Papers
arxiv:2610.12978

Learning Representations to Guide Pixel Diffusion Transformers

Published on Oct 9
· Submitted by
潘子豪
on Oct 12
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Visual representations are largely developed for understanding, yet what makes them useful for generation remains unclear. We study this question in pixel diffusion transformers and uncover two key insights. First, better representation quality does not necessarily translate into greater generative utility, as externally aligned semantics can be progressively lost during pixel synthesis. Second, architectural separation with specialized pixel decoders mainly redistributes semantic and spatial modeling, without necessarily yielding representations better suited to generation. These insights suggest that a useful generative representation must be both properly formed and actively exploited. Motivated by these insights, we introduce Representation Guidance (RG), which directly forms and exploits internal representations while retaining a plain Transformer architecture. A low-dimensional bottleneck forces generation-relevant information into a compact representation, which is then explicitly used to guide decoder generation by modifying the flow-matching target according to its induced prediction offset. RG learns clearer semantic and spatial structure while scaling efficiently in both parameters and computation. On ImageNet 256x256, RG-L/16 with only 459M parameters outperforms substantially larger pixel diffusion transformers, while RG-XL/16 achieves an FID of 1.55. RG further reaches an FID of 1.74 at 512x512 and extends to text-to-image generation, achieving 0.89 on GenEval and 87.1 on DPG-Bench.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter
•
edited 1 day ago

TL;DR: Can a plain Transformer generate high-quality images directly in pixel space, with no VAE and no specialized pixel decoder? We show that it can, provided its internal representation is both properly formed and actively exploited.

🔍 Two insights

  • Better representations ≠ better generation. REPA-style alignment improves semantics at the aligned layer, but the gain fades in later layers and does not improve final FID.
  • Pixel decoders mostly shift work around. PixelDiT, DiP, and DeCo change how semantic and spatial modeling is split between encoder and decoder, but they do not yield representations better suited to generation.

💡 Representation Guidance (RG)

  • A low-dimensional bottleneck packs generation-relevant information into a compact implicit latent.
  • The decoder's velocity with vs. without the representation gives an offset, which we use to modify the flow-matching target: v_RG = v + (s-1)·sg(Δv_rep). This forces the decoder to depend on the representation, and in turn shapes the encoder toward what synthesis needs.
  • This works like self-distillation in SSL: the representation is bootstrapped from the model's own predictions.

📈 Results

  • ImageNet 256: FID 1.55 (RG-XL/16, 725M). RG-L/16 with only 459M params beats much larger pixel DiTs, including the 2B JiT-G.
  • 4× faster convergence: RG-B reaches JiT-B's 600-epoch FID in 150 epochs.
  • ImageNet 512: FID 1.74. Text-to-image: GenEval 0.89 / DPG-Bench 87.1.

🌐 Project: https://pan-zihao.github.io/Representation-Guidance/
💻 Code: https://github.com/Pan-Zihao/Representation-Guidance

Paper author Paper submitter

image

Paper author Paper submitter
•
edited 1 day ago

image
Our RG enables efficient scaling and better internal representations. (a) RG scales consistently from B to XL. It achieves lower FID with fewer parameters and FLOPs than plainTransformer JiT baselines, while also outperforming pixel-specialized decoders at lower complexity. (b) RG learns clearer spatial structure and more localized semantic correspondence.

Paper author Paper submitter

image
Architecture comparison. (a) JiT and (b) RG use patch-level input and standard Transformer blocks. JiT uses a single stack, while RG conditions its decoder on the bottleneck output, which is randomly dropped during training. (c)–(e) Pixel-specialized decoders take pixel-level input: patch attention with pixel-wise FFNs in PixelDiT, a pixel-wise MLP in DeCo, and a convolutional network with skip connections in DiP. Input tokens are noisy, output tokens are clean, and rounded squares denote the tokens output by the patch embedding or patch encoder.

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2610.12978
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.12978 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.12978 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 1

Collections including this paper 1