How Neural Losses Shape VAE Latents
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Modern VAEs are rarely trained with the pointwise likelihood implied by the standard β-VAE objective. In practice, pointwise reconstruction is often combined with perceptual and adversarial losses, despite a lack of understanding of how this changes the latent dynamics of the model. We show that the choice of reconstruction loss reshapes the rate-distortion problem itself, altering both the information content and the geometry of the learned latent space in ways that may be invisible from reconstructions alone. First, we prove and verify empirically that augmenting pointwise reconstruction with neural terms, such as perceptual and adversarial objectives, reduces the amount of information stored in the latent representations. Second, we show that neural reconstruction losses systematically change the geometry of the latent space: they make representations more isotropic and distribute uncertainty more evenly across latent dimensions, producing different posterior variance profiles. These findings highlight how the rate-distortion tradeoff is not a comprehensive lens to understand the behavior of VAEs, and we propose a more mechanistic approach to investigate how the choice of a distortion metric reshapes the optimization problem.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2026.
Builds on
25 of 35 references.
References · 25
- 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,863
- 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2016Image-to-Image Translation with Conditional Adversarial Networkscited by 4,527
- 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,693
- 2016Perceptual Losses for Real-Time Style Transfer and Super-Resolutioncited by 2,694
- 2018Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 1,636
- 2024Representation Alignment for Generation: Training Diffusion Transformers Is Easier Than You Thinkcited by 703
- 2022High Fidelity Neural Audio Compressioncited by 687
- 2017The Perception-Distortion Tradeoffcited by 587
- 2015Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metriccited by 407
- 2025Reconstruction vs. Generation: Taming Optimization Dilemma in Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 393
13 more
- 2020High-Fidelity Generative Image Compressioncited by 338
- 2018Understanding disentangling in β-VAEcited by 335
- 2017Variational Inference of Disentangled Latent Concepts from Unlabeled Observationscited by 241
- 2025REPA-E: Unlocking VAE for End-to-End Tuning with Latent Diffusion Transformerscited by 225
- 2019Rethinking Lossy Compression: The Rate-Distortion-Perception Tradeoffcited by 211
- 2016Variational Lossy Autoencodercited by 176
- 2025Masked Autoencoders Are Effective Tokenizers for Diffusion Modelscited by 96
- 2025EQ-VAE: Equivariance Regularized Latent Space for Improved Generative Image Modelingcited by 89
- 2018Taming VAEscited by 85
- 2025Improving the Diffusability of Autoencoderscited by 80
- 2022Pythae: Unifying Generative Autoencoders in Python -- A Benchmarking Use Casecited by 26
- 2022Multi-Rate VAE: Train Once, Get the Full Rate-Distortion Curvecited by 18
- 2024The geometry of efficient codes: how rate-distortion trade-offs distort the latent representations of generative modelscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.