Fréchet Distributional (FD) objectives provide an effective distribution-level signal for post-training generative models. For latent generative models, however, existing FD-based post-training methods optimize only the latent generator while keeping the decoder frozen: the decoder is trained on reconstruction latents obtained from real images but deployed on generator-produced latents at generation time. When these latent distributions differ, this decoder train-generation mismatch means that the decoder is deployed on inputs drawn from a distribution it was not directly trained on. We introduce Fréchet Distributional Decoder Alignment (FDDA), an efficient post-training method that freezes the latent generator and directly optimizes the decoder on generation-time latents using an FD objective. A single epoch of FDDA consistently improves gFID and gFDr6 across diverse flow-based and autoregressive latent generative models. Across all 11 evaluated models, FDDA reduces gFDr6 by 34.0-59.6% from the original pretrained models and provides a further 10.2-57.2% reduction after generator-side FD post-training. FDDA also reduces total wall-clock time by factors of 3.6×-328.7× relative to generator-side FD post-training across these models. These results show that generator-side post-training alone does not exhaust the benefits of FD optimization, and that further gains can be obtained by adapting the decoder at substantially lower cost.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Decoder-side FD post-training with FDDA. (a) Existing methods optimize the latent generator with a frozen decoder, whereas FDDA freezes the generator and optimizes the decoder on generation-time latents. (b) FDDA provides complementary gains. Top row: FDDA applied to released checkpoints before generator-side FD post-training. Bottom row: FDDA applied after generator-side FD post-training. Gray and blue bars denote gFDr 6 before and after FDDA, and annotations report the relative reduction. (c) Decoder-side FD post-training substantially reduces training cost. Gray (left) and blue (right) bars denote total wall-clock hours on a single H100 GPU for generator-side and decoder-side FD post-training, and annotations show the reduction factor.
Models
Generator FD
Decoder FD
gFID ( ↓ )
gIS ( ↑ )
gFD conv ( ↓ )
gFD dino ( ↓ )
gFD mae ( ↓ )
gFD sig ( ↓ )
gFD clip ( ↓ )
gFDr 6 ( ↓ )
Discrete autoregressive generative models
LlamaGen-B
✗
✗
5.17
196.1
233.91
244.12
0.528
21.03
149.44
16.48
✗
✔
2.74
209.3
237.39
190.90
0.250
11.50
115.52
10.88 ↓34.0%
LlamaGen-L
✗
✗
4.23
290.1
113.61
121.41
0.383
12.20
97.13
10.00
✗
✔
1.87
303.5
103.27
87.98
0.109
5.19
73.07
5.60 ↓44.0%
GigaTok-S-S
✗
✗
4.34
268.5
135.95
182.66
0.432
15.25
112.26
12.29
Table 1: FDDA before generator-side FD post-training. We apply FDDA to the original pretrained latent generative models. All metrics are computed using the same evaluation protocol following [ Yang2026RepresentationFL ] . ✗and ✔indicate whether each component undergoes FD post-training.
Models
Generator FD
Decoder FD
gFID ( ↓ )
gIS ( ↑ )
gFD conv ( ↓ )
gFD dino ( ↓ )
gFD mae ( ↓ )
gFD sig ( ↓ )
gFD clip ( ↓ )
gFDr 6 ( ↓ )
Discrete autoregressive generative models
LlamaGen-B
✔
✗
2.45
277.9
118.37
105.41
0.174
6.07
70.55
6.33
✔
✔
2.23
275.9
134.35
95.79
0.100
4.55
61.77
5.27 ↓16.7%
LlamaGen-L
✔
✗
1.32
315.9
74.54
57.09
0.104
3.18
54.27
3.96
✔
✔
1.34
313.5
83.61
49.14
0.052
2.40
44.71
3.18 ↓19.7%
GigaTok-S-S
✔
✗
2.52
291.6
97.96
82.97
0.219
4.45
57.20
5.34
Table 2: FDDA after generator-side FD post-training. We apply FDDA to latent generative models whose generators have already undergone FD post-training. All metrics are computed using the same evaluation protocol following [ Yang2026RepresentationFL ] . ✗and ✔indicate whether each component undergoes FD post-training.
Models
NFE
#params
gFID ( ↓ )
gIS ( ↑ )
gFD conv ( ↓ )
gFD dino ( ↓ )
gFD mae ( ↓ )
gFD sig ( ↓ )
gFD clip ( ↓ )
gFDr 6 ( ↓ )
Without FD post-training
LlamaGen-L ‡
256 × 2
343M
4.23
290.1
113.61
121.41
0.383
12.20
97.13
10.00
GigaTok-S-S ‡
256 × 2
111M
4.34
268.5
135.95
182.66
0.432
15.25
112.26
12.29
TiTok-L-32 ‡
8 × 2
177M
2.75
194.1
190.86
192.05
0.567
18.86
157.93
15.32
VAR- d24 ‡
10 × 2
1.0B
2.11
314.7
94.78
76.34
0.286
7.37
73.93
6.79
VAR- d30 †
10 × 2
2B
1.97
304.6
96.57
75.35
0.29
7.19
74.61
6.70
Table 3: System-level comparison on class-conditional ImageNet 256×256 . NFE denotes the number of function evaluations during inference, and #Params denotes the number of parameters in the latent generator. All results use CFG where applicable; ×2 indicates the additional function evaluations for CFG. The best result for each metric is highlighted in bold. † : results reported in Tables 4 and F.7 of FD-Loss [ Yang2026RepresentationFL ] . ‡ : results measured by us following the evaluation protocol of [ Yang2026RepresentationFL ] . Decoder-side post-training is applied to the generator-side FD-post-trained models (FDDA+). ∗ : CFG is applied only over a time subinterval; NFE is reported as the full-CFG upper bound.
Models
Generator-side FD
Decoder-side FD (FDDA)
Cost Reduction
Epochs
# Generator Params
Train (h)
# Decoder Params
Latent Pool (h)
Train (h)
Total (h)
Discrete autoregressive generative models
LlamaGen-B
1.25
111M
100.6
42.5M
1.50
2.77
4.27
23.6 ×
LlamaGen-L
1.25
343M
185.0
42.5M
4.02
2.78
6.80
27.2 ×
GigaTok-S-S
1.25
111M
72.2
83.8M
2.68
3.03
5.71
12.6 ×
TiTok-L-32
1.25
177M
16.7
337.6M
0.29
3.19
3.48
4.8 ×
Table 4: Computational efficiency of FDDA. We compare the wall-clock time of generator-side FD post-training and FDDA on a single H100 GPU. All FDDA models are trained for one epoch, with total time including both generation-time latent pool construction and decoder training. Cost reduction is computed as the ratio of generator-side FD training time to the total FDDA time.
Models
space
#params
Pretrained Decoder
FDDA-adapted Decoder
PSNR( ↑ )
SSIM ( ↑ )
rFID( ↓ )
LPIPS( ↓ )
PSNR( ↑ )
SSIM( ↑ )
rFID( ↓ )
LPIPS( ↓ )
LlamaGen-B
discrete
71.9M
22.53
55.3
2.20
0.138
21.73
52.9
2.82
0.154
LlamaGen-L
discrete
71.9M
22.53
55.3
2.20
0.138
21.93
54.0
2.55
0.150
GigaTok-S-S
discrete
136.1M
22.47
54.5
1.01
0.132
21.22
50.8
1.42
0.163
TiTok-L-32
discrete
641.1M
17.55
35.9
2.22
0.329
16.57
33.5
1.64
0.357
TiTok-B-64
discrete
204.8M
18.74
39.8
1.69
0.258
17.84
37.4
1.66
0.284
Table 5: Reconstruction performance before and after FDDA. We compare the pretrained and FDDA-adapted decoders using PSNR, SSIM, rFID, and LPIPS. FDDA is trained on generation-time latents, and we report its effect on reconstruction performance here.
Figure 2: Effect of FDDA training epochs.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Models
Generator FD
Decoder FD
Decoder latents
gFID ( ↓ )
gIS ( ↑ )
gFD conv ( ↓ )
gFD dino ( ↓ )
gFD mae ( ↓ )
gFD sig ( ↓ )
gFD clip ( ↓ )
gFDr 6 ( ↓ )
iMF-B
✗
✗
-
3.49
253.7
188.08
206.17
0.487
19.65
156.14
15.40
✗
✔
zr
3.27
265.1
229.78
172.91
0.361
15.13
141.03
12.91 ↓16.2%
✗
✔
zg
1.65
268.1
115.47
144.39
0.232
8.10
105.06
8.54 ↓44.5%
✔
✗
-
0.86
307.1
65.97
89.05
0.154
5.46
70.35
5.57
✔
✔
zr
1.08
305.5
113.59
84.02
0.158
5.29
68.01
5.58 ↑0.2%0
✔
✔
zg
0.91
304.0
74.66
80.48
0.100
3.91
59.69
4.54 ↓18.5%
Appendix
Table 6: Effect of decoder post-training latents on iMF. We compare decoder-side FD post-training using reconstruction latents zr or generation-time latents zg , starting from either the original pretrained generator or its FD-post-trained counterpart. ✗and ✔indicate the absence and presence of FD post-training, respectively, for the component named in each column. All reported metrics evaluate generated images. The percentage beside gFDr 6 is the relative change from the row without decoder FD in the same generator setting; downward arrows indicate improvement.
Figure 3: Generated samples before generator-side FD post-training. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: after FDDA.
Figure 4: Generated samples after generator-side FD post-training. Top: generator-side FD post-training. Bottom: after further applying FDDA.
Figure 5: Class 14: indigo bunting. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 6: Class 22: bald eagle. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 7: Class 42: agama. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 8: Class 81: ptarmigan. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 9: Class 88: macaw. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 10: Class 108: sea anemone. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 11: Class 130: flamingo. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 12: Class 207: golden retriever. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 13: Class 483: castle. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 14: Generated samples from LlamaGen-L. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 15: Generated samples from GigaTok-S-S. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 16: Generated samples from VAR- d24 . Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Figure 17: Generated samples from iMF-XL. Top: original pretrained model. Bottom: generator-side FD post-training + FDDA.
Flow-based generative modeling learns probability transports from simple noise to data for fast sampling, density estimation, and controllable generation.
Autoregressive image generators are commonly pretrained with token-level cross-entropy under teacher forcing, yet evaluated by the distributional quality of decoded images. This creates an objective mismatch, because categorical errors have unequal image-level consequences, and a context mismatch, because inference conditions on model-generated histories. We introduce FD-loss post-training, which adapts a pretrained discrete generator using representation-space Fréchet distance as the sole objective. A dual-pass scheme first constructs detached rollout contexts through gradient-free generation under the model's native inference configuration, then performs differentiable replay with a probability-level straight-through estimator (STE) that preserves hard argmax decoding in the forward pass while propagating image-level gradients through temperature-scaled probabilities. Only the generator is updated, while the tokenizer and feature extractors remain frozen. Across eight completed configurations from four generator families on class-conditional ImageNet at 256×256, FD-loss post-training reduces FID and FDr6 by 41.4% and 52.0% on average. The strongest FID result improves from 2.42 to 1.43 without adding parameters or inference steps.
Jinhua Zhang, Yisong Lin, Wei Long +1
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
In latent generative models, reconstruction quality is often assumed to correlate with generative performance. However, reconstruction FID (rFID) can exhibit weak or even negative correlation with generation FID (gFID). We attribute this misalignment to a latent distribution mismatch: reconstruction evaluates the decoder on encoder-induced latents, whereas generation uses the same decoder on latents produced by the generative model. To characterize this shift, we introduce generation-aware reconstruction (GAR), which constructs a continuous trajectory from standard reconstruction toward generation by perturbing encoder latents with noise and denoising them through the generative model before decoding. GAR probes the decoder behavior along this trajectory, making the transition from encoder to generation-time latent distributions observable and diagnosable. The resulting trajectory-based diagnostic, GAR-FID, exhibits strong empirical correlation with gFID across diverse tokenizers and scales. Importantly, intermediate GAR latents become more generation-aware while preserving correspondence with their source images, thereby retaining paired supervision that is absent for fully generated latents. This correspondence enables decoder adaptation on intermediate GAR latents, consistently improving generative quality across model scales. Overall, latent distribution mismatch provides a useful perspective for evaluating and improving latent generative models.
Fréchet distance has recently emerged as an effective distribution-level objective for generator post-training, complementing the conventional sample-level diffusion and flow-matching losses. However, directly optimizing Fréchet objectives can cause Fréchet hacking. The target metrics keep improving, but visual quality and Fréchet alignment in other feature spaces may stagnate or deteriorate. We attribute this failure to the static pretrained feature spaces used by existing Fréchet losses. These feature spaces provide incomplete and fixed views of the differences between real and generated distributions. To address this limitation, we propose Adversarial Fréchet Distance (AdvFD), which complements the static representation targets in FD-Loss with a calibrated adversarially learned representation. AdvFD augments the original static Fréchet objective with a learnable representation that adversarially maximizes the Fréchet discrepancy between real and generated samples, while the generator minimizes the same discrepancy in the resulting adaptive feature space. To prevent the adversarial representation from trivially increasing the objective through feature amplification, we further introduce real-feature whitening, which normalizes its scale and covariance geometry and stabilizes the min--max optimization. Extensive experiments show that AdvFD consistently improves one-step generator post-training across both JiT and pMF backbones and across different model scales.