emerging
Image Tokenizer Needs Post-Training
Kai Qiu, Xiang Yuan, Hao Chen · 2025-09 · arXiv:2509.12474
Why it matters
Argues tokenizers are trained on the wrong distribution: they see real images but must later decode *generated* latents. Post-training the tokenizer on the generative distribution closes that train/test gap and improves final sample quality.
What this paper does
read: full textBefore this
Discrete and continuous tokenizers alike were trained purely as autoencoders, optimized to reconstruct real images from ground-truth tokens and evaluated with reconstruction FID, on the assumption that better reconstruction fidelity would transfer to better downstream generation quality.
The problem
At inference a generative model's decoder must reconstruct from latents the generator itself produced, which carry sampling errors and out-of-distribution token patterns never seen during tokenizer training on ground-truth tokens, and reconstruction FID does not measure robustness to this mismatch and correlates only weakly with actual generation quality.
The idea
Close the train-test gap in two stages. During main training, perturb a fraction of tokens toward their nearest codebook neighbors to simulate the noise a generator will later introduce, producing a more robust latent space, and during post-training, once the generator already exists, fine-tune only the decoder on a mix of real reconstructed latents and the generator's own sampled latents so it adapts to what it will actually see at inference.
How it works
Main training adds a latent perturbation strategy in which a fraction beta of images in a batch, beta equal to 0.1, have a fraction alpha of their tokens replaced by a random one of their top-delta nearest codebook neighbors, with delta annealed from 100 to 50 over training. Post-training then freezes the encoder and quantizer and fine-tunes only the decoder, using a preservation ratio sigma that interpolates between tokens taken from real reconstructed latents at sigma equal to 1 and tokens taken from the trained generator's own sampled output at sigma equal to 0; for diffusion-based generators sigma is set from the noise level as sigma equal to 1 minus t over T. The paper also introduces pFID, the FID between images reconstructed from perturbed latents and real images, as a tokenizer-only metric that tracks downstream generation quality where reconstruction FID does not.
Evidence
With a roughly 400M-parameter RAR autoregressive generator on ImageNet 256x256, main training alone reaches gFID 1.60, and adding post-training improves this to gFID 1.36, both compared against a LlamaGen-L baseline at gFID 3.80. The approach is validated on discrete tokenizers, including LlamaGen and GigaTok, paired with autoregressive generators, and on the continuous tokenizer MAETok paired with a diffusion-based generator.
Limitations
The paper concedes pFID shows some outliers and a weaker correlation with generation quality in larger settings such as LlamaGen-L, that the benefit of post-training depends on how robust the tokenizer already is from main training, and that the preservation ratio sigma needs per-tokenizer tuning since other tokenizers show noticeable performance variation under it.
Why it matters
It operates on the boundary between tokenizer training and generator training, arguing that a tokenizer's evaluation and final tuning should not stop at reconstruction fidelity but must account for the distribution the generator actually produces at sampling time. Because the technique is validated on both discrete VQ-style tokenizers and a continuous tokenizer, it applies in principle to frozen-encoder RAE-style tokenizers as well as trained VQ tokenizers, though the paper's own experiments do not test a frozen-foundation-model encoder directly.
Abstract, in the authors' own words
Recent image generative models typically capture the image distribution in a pre-constructed latent space, relying on a frozen image tokenizer. However, there exists a significant discrepancy between the reconstruction and generation distribution, where current tokenizers only prioritize the reconstruction task that happens before generative training without considering the generation errors during sampling. In this paper, we comprehensively analyze the reason for this discrepancy in a discrete latent space, and, from which, we propose a novel tokenizer training scheme including both main-training and post-training, focusing on improving latent space construction and decoding respectively. During the main training, a latent perturbation strategy is proposed to simulate sampling noises, \ie, the unexpected tokens generated in generative inference. Specifically, we propose a plug-and-play tokenizer training scheme, which significantly enhances the robustness of tokenizer, thus boosting the generation quality and convergence speed, and a novel tokenizer evaluation metric, \ie, pFID, which successfully correlates the tokenizer performance to generation quality. During post-training, we further optimize the tokenizer decoder regarding a well-trained generative model to mitigate the distribution difference between generated and reconstructed tokens. With a $\sim$400M generator, a discrete tokenizer trained with our proposed main training achieves a notable 1.60 gFID and further obtains 1.36 gFID with the additional post-training. Further experiments are conducted to broadly validate the effectiveness of our post-training strategy on off-the-shelf discrete and continuous tokenizers, coupled with autoregressive and diffusion-based generators.
Research line
Builds on
Nothing recorded yet.
Built on by
Nothing recorded yet.
This is a emerging entry — a short-form summary. Full paper-page explanations (before/problem/ core idea/representation/architecture/objective/conditioning/training/inference/results/ ablations/limitations) are written for landmark and core papers first; see PROJECT_STATE.md for the schedule.