/Aoko955/Flash-VAED.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of the Flash-VAED architecture 2 2 2 We take Flash-VAED-Wan 2.1 as an example. . The proposed stage-wise dominant operator optimization substitutes CausalConv3D with stage-specific efficient operators (left), tailored to each decoding stage. Moreover, the independence-aware channel pruning method (right) reduces the channel count to 12.5% − 25% of the original with minimal quality loss, leveraging channel independence.
Figure 3: Channel-wise similarity analysis. We visualize the top-8 channels most similar to Channel 0. Although the feature maps exhibit visual similarity, the quantitative similarity scores are not high enough to support pruning.
Figure 4: SVD analysis on channel features. The curve for cumulative explained variance ratio reveals the intrinsic low-rank nature of the feature maps. Notably, only 22 components (22.9% of the total) are required to explain 99% of the feature variance, providing strong empirical support for our pruning method.
Figure 4
Model
(dT,dH,dW)
FPS ↑
Reconstruction Quality
RTX 5090D
Jetson Orin
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Wan 2.1 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
(4,8,8)
19.27
0.65
40.40
0.9733
0.0190
LightVAE-Wan 2.1 ( Contributors, 2025 )
(4,8,8)
118.60
3.70
32.61
0.9416
0.0892
Flash-VAED-Wan 2.1 (Ours)
(4,8,8)
118.77
3.70
37.61
0.9614
0.0285
LTX-Video ( HaCohen et al., 2024 )
(8,32,32)
204.55
4.75
33.28
0.9253
0.0497
Turbo-VAED-LTX ( Zou et al., 2026 )
(8,32,32)
623.08
23.24
31.52
0.9275
0.0555
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of video reconstruction results with SOTA methods. We compare Flash-VAED against the original VAE decoders and competitive baselines on both a consumer-grade GPU (RTX 5090D) and an edge device (Jetson Orin), where dT,dH , and dW denote the compression ratios for time, height, and width, respectively, ↑ indicates higher is better, while ↓ indicates lower is better. The best results among the methods are highlighted in bold . Flash-VAED outperforms all the baselines in both speed and quality.
Model
Ewarp↓
Wan 2.1 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
0.017783
LightVAE-Wan 2.1 ( Contributors, 2025 )
0.026640
Flash-VAED-Wan 2.1
0.018662
LTX-Video ( HaCohen et al., 2024 )
0.022071
Turbo-VAED-LTX ( Zou et al., 2026 )
0.026261
Flash-VAED-LTX
0.024267
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of temporal consistency with SOTA methods. We report warping error to measure temporal coherence, where ↓ indicates lower is better. The best results among the methods are highlighted in bold.
Figure 8: Visual comparison of video generation results. Our Flash-VAED (bottom) matches closely with the original Wan 2.1 VAE (top) in fidelity, details and textures, whereas the LightVAE (middle) exhibits severe artifacts that results in invalid video content. The full prompts and additional details are provided in Appendix A.4 .
Figure 9: Generation performance of Flash-VAED embedded on the VBench-2.0. We employ Flash-VAED to replace the VAE decoders of: (a) the Self Forcing-Wan 1.3B, and (b) the FastVideo-Wan 1.3B, whose overall generation quality is evaluated on VBench-2.0.
Figure 10: Visualization of samples from the latent distribution.
Figure 11: Ablation results of using different pruning methods.
Prune Ratio
FPS/5090D ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1
204.55
33.2883
0.9253
0.0497
1/2
625.00
32.5421
0.9307
0.0521
1/4
1167.99
32.2400
0.9293
0.0551
1/8
1907.23
31.0786
0.9162
0.0804
Table 3: Ablation results of using different pruning ratios.
Project Layer
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Random Initialization
30.3061
0.9013
0.0978
Ours
32.2400
0.9293
0.0551
Table 4: Ablation results of different projected layer initialization.
Training Methods
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Without Distillation
30.7957
0.9125
0.0831
Deep-only Distillation
30.8065
0.9126
0.0830
Shallow-only Distillation
31.2386
0.9152
0.0722
Ours
32.3768
0.9317
0.0566
Table 5: Ablation results of using different distillation methods.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 12: Effectiveness of shortcut injection.
Model
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Wan 2.1 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
34.13
0.9079
0.0487
LightVAE-Wan 2.1 ( Contributors, 2025 )
27.92
0.8397
0.2069
Flash-VAED-Wan 2.1
32.03
0.8825
0.0769
LTX-Video ( HaCohen et al., 2024 )
29.36
0.8134
0.1555
Turbo-VAED-LTX ( Zou et al., 2026 )
26.82
0.7805
0.1783
Flash-VAED-LTX
28.26
0.8031
0.1214
Appendix
Table 6: Reconstruction quality comparison on the DAVIS 2019 Challenge test set at 720p resolution, where ↑ indicates higher is better and ↓ indicates lower is better. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of video reconstruction results on the DAVIS 2019 Challenge test set for Wan 2.1-based VAE decoders. For each sample, the three rows from top to bottom correspond to the original Wan 2.1 decoder, LightVAE-Wan 2.1, and Flash-VAED-Wan 2.1, respectively. In high-resolution videos with fine-grained details and highly dynamic scenes, Flash-VAED preserves visual details and temporal structures better than LightVAE.
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison of video reconstruction results on the DAVIS 2019 Challenge test set for LTX-Video-based VAE decoders. For each sample, the three rows from top to bottom correspond to the original LTX-Video decoder, Turbo-VAED-LTX, and Flash-VAED-LTX, respectively. In high-resolution videos with fine-grained details and highly dynamic scenes, Flash-VAED achieves better reconstruction quality than Turbo-VAED.
Model
Number of Parameters ↓
Peak VRAM ↓
Wan 2.1 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
73.30 M
7.11 GB
Wan 2.1 + Channel Pruning
65.20 M
2.31 GB
Wan 2.1 + Operator Optimization
5.63 M
3.51 GB
LightVAE-Wan 2.1 ( Contributors, 2025 )
4.62 M
1.17 GB
Flash-VAED-Wan 2.1
5.86 M
2.00 GB
Appendix
Table 7: Additional efficiency analysis on the Wan 2.1 VAE decoder. We report the parameter count and peak VRAM usage of different lightweight variants and methods.
Model
DSR ↑
HC ↑
HId ↑
HIn ↑
IR ↑
MOU ↑
MVC ↑
Wan 2.1 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
0.217
0.986
0.785
0.600
0.924
0.131
0.424
LightVAE-Wan 2.1 ( Contributors, 2025 )
0.198
0.953
0.527
0.570
0.819
0.121
0.072
Flash-VAED-Wan 2.1
0.237
0.986
0.741
0.590
0.918
0.141
0.318
Appendix
Table 8: Generation performance of Flash-VAED-integrated Causal Forcing on VBench 2.0. We replace the original Wan 2.1 VAE decoder with different accelerated decoders and report selected VBench 2.0 dimensions, including Dynamic Spatial Relationship (DSR), Human Clothes (HC), Human Identity (HId), Human Interaction (HIn), Instance Preservation (IP), Motion Order Understanding (MOU), and Multi-View Consistency (MVC).
Figure 15: Ablation results of using different resolutions and numbers of frames.
Model
Text Encoding
Denoising
Video Decoding
Decoding Percentage
Wan 1.3B ( Wan et al., 2025 )
0.619
178.066
4.212
2.3%
Self Forcing-Wan 1.3B ( Huang et al., 2026 )
0.598
6.254
3.172
31.6%
FastVideo-Wan 1.3B ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
0.539
5.136
3.925
40.9%
Appendix
Table 9: Latency breakdown of generation pipelines
Model
(dT,dH,dW)
FPS ↑
Reconstruction Quality
RTX 5090D
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Wan 2.1 ( Wan et al., 2025 )
(4,8,8)
19.27
40.40
0.9733
0.0190
HunyuanVideo ( Kong et al., 2024 )
(4,8,8)
6.77
33.05
0.9392
0.0272
CogVideoX ( Yang et al., 2025 )
(4,8,8)
4.99
32.81
0.9351
0.0302
LTX-Video ( HaCohen et al., 2024 )
(8,32,32)
204.55
33.28
0.9253
0.0497
Appendix
Table 10: To validate our choices of Wan ( Wan et al., 2025 ) and LTX-Video ( HaCohen et al., 2024 ) as original VAE decoders, we compare them against current SOTA video VAE decoders. Wan establishes a clear lead in both quality and speed among models with mainstream compression ratios, while LTX-Video dominates in terms of inference speed.
Real-time video generation demands fast decoding as much as fast denoising, yet current latent video diffusion models rely on 3D convolutional decoders that are slow and memory-intensive at high resolutions or for long video. We introduce FlashDecoder, a fast, memory-efficient pure-Transformer video decoder that decodes latents to pixels frame by frame. At each step, the current frame attends only to a fixed-size window of past frames through a rolling KV cache. The fixed temporal window keeps decoding fast and memory bounded regardless of video length, enabling constant-latency streaming. Because frames are processed sequentially, temporal causality is enforced without explicit attention masks, enabling training at resolutions up to 1080p and matching the reconstruction quality of convolutional decoders. On the Wan2.1 and Wan2.2 latent spaces, FlashDecoder matches each convolutional decoder in reconstruction quality (e.g., 41.55dB vs. 41.49dB PSNR at 1080p) while decoding 3.6x-4.7x faster with up to 11x less memory on a single H100 GPU. With architecture-aware inference optimizations, the speedup widens to 12x.
Latent diffusion models enable high-quality video generation, but video VAE encoding and decoding remain computationally expensive. Existing methods use stage-specific lightweight operators, yet either constrain spatial and temporal computation jointly or remove temporal computation altogether, without distinguishing their compression sensitivities in pretrained Conv3D. To address these limitations, we present LightVAE, a compression framework that exploits redundancy in temporal modeling and network depth. LightVAE exactly reparameterizes eligible causal Conv3D layers into an aggregate spatial response and a difference-driven temporal correction. Based on their distinct compression sensitivities, temporal low-rank compression (TLR) keeps the aggregate spatial kernel dense and applies layer-specific low-rank approximation only to the temporal correction. An algebraically equivalent folded implementation converts the arithmetic savings into practical acceleration. LightVAE further uses width-preserving block pruning to reduce depth and probe-guided feature alignment, guided by feedback from a frozen teacher suffix, to recover quality after compression. The framework also extends to video encoders. Across three video VAE backbones and two GPU platforms, LightVAE consistently accelerates decoding. For the Wan VAE family, it achieves up to 2.24× and 1.11× the decoding throughput of state-of-the-art efficient VAE decoders on NVIDIA H100 and RTX~5090, respectively, with higher DAVIS PSNR and lower LPIPS. On MiniMax-H3, it achieves up to 2.97× the original decoding throughput while retaining 99.51% of the original model's overall VBench-2.0 score. Our code is available at https://github.com/ModelTC/LightVAE.
Shiqiao Gu, Yang Yong, Fengjun Zhong +5
SenseTime · Beihang University · Nanyang Technological University
Megapixel visual synthesis with latent diffusion models requires operating far beyond the resolutions at which these models are typically trained. Cascade refinement is a leading strategy for this setting: it starts from a base image at a native resolution and progressively upsamples it to the target resolution through multiple refinement stages. Each stage typically performs a pixel-space resolution transition followed by latent-space denoising. While prior acceleration efforts mainly focus on reducing denoising cost, we identify a complementary and underexplored bottleneck: the repeated movement of representations through the VAE. We call these operations pixel-space transitions. In cascade pipelines, intermediate latents are often decoded to RGB, resized, and re-encoded before refinement, while final latents are decoded patch by patch with dense overlap to suppress boundary artifacts. We propose UltraFlash, a transition-efficient approach that accelerates these VAE-heavy operations. UltraFlash has two components. Latent Hyperloop replaces intermediate RGB round trips with a learned latent-space shortcut that approximates the decode-resize-encode transformation without repeated VAE decoding and encoding. Sparse Patch-based Decoding accelerates final reconstruction by addressing patch seams caused by inconsistent GroupNorm statistics and reusing cached statistics across patches, enabling sparse VAE decoding with much smaller overlap. Integrated into a state-of-the-art cascade baseline, UltraFlash reduces 4K generation latency by approximately 2x while improving image quality. These results show that optimizing pixel-space transitions can improve both efficiency and fidelity, offering an effective route toward fast, high-quality megapixel visual synthesis.