Where Does Generative Difficulty Reside? An Empirical Study of Target Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The target representation defines the distribution an image generator must learn, yet it is often treated as an interchangeable interface. This assumption is particularly questionable for continuous masked generators, which combine contextual inference from visible tokens with conditional modeling of each missing token. We study raw pixels, SD-VAE latents and DINOv2 as well as MAE representation-autoencoder features within a unified masked autoregressive rectified-flow model. Under a shared ImageNet training budget, these spaces exhibit distinct optimization and inference regimes. DINOv2 converges fastest in both iterations and computation but benefits strongly from a wider local denoiser and direct context fusion. Pixels optimize substantially more slowly and require a different prediction, masking, and guidance configuration. MAE reconstructs images more faithfully and exhibits clear semantic clustering, yet produces generations substantially worse than DINOv2. The representations also respond differently to classifier-free guidance and occupy distinct precision-recall trade-offs. Together, our results show that compression, reconstruction fidelity, token dimensionality, and visible semantic clustering do not individually predict generative behavior. Instead, target representations redistribute difficulty across contextual modeling, per-token denoising, and inference-time distributional control.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Aug 2026.
Builds on
28 of 39 references.
References · 28
- 2020Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Modelscited by 21,076
- 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,863
- 2020Denoising Diffusion Implicit Modelscited by 9,781
- 2020Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equationscited by 9,122
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
- 2015Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamicscited by 7,058
- 2022Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformerscited by 6,054
- 2022Flow Matching for Generative Modelingcited by 5,702
- 2021Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generationcited by 4,288
- 2024Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,181
- 2022Flow Straight and Fast: Learning to Generate and Transfer Data with Rectified Flowcited by 3,700
16 more
- 2020Taming Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 3,253
- 2016Improved Techniques for Training GANscited by 2,970
- 2022MaskGIT: Masked Generative Image Transformercited by 1,099
- 2016Conditional Image Generation with PixelCNN Decoderscited by 862
- 2024SiT: Exploring Flow and Diffusion-based Generative Models with Scalable Interpolant Transformerscited by 737
- 2024Representation Alignment for Generation: Training Diffusion Transformers Is Easier Than You Thinkcited by 703
- 2024Autoregressive Image Generation without Vector Quantizationcited by 651
- 2025Diffusion Transformers with Representation Autoencoderscited by 295
- 2022MAGE: MAsked Generative Encoder to Unify Representation Learning and Image Synthesiscited by 227
- 2025PixelDiT: Pixel Diffusion Transformers for Image Generationcited by 83
- 2026One-step Latent-free Image Generation with Pixel Mean Flowscited by 53
- 2026Latent Forcing: Reordering the Diffusion Trajectory for Pixel-Space Image Generationcited by 36
- 2026Self-Supervised Flow Matching for Scalable Multi-Modal Synthesiscited by 31
- 2026Improved Baselines with Representation Autoencoderscited by 31
- 2025Effective and Efficient Masked Image Generation Modelscited by 13
- 2026Trajectory Forcing: Structure-First Generation with Controllable Semantic Trajectoriescited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.