The latent space of generative modeling is long dominated by the VAE encoder. The latents from the pretrained representation encoders (e.g., DINO, SigLIP, MAE) are previously considered inappropriate for generative modeling. Recently, RAE method lights the hope and reveals that the representation autoencoder can also achieve competitive performance as the VAE encoder. However, the integration of representation autoencoder into continuous autoregressive (AR) models, remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate the challenges of employing high-dimensional representation autoencoders within the AR paradigm, denoted as RAE-AR. We focus on the unique properties of AR models and identify two primary hurdles: complex token-wise distribution modeling and the high-dimensionality amplified training-inference gap (exposure bias). To address these, we introduce token simplification via distribution normalization to ease modeling difficulty and improve convergence. Furthermore, we enhance prediction robustness by incorporating Gaussian noise injection during training to mitigate exposure bias. Our empirical results demonstrate that these modifications substantially bridge the performance gap, enabling representation autoencoder to achieve results comparable to traditional VAEs on AR models. This work paves the way for a more unified architecture across visual understanding and generative modeling.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The challenges of integrating representation autoencoders into AR models: token variance and exposure bias. We correspondingly take token normalization and noise perturbation strategies.
Reconstruction
VAE
VA-VAE
DINOv2
SigLIP2
MAE
Metric
f16d16
f16d32
f16d768
f16d768
f16d768
rFID ↓
0.533
0.279
0.619
0.703
0.643
PSNR ↑
26.184
27.705
19.202
19.655
29.441
LPIPS ↑
0.135
0.097
0.223
0.218
0.085
SSIM ↑
0.716
0.779
0.639
0.664
0.914
Table 1: The reconstruction performance of the five generative latents. The representation autoencoders have comparable reconstruction performance as the VAEs.
Generation
VAE
VA-VAE
DINOv2
SigLIP2
MAE
Metric
f16d16
f16d32
f16d768
f16d768
f16d768
gFID ↓
3.237
5.983
15.137
34.084
67.642
IS ↑
259.168
206.839
108.384
46.711
24.067
Precision ↑
0.135
0.097
0.223
0.218
0.085
Recall ↑
0.716
0.779
0.639
0.664
0.914
Table 2: Generation performance of the five generative latents. The direct combination of representation autoencoders and AR model leads to poor generative performance.
Statistic
VAE
VA-VAE
DINOv2
SigLIP2
MAE
Statistic (a)
0.1889
0.1853
0.0113
0.0001
-0.0025
Statistic (b)
1.2966
13.1932
1.3014
1.0072
0.9503
Statistic (c)
0.6158
18.4432
0.0100
0.0968
0.0858
Table 3: Different statistics of tokens from the generative latents. Statistic (a) represents the spatial mean of the mean-map. Statistic (b) represents the spatial mean of the var-map. Statistic (c) represents the spatial variance of the var-map (token variance). Lower token variance usually leads to better generation performance.
Figure 2: The mean and variance map visualization of the five generative latents. Token-wise distribution variance obviously exists and may influence the modeling difficulty of AR models, as verified by the poor generation performance shown in Tab. 2 .
Figure 3: The training loss curve comparison on the three representation autoencoders. Token normalization introduces lower training loss and fast convergence.
Figure 4: The reconstruction results comparison between VAE, VA-VAE, and three representation autoencoders. VAE type usually performs better in fidelity and details.
Metrics
gFID
IS
Perception
Recall
VAE
3.237
259.168
0.741
0.649
VA-VAE
5.983
206.839
0.679
0.654
DINOv2 (Baseline)
15.137
108.384
0.702
0.474
+Norm
18.090
99.342
0.682
0.484
+Noise
9.516
144.619
0.774
0.429
RAE-AR (+Norm+Noise)
7.494
165.588
0.804
0.405
Table 4: The generation performance of the continuous autoregressive model on both VAEs, three representative representations autoencoders, and our improved versions.
Figure 5: The visual generation comparison between the baseline and our RAE-AR on the three representation autoencoders.
Metric
gFID
IS
Perception
Recall
DINOv2
15.137
108.384
0.702
0.474
DINOv2 (Schedule)
13.734
113.372
0.718
0.478
RAE-AR
7.494
165.588
0.804
0.405
RAE-AR (Schedule)
6.597
185.945
0.834
0.378
SigLIP2
34.084
46.711
0.551
0.518
SigLIP2 (Schedule)
38.286
41.082
0.597
0.510
Table 5: The effectiveness verification of the dimension-dependent noise schedule design on continuous autoregressive model.
Figure 6: The relationship between noise perturbation level and generation performance on the three representation autoencoders.
Metirc
gFID
IS
Perception
Recall
SigLIP2 (Baseline)
12.624
124.423
0.727
0.478
+Norm
12.857
117.808
0.735
0.475
+Noise
9.662
149.770
0.762
0.441
RAE-AR (+Norm+Noise)
8.957
152.389
0.782
0.440
Table 6: The generation performance of the SigLIP2 latent representation on mask-based autoregressive model.
Representation Autoencoders (RAE) replace traditional VAE with pretrained vision encoders. In this paper, we systematically investigate several design choices and find three insights which simplify and improve RAE. First, we study a generalized formulation where the representation is defined as sum of the last k encoder layers rather than solely the final layer. This simple change greatly improves reconstruction without encoder finetuning or specialized data (e.g., text, faces). Second, we study the prevalent assumption that RAE (using pretrained representation as encoder) replaces representation alignment (REPA), which distills the same representation to intermediate layers instead. Through large-scale empirical analysis, we uncover a surprising finding: RAE and REPA exhibit complementary working mechanisms, allowing the same representation to be used as both encoder and target for intermediate diffusion layers. Finally, the original RAE struggles with classifier-free guidance (CFG) and requires training a second, weaker diffusion model for AutoGuidance (AG). We show that REPA itself can be viewed as x-prediction in RAE latent space. By simply re-parameterizing the output of the DiT model, it can provide guidance for "free". Overall, RAEv2 leads to more than 10x faster convergence over the original RAE, achieving a state-of-the-art gFID of 1.06 in just 80 epochs on ImageNet-256. On FDr6, RAEv2 achieves a state-of-the-art 2.17 at just 80 epochs compared to the previous best 3.26 (800 epochs) without any post-training. This motivates EPFID@k (epochs to reach unguided gFID < k) as a measure of training efficiency. RAEv2 attains an EPFID@2 of 35 epochs, versus 177 for the original RAE. We also validate our approach across diverse settings for text-to-image generation and navigation world models, showing consistent improvements. The code is available at https://raev2.github.io.
Video generative models commonly rely on latent spaces learned by 3D Variational Autoencoders (3D-VAEs). However, conventional 3D-VAEs are mainly optimized for pixel-level reconstruction, which can limit the semantic and spatio-temporal structure captured by their latents. Meanwhile, Video Foundation Models (VFMs) such as V-JEPA 2 and VideoMAEv2 show strong video understanding capabilities, yet whether their frozen representations can be transformed into compact, reconstruction-capable, and generation-friendly video latents remains largely unexplored. We answer this question with VideoRAE, a representation autoencoder that leverages multi-scale hierarchical features from a frozen video foundation encoder and compresses them with a lightweight 1D self-attention projector. VideoRAE supports both continuous latents for Diffusion Transformers and discrete tokens for autoregressive models via multi-codebook high-dimensional quantization. During decoding, a local-and-global representation alignment objective with the frozen VFM teacher improves semantic preservation and enables training without KL regularization. Experiments show that VideoRAE achieves strong reconstruction in both continuous and discrete regimes. On UCF-101, it obtains state-of-the-art class-to-video gFVDs of 40 and 93 with AR and DiT generators, respectively, while converging approximately 5x faster than competing autoencoder baselines. In a controlled 2B-scale text-to-video study, replacing LTX-VAE with VideoRAE leads to faster convergence under comparable settings. These results validate frozen VFM representations as versatile and generation-friendly video latents. The model and code will be released on https://zhxie0117.github.io/VideoRAE.
Zhihao Xie, Junfeng Wu, Xinting Hu +2
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Huazhong University of Science and Technology · University of Science and Technology of China +1
Representation autoencoders (RAEs) reuse features from a pretrained visual encoder as reconstruction and diffusion latents, integrating strong visual representations into image generation. However, RAEs still need to decide which encoder layers form the shared latent space for the generator and pixel decoder. This choice involves a trade-off: shallower layers tend to preserve fine pixel details better, while deeper layers tend to yield better generation metrics. A fixed heuristic layer fusion therefore couples two stages that benefit from different information. We introduce FuseReg, which replaces heuristic feature selection with training over random subsets of encoder layers. We theoretically analyze the underlying mechanism: subset sampling preserves the full-layer latent mean in expectation while explicitly penalizing sensitivity to cross-layer disagreement. On ImageNet-256 with DINOv3-L, a single FuseReg decoder reconstructs from full, sparse, and single-layer fusions without retraining, achieving higher PSNR than decoders specialized to fixed fusions. This flexibility also benefits generation: decoder replacement alone reduces unguided gFID by 27% with an unchanged RAEv2 DiT-XL generator. Applying FuseReg to both stages also reduces unguided gFID by 29% on DiT-Base. The reconstruction and generation benefits also extend to other encoder families. FuseReg narrows the reconstruction-generation gap without additional training cost or architectural changes.
Hongyang Du, Yunfei Xie, Junjie Ye +13
USC PSI Lab · Brown University · Rice University +4