Standard autoencoder (AE) inference uses a single encoder-decoder pass, though the latent may not be optimal for each sample under a fixed decoder. We ask whether a trained AE can reveal information for improving its own reconstruction. Repeated application of a frozen AE to its reconstruction produces transient image- and latent-space trajectories, termed Self-Reconstruction Dynamics (SRD). Although this degrades fidelity in the AEs studied here, SRD contains sample-specific information for correcting the reconstruction. We propose SRD-guided Reconstruction Refinement (SRD-RR), which predicts a latent correction from a short SRD with the AE frozen and no per-sample test-time optimization. We also introduce MSE-recov, an MSE recovery ratio relative to an empirical decoder-optimized reference. Across six datasets, SRD-RR recovers 38.6% of the empirically recoverable MSE gap with one transition and 45.3% with two. A two-transition variant trained without direct access to original images, using an SRD-derived pseudo-target, achieves 40.7% recovery and a 1.74 dB average PSNR gain. Removing trajectory information reduces the gain, while cross-sample trajectory assignment causes severe degradation, confirming strong sample specificity. Nonlinear SRD-conditioned refinement consistently outperforms fixed and trained linear latent correction. On a pretrained DINOv2-based representation autoencoder (RAE) with substantially different latent dynamics, SRD conditioning again improves a matched trajectory-free predictor. However, pixel-MSE latent refinement reveals a strong mismatch between pixel fidelity and perceptual quality, while the SRD-derived pseudo-target mitigates this degradation. Overall, SRD is a useful sample-specific refinement signal, while the objective determines how it translates into pixel and perceptual quality.
Figures & tables
Model
Description
Definition
Target
x -free
Baseline and image-space SRD models
M1
Baseline AE
y1
–
–
M2
Repeated AE
yK
–
–
M3
Trained Nonlinear Image Corrector
x~=y1+Δx,Δx=M3(y1,dy1,…,dyK−1)
x
–
M3-AE
Corrector + AE
AE(M3)
x
–
M4
Linear Image Extrapolation
x~lin=y1+α(y1−y2)
–
✓
Table 1: Summary of evaluated models, supervision, and x -free status.
Split
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FashionMNIST
MNIST
ImageNet100
CelebA
Train
45,000
65,932
54,000
54,000
114,021
146,493
Val
5,000
7,325
6,000
6,000
12,668
16,277
Test
10,000
26,032
10,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
Table 2: Dataset splits used in the experiments.
Model
Description
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
MNIST
ImageNet
CelebA
M1
y1
0
M2
y2
-143.02
-197.19
-157.09
-158.24
-173.95
-172.62
y3
-346.00
-488.55
-371.01
-360.08
-429.96
-412.22
y5
-917.10
-1324.69
-961.63
-849.91
-1184.02
-1086.96
M3
x~
116.87
103.86
87.09
96.20
51.54
98.73
M3-AE
AE(M3)
-8.93
-6.16
-5.38
-5.37
10.54
-14.03
Table 3: MSE recovery ratio (%) of image-space SRD methods.
Model
Ntr
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
MNIST
ImageNet
CelebA
M5 ( β=2.0 )
1
24.97
34.58
17.59
12.55
33.09
24.96
M5-AE
1
-40.84
-53.22
-54.55
-55.69
-38.46
-66.18
M5-T
1
24.99
33.89
18.03
13.66
32.15
19.42
2
32.48
43.79
29.04
28.96
27.36
4.64
3
32.52
43.36
29.68
31.51
24.36
31.10
4
32.53
44.75
29.73
31.59
16.89
28.23
Table 4: MSE recovery ratio (%) of linear latent-space correctors and estimated β1∗ .
Figure 1: Geometric properties of the latent Self-reconstruction Dynamics (SRD). Error bars indicate standard deviations within each dataset.
Figure 2: Effect of trajectory information and sample correspondence on nonlinear SRD-RR models.
MSE-recov (%)
Cost
Model
Ntr
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
MNIST
ImageNet
CelebA
× M1
x -free
M1
–
0
1.0
–
M3 †
1
116.87
103.86
87.09
96.2
51.54
98.73
8.1
–
M4 ( α=1.0 ) †
1
52.72
68.33
61.88
63.75
63.36
63.09
2.0
✓
M5 ( β=2.0 )
1
24.97
34.58
17.59
12.55
33.09
24.96
2.9
✓
M6-LO
0
-12.71
18.62
-40.63
-84.45
3.28
-30.06
4.2
–
Table 5: Summary of reconstruction performance, computational cost, and x -free status.
Model
Ntr
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
rFID-5k ↓
M1
–
18.87
0.156
3.91
M4
1
17.70
0.201
5.72
M6-LO
0
18.65
0.470
25.52
M6
1
18.99
0.445
21.76
M6-xFree
1
18.20
0.208
5.72
Table 6: RAE results for trajectory informativeness and pixel–perceptual reconstruction quality.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Ntr
CIFAR-10
SVHN
FMNIST
MNIST
ImageNet
CelebA
macro
macro
x -free
Δ PSNR
MSE-recov. (%)
M1
–
30.42
36.91
32.37
35.33
35.03
38.33
0.00
0.00
–
M3 †
1
3.80
7.94
8.30
12.75
2.00
6.09
6.81
92.38
M4 †
1
1.36
3.59
3.98
4.28
2.67
2.90
3.13
62.19
✓
M5
1
0.57
1.56
0.84
0.61
1.19
0.96
0.95
24.62
✓
M6-LO
0
-0.24
0.94
-1.30
-2.57
0.28
-0.77
-0.61
-24.32
Appendix
Table A1: PSNR improvements over the baseline reconstruction and corresponding MSE recovery ratios. M1 reports the absolute PSNR, whereas all other rows report the PSNR improvement ( Δ PSNR) relative to M1.
Figure A1: Validation-set performance of image-space and latent-space linear extrapolation under sweeps of α and β .
Figure A2: Performance of Repeated M5 and Repeated M5+AE on ImageNet.
Figure A3: Changes in the latent trajectories across the six datasets.
Figure A4: Performance consistency across (a) five random seeds and (b)(c) model architectures.
Figure A5: Qualitative comparison of reconstruction results and corresponding error maps from ImageNet. M1 (37.76dB), M6 (39.71dB, MSE-recov=51.3%), and M6-xFree (39.68dB, MSE-recov=50.5%).
Figure A6: Qualitative comparison of reconstruction results and corresponding error maps from CelebA. M1 (38.39dB), M6 (40.97dB, MSE-recov=55.6%), and M6-xFree (40.50dB, MSE-recov=47.7%).
AE
M3
SRD-RR
Optimizer
Adam
Adam
AdamW
Learning rate
10−3
10−3
5×10−4
Weight decay
0
0
10−3
Batch size
64 / 256
64 / 256
64 / 256
Max. epochs
50
50
150
Early-stop patience
5
6
10
Appendix
Table A2: Training hyperparameters for the learned components. Batch sizes are shown as small/large datasets.
Setting
Value
RAE checkpoint
DINOv2-based RAE, ViT-XL decoder
Input resolution
256×256
Latent shape
768×16×16
RAE parameters
Frozen
Dataset
ImageNet
Predictor train / val / test
20,000 / 2,000 / 5,000
Appendix
Table A3: Experimental settings for the pretrained RAE extension.
k
0
1
2
3
4
∥dzk∥2
197.83±27.02
184.87±29.76
192.06±34.16
200.25±36.00
203.22±33.75
cos(dzk,dzk+1)
0.094±0.067
0.173±0.073
0.173±0.081
0.163±0.088
–
cos(dz0,dzk)
–
0.094±0.067
−0.084±0.043
−0.089±0.034
−0.072±0.028
Appendix
Table A4: Latent SRD geometry of the pretrained RAE. Values are mean ± standard deviation over validation images.
Figure A7: 3D visualization of latent SRD trajectories in the pretrained RAE on ImageNet100.
Model
Ntr
MSE ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
rFID-5k ↓
M1
–
0.01602
18.87
0.4696
0.1558
3.91
M2 ( y2 )
1
0.02124
17.41
0.4286
0.2193
6.29
M2 ( y3 )
2
0.02612
16.37
0.4002
0.2770
11.21
M2 ( y5 )
4
0.03516
14.97
0.3601
0.3740
33.44
M4
1
0.02153
17.70
0.4245
0.2009
5.72
M5
1
0.01911
17.94
0.4363
0.1943
4.74
Appendix
Table A5: Reconstruction performance of SRD-based refinement on the pretrained RAE. MSE, PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS are averaged over the fixed 5,000 test images; rFID-5k is computed over the same complete test set. Best values are shown in bold.
Figure A8: Per-sample pixel–perceptual discrepancy under RAE refinement. Positive Δ PSNR indicates improved pixel fidelity, whereas positive Δ LPIPS indicates degraded perceptual similarity. The frequent occurrence of samples with improved PSNR but worse LPIPS shows that pixel-level improvement does not necessarily imply perceptual improvement. M6 and M6-xFree use Ntr=1 .
Figure A9: Qualitative comparison on ImageNet100 using the pretrained RAE. M6 improves PSNR but worsens LPIPS relative to M1, while M6-xFree retains more fine-scale detail and achieves lower LPIPS than M6.
Figure A10: Qualitative comparison on ImageNet100 using the pretrained RAE. M6 deteriorates in both PSNR and LPIPS relative to M1. In contrast, M6-xFree improves PSNR over M1 with a modest increase in LPIPS and substantially better perceptual similarity than M6.
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.
Representation Autoencoders (RAEs) leverage frozen vision foundation models (VFMs) as tokenizer encoders, providing robust high-level representations that facilitate fast convergence and high-quality generation in latent diffusion models. However, freezing the VFM inherently constrains its spatial reconstruction capacity, limiting fine-grained generation and image editing; in contrast, incorporating reconstruction-oriented signals via fine-tuning disrupts the pretrained semantic space and degrades generative fidelity. To address this trade-off, we propose DecQ, a simple yet effective framework for RAEs. Specifically, DecQ introduces lightweight detail-condensing queries that extract fine-grained information from intermediate VFM features through condenser modules. These queries are incorporated into the decoder to support reconstruction and are jointly generated with patch tokens during generative modeling. By aggregating information from both shallow and deep layers, DecQ effectively mitigates the reconstruction--generation trade-off, improving both reconstruction quality and generative performance. Our experiments demonstrate that: (1) with only 8 additional queries and 3.9% extra computation, DecQ improves reconstruction over the frozen DINOv2-based RAE, increasing PSNR from 19.13 dB to 22.76 dB; and (2) for generative modeling, DecQ achieves 3.3× faster convergence than RAE, attaining an FID of 1.41 without guidance and 1.05 with guidance.
Tianhang Wang, Yitong Chen, Wei Song +3
Zhejiang University · Shanghai Innovation Institute · Fudan University +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