Latent diffusion models have established a new state-of-the-art in high-resolution visual generation. Integrating Vision Foundation Model priors improves generative efficiency, yet existing latent designs remain largely heuristic. These approaches often struggle to unify semantic discriminability, reconstruction fidelity, and latent compactness. In this paper, we propose Geometric Autoencoder (GAE), a principled framework that systematically addresses these challenges. By analyzing various alignment paradigms, GAE constructs an optimized low-dimensional semantic supervision target from VFMs to provide guidance for the autoencoder. Furthermore, we leverage latent normalization that replaces the restrictive KL-divergence of standard VAEs, enabling a more stable latent manifold specifically optimized for diffusion learning. To ensure robust reconstruction under high-intensity noise, GAE incorporates a dynamic noise sampling mechanism. Empirically, GAE achieves compelling performance on the ImageNet-1K 256×256 benchmark, reaching a gFID of 1.82 at only 80 epochs and 1.31 at 800 epochs without Classifier-Free Guidance, significantly surpassing existing state-of-the-art methods. Beyond generative quality, GAE establishes a superior equilibrium between compression, semantic depth and robust reconstruction stability. These results validate our design considerations, offering a promising paradigm for latent diffusion modeling. Code and models are publicly available at https://github.com/sii-research/GAE.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of GAE performance. Left: GAE establishes a superior Pareto curve between linear probing accuracy and latent dimension. Right: GAE with 32 latent dimension significantly accelerates convergence and delivers superior generation results at both 80 and 800 training epochs.
Figure 2: Overview of the GAE architecture. The input image is processed through a pixel-level branch ( Ep , Ap ) and a frozen semantic branch (VFM, Esp ). A Semantic Preservation loss Lsp aligns the latent mean with the features from the decoupled Semantic Teacher.
Figure 3: Illustration of the three latent alignment paradigms: The term Lsp aligns the AE representations with those of the VFM. Pre Alignment aligns high-dimensional encoder features directly; Post Alignment projects AE latents back to a high-dimensional space for supervision; Latent Alignment operates within the compressed latent bottleneck via a projection of VFM features.
Metric
Autoencoder
Teacher
Pre
Post
Latent
SVD
DinoL
rFID ↓
0.40
0.48
0.51
–
–
LP ↑
20.9
60.8
63.2
60.9
83.7
Table 1: Pilot Study of alignment paradigms on ImageNet.
Arch
LP ↑
Single Attn
62.8
Attn + Linear
63.4
Attn + Patch Conv
75.6
Table 2: Ablation of Downsampler in Semantic Teacher.
Method
Epochs
#Params
Generation w/o CFG
Generation w/ CFG
gFID
IS
Pre.
Rec.
gFID
IS
Pre.
Rec.
AutoRegressive
MaskGIT ( Chang et al., 2022 )
555
227M
6.18
182.1
0.80
0.51
–
–
–
–
LlamaGen ( Sun et al., 2024b )
300
3.1B
9.38
112.9
0.69
0.67
2.18
263.3
0.81
0.58
VAR ( Tian et al., 2024 )
350
2.0B
–
–
–
–
1.80
365.4
0.83
0.57
MagViT-v2 ( Yu et al., 2023 )
1080
307M
3.65
200.5
–
–
1.78
319.4
–
–
Table 3: Quantitative comparison of class-conditional Image Generation on ImageNet 256 × 256. GAE achieves 1.31 FID without guidance and 1.13 with Classifier-Free Guidance, outperforming all prior methods by a large margin. ∗ denotes RAE utilizes the AutoGuidance ( Karras et al., 2024 ) instead of standard Classifier-Free Guidance.
Figure 4: Decoder stability against latent noise injection. We evaluate rFID by adding varying levels of Gaussian noise to the latent representations before decoding. The results demonstrate that models trained with higher σ exhibit superior tolerance to latent distribution shifts, ensuring stable performance during generative sampling.
Dim
Cσ
rFID ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
gFID ↓
0.05
0.37
27.78
0.101
0.784
2.58
d=32
0.1
0.45
27.37
0.107
0.774
2.36
0.2
0.57
26.99
0.116
0.759
2.32
0.1
0.31
29.60
0.076
0.845
3.15
d=64
0.2
0.43
28.92
0.086
0.827
3.12
0.3
0.49
28.30
0.094
0.811
3.11
Table 4: Impact of standard deviation Cσ and latent dimension d on ImageNet-1K. gFID is reported without CFG. Autoencoders are trained on ImageNet-1K for 100 epochs.
Method
Dim
LP ↑
Reconstruction
gFID (w/o CFG) ↓
rFID ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
80 Ep
160 Ep
800 Ep
VTP-L
64
73.9
0.36
26.83
0.126
0.750
2.81
–
–
FAE
64
–
0.66
–
–
–
–
2.02
–
GAE
64
78.3
0.38
29.09
0.081
0.834
1.96
1.53
1.29
Table 5: Quantitative comparison in the 64-dim latent space on ImageNet 256×256 . GAE consistently outperforms existing 64-dim baselines in semantic alignment, reconstruction quality, and generative convergence speed.
λsp
rFID ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
LP ↑
gFID ↓
0.0
0.76
27.16
0.157
0.77
5.74
12.55
0.5
0.40
28.11
0.095
0.796
63.5
2.35
1.0
0.45
27.37
0.107
0.774
69.2
2.36
2.0
0.59
26.50
0.122
0.749
71.4
2.45
Table 6: Ablation of Semantic loss weight λsp on ImageNet-1K. gFID is reported without CFG. Autoencoders are trained on ImageNet-1K for 100 epochs using a consistent 32-dimensional latent bottleneck.
Method
rFID ↓
gFID ↓
KL constraint
0.977
16.72
Latent Norm
0.764
12.55
Table 7: Comparison between vanilla VAE and AE with Latent Normalization on ImageNet.
Type
Dim
Layers
Heads
LP ↑
rFID ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
gFID ↓
ViT-L
1024
24
16
69.2
0.45
27.37
0.107
0.774
2.36
ViT-B
768
12
12
62.5
0.41
26.70
0.122
0.754
2.43
ViT-S
384
12
6
–
1.55
23.85
0.212
0.625
–
Table 8: Scalability analysis of the Autoencoder backbone. gFID is reported without CFG. Autoencoders are trained on ImageNet-1K for 100 epochs using a consistent 32-dimensional latent bottleneck.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Qualitative results. Samples are generated by GAE ( d=32 ) after 800 epochs of training. A Classifier-Free Guidance (CFG) scale of w=3.3 is utilized to enhance visual fidelity.
Epochs
80
160
320
480
640
800
d=32
1.82
1.51
1.37
1.33
1.31
1.31
d=64
1.96
1.53
1.39
1.36
1.31
1.29
Appendix
Table 9: Detailed gFID scores without Classifier-Free Guidance for GAE with different latent dimension d at different training epochs on ImageNet 256×256 .
Method
Dim ( d )
rFID ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
SD-VAE
4
0.610
26.260
0.134
0.722
MAR-VAE
16
0.530
26.184
0.135
0.716
VAVAE
32
0.280
27.710
0.097
0.779
AlignTok
32
0.260
25.830
0.117
–
VTP-L
64
0.360
26.830
0.126
0.750
RAE (ViT-XL)
768
0.570
18.860
0.225
0.620
Appendix
Table 10: Quantitative comparison of reconstruction quality on ImageNet-1K. We compare our GAE with various generative and alignment-based methods across different latent dimensions ( d ).
Teacher
Teacher LP ↑
AE Reconstruction
AE Latent LP ↑
Gen.
Model
LP
rFID ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
SSIM ↑
LP
gFID ↓
MAE-L
33.9
0.36
28.71
0.084
0.813
29.8
4.20
DINOv2-L
76.0
0.45
27.37
0.107
0.774
69.2
2.36
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of SP Teachers (MAE-L vs. DINOv2-L) on ImageNet-1K. gFID is reported without CFG.
Epochs
Timeshift
CFG Interval
CFG Weight
gFID ↓
800
0.4
0.27
2.3
1.15
0.4
0.27
2.5
1.14
0.4
0.27
3.1
1.14
0.4
0.27
3.5
1.15
0.4
0.3
2.7
1.15
0.4
0.3
3.3
1.13
Appendix
Table 12: Ablation study of CFG parameters for GAE on ImageNet 256×256 . We report the gFID scores across different guidance intervals and weights.
Figure 6: Comparison of downsampler architectures. Left: The FAE downsampler. Right: Our downsampler with patch convolution.
Category
Field
Ep
Ap
Dp
Esp∗
Dsp
LDM
Architecture
Input dim.
16 × 16 × 3
16 × 16 × 1024
16 × 16 × 32
16 × 16 × 3
16 × 16 × 32
16 × 16 × 32
Output dim.
16 × 16 × 1024
16 × 16 × 32
16 × 16 × 3
16 × 16 × 32
16 × 16 × 3
16 × 16 × 32
Hidden dim.
1024
–
1024
1024
1024
1152
Num. layers
24
–
24
24/1/1
4
28
Num. heads
16
–
16
16/16/–
16
16
MLP Ratio
4
–
4
4/–/–
4
4
Appendix
Table 13: Detailed architectural and optimization configurations for main generation. Ep and Dp denote the pixel encoder and decoder, while Ap represents the linear projector. The semantic encoder Esp∗ integrates a DINOv2-L backbone with downsampler, and Dsp serves as an auxiliary decoder for semantic training.
Tokenizers are a crucial component of latent diffusion models, as they define the latent space in which diffusion models operate. However, existing tokenizers are primarily designed to improve reconstruction fidelity or inherit pretrained representations, leaving unclear what kind of latent space is truly friendly for generative modeling. In this paper, we study this question from the perspective of latent manifold organization. By constructing controlled tokenizer variants, we identify three key properties of a diffusion-friendly latent manifold: coherent spatial structure, local manifold continuity, and global manifold semantics. We find that these properties are more consistent with downstream generation quality than reconstruction fidelity. Motivated by this finding, we propose the Prior-Aligned AutoEncoder (PAE), which explicitly shapes the latent manifold instead of leaving diffusion-friendly manifold to emerge indirectly from reconstruction or inheritance. Specifically, PAE leverages refined priors derived from VFMs and perturbation-based regularization to turn spatial structure, local continuity, and global semantics into explicit training objectives. On ImageNet 256x256, PAE improves both training efficiency and generation quality over existing tokenizers, reaching performance comparable to RAE with up to 13x faster convergence under the same training setup and achieving a new state-of-the-art gFID of 1.03. These results highlight the importance of organizing the latent manifold for latent diffusion models.
Zhengrong Yue, Taihang Hu, Mengting Chen +8
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Alibaba Group · Beihang University +4
Most visual generative models compress images into a latent space before applying diffusion or autoregressive modelling. Yet, existing approaches such as VAEs and foundation model aligned encoders implicitly constrain the latent space without explicitly shaping its distribution, making it unclear which types of distributions are optimal for modeling. We introduce Distribution-Matching VAE (DMVAE), which explicitly aligns the encoder's latent distribution with an arbitrary reference distribution via a distribution matching constraint. This generalizes beyond the Gaussian prior of conventional VAEs, enabling alignment with distributions derived from self-supervised features, diffusion noise, or other prior distributions. With DMVAE, we can systematically investigate which latent distributions are more conducive to modeling, and we find that SSL-derived distributions provide an excellent balance between reconstruction fidelity and modeling efficiency, reaching gFID equals 3.2 on ImageNet with only 64 training epochs. Our results suggest that choosing a suitable latent distribution structure (achieved via distribution-level alignment), rather than relying on fixed priors, is key to bridging the gap between easy-to-model latents and high-fidelity image synthesis. Code is avaliable at https://github.com/sen-ye/dmvae.
Sen Ye, Jianning Pei, Mengde Xu +4
State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Tencent +1
While recent advances in generative latent spaces have driven substantial progress in single-image generation, the optimal latent space for novel view synthesis (NVS) remains largely unexplored. In particular, NVS requires geometrically consistent generation across viewpoints, but existing approaches typically operate in a view-independent VAE latent space. In this paper, we propose Geometric Latent Diffusion (GLD), a framework that repurposes the geometrically consistent feature space of geometric foundation models as the latent space for multi-view diffusion. We show that these features not only support high-fidelity RGB reconstruction but also encode strong cross-view geometric correspondences, providing a well-suited latent space for NVS. Our experiments demonstrate that GLD outperforms both VAE and RAE on 2D image quality and 3D consistency metrics, while accelerating training by more than 4.4x compared to the VAE latent space. Notably, GLD remains competitive with state-of-the-art methods that leverage large-scale text-to-image pretraining, despite training its diffusion model from scratch without such generative pretraining.