Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Masked Generative Nested Transformers with Decode Time Scaling

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that masked parallel decoding should run a model-size curriculum — small submodels first, the full model only at the end — and that key-value caching makes this schedule nearly free, yielding about 3x less inference…

desk verdict Solid empirical efficiency paper: the 2.5-3.7x compute claim likely understates the real gains, but only one wall-clock measurement and no code make the exact figures provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00382 v1 pith:XKJAOVPR submitted 2025-02-01 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Sahil Goyal , Debapriya Tula , Gagan Jain , Pradeep Shenoy , Prateek Jain , Sujoy Paul This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords maskedgenerativetransformerparalleldecodingnestedmodelsKVcachingdecode-timescalingefficientinferenceimagegenerationvideo
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that masked parallel decoding spends compute in the wrong place when it runs the same full-size transformer at every iteration. Its proposal, MaGNeTS, treats generation as a model-size curriculum: small parameter-shared submodels handle early, coarse decisions, and progressively larger submodels refine the remaining tokens, with the full model used only at the end. Key-value activations of already-decided tokens are cached and reused, then refreshed when the model size changes, so the same computation is not repeated. Across ImageNet 256x256, UCF101, and Kinetics600, the experiments report 2.5-3.7x inference compute reduction while staying close to the full-model baseline on FID/FVD. If right, this means masked generative transformers can be deployed at a fraction of their current inference cost without changing the model weights.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a nested transformer family derived from one full model: submodel m_p is obtained by slicing every MLP and attention Q/K/V matrix to a downscaling factor p, so p=8 gives close to 1/8 the parameters and FLOPs while p=1 is the full model. The schedule M = {(m_8)^{k1}, (m_4)^{k2}, (m_2)^{k3}, (m_1)^{k4}} chooses how many decoding iterations each size runs; the paper's default ramps up with equal steps per size. Alongside the schedule, a KV cache stores the last computed key and value tensors of unmasked tokens so the next iteration only runs attention over tokens not yet cached, and an intermittent refresh clears the cache at model-size switches so stale cached features do not leak across capacities. Training the nested family uses progressive distillation: each submodel learns from ground truth plus the next-larger submodel as teacher, with the weight interpolated from ground truth to distillation over training.

What would settle it

On ImageNet-256, vary the cache-refresh schedule at a fixed total FLOPs budget: compare the default refresh every 3 iterations against refresh every iteration and against no caching. If refreshing every iteration does not monotonically approach the no-cache FID of 2.5 for the same model schedule, then stale cached K/V are not the main cause of the residual gap; alternatively, if a no-cache schedule with the same FLOPs, such as more steps of the full model, clearly beats FID 2.9, then the schedule itself, not the cache, would be carrying the win.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, MaGNeTS establishes that decode time should be modeled as a schedule over nested model sizes rather than a fixed-capacity forward pass. At each masked-decoding iteration the model is chosen from nested submodels with downscaling factors p = 8, 4, 2, 1, ramping upward so that, for example, the 12-iteration ImageNet run uses 3, 3, 3, 3 iterations at each size. These submodels share all parameters, so no extra parameter count is introduced. The paper also establishes that key-value caching can be ported from autoregressive decoding to parallel decoding: cache the K/V of tokens that are already unmasked and reuse them, clearing and recomputing the cache only at model-size boundaries to avoid the small but real FID penalty that caching alone incurs (FID 3.4 vs 2.5 without cache, recovered to 2.6 with refresh). The headline evidence is a 2.65-3x FLOP reduction on ImageNet with FID 2.9 compared to 2.3 for its MaskGIT++ baseline, a roughly 2.5x reduction on UCF101 video generation, and a roughly 3.7x reduction on Kinetics600 frame prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The cached key/value vectors of unmasked tokens are computed when those tokens still carry mask embeddings and sometimes by a smaller sub-model, yet they are reused for several later iterations without being recomputed; the method's compute savings depend on how much this approximation costs in sample quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On ImageNet 256x256, MaGNeTS's 12-iteration schedule uses 490-608 GFLOPs and reaches FID 3.1-2.9, versus MaskGIT++ at 1.3-1.8k GFLOPs for FID 2.5-2.3, so generation becomes roughly 2.65-3x cheaper at similar quality.
  • The same schedule carries over to video: UCF101 generation is about 2.5x cheaper than a same-size MAGVIT-L run, with FVD 96.4 at about 1.7k GFLOPs versus 74.4 at about 4.3k.
  • Frame prediction on Kinetics600 gets the largest win: about 3.7x less compute, with guided MaGNeTS reaching FVD 9.6 versus 6.6 for the guided MAGVIT-L baseline.
  • Scaling analysis shows the compute-FID curve of the scheduled model is more favorable than uniform model scaling, and the gap widens with larger model sizes and higher resolutions.
  • Classifier-free guidance can be restricted to the final few decoding iterations without losing quality, which further cuts FLOPs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the authors only gesture at is token-dependent scheduling: route individual tokens to larger submodels only when their confidence is low, instead of switching the whole model on a fixed iteration grid; the paper's own unmasking-density analysis suggests such routing could concentrate compute on object boundaries.
  • The same coarse-to-fine curriculum may apply to diffusion sampling, where early steps set global layout and later steps add texture; if nested transformers can be adapted to continuous latents, the compute savings could transfer outside discrete-token architectures.
  • Because the method inherits its tokenizer, the reported FID gaps are partly a tokenizer property: using a stronger quantizer, as the paper notes MaskBit provides, could push MaGNeTS past the MaskGIT++ baseline at the same compute.
  • KV caching in parallel decoding is the assumption that makes the schedule work, so a deployment model could tune refresh frequency per sequence length, since refresh spikes are the visible overhead in the per-iteration GFLOP plot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. MaGNeTS proposes to reduce the inference cost of masked parallel decoding (MaskGIT/MAGVIT) by assigning variable-sized nested transformer submodels to different decode iterations, using smaller models early and larger models late, and by caching key-value pairs of unmasked tokens with an intermittent refresh at model-size switches. The method is evaluated on ImageNet 256x256 class-conditional image generation, UCF101 class-conditional video generation, and Kinetics600 frame prediction. Against the MaskGIT++/MAGVIT baselines, the paper reports 2.5-3.7x lower inference GFLOPs at FID/FVD penalties of roughly 0.6 FID point on ImageNet, ~22 FVD on UCF101, and ~3.6 FVD on Kinetics600, with a single TPUv5 wall-clock measurement showing a 2.5x images/s speedup on ImageNet XL.

Significance. The decode-time scaling idea is timely, and the empirical package is substantial: three tasks, a model-size scaling analysis, and an honest ablation (Table 4) showing that caching alone degrades FID from 2.5 to 3.4 and that refresh recovers most of the gap. The use of shared-parameter nested models means the compute reduction does not come at the cost of additional parameters, and the method is orthogonal to tokenizer improvements. However, the quantitative claim rests on a simplified GFLOPs model in Appendix D rather than on profiling for most configurations, and no code or weights are provided. If the GFLOPs accounting is corrected and independently verified, the contribution is publishable and likely to be useful to the masked-generation community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D, Table 9 (get_total_flops)] The cache update `num_cached = total_tokens - num_processed` is one iteration behind. For loop iteration i, `num_processed` is the number of masked tokens at the start of that iteration, i.e., after i completed iterations, but after the iteration executes the mask count corresponds to i+1 completed iterations. The cache should therefore be set from the mask count for the next iteration. As written, the tokens unmasked during iteration i are not added to `num_cached` until one iteration later, so the non-refresh iterations of MaGNeTS are counted as processing the previously unmasked tokens a second time. This inflates MaGNeTS's reported GFLOPs; because the error is conservative it does not reverse the qualitative conclusion, but it makes the exact 2.5-3.7x figures and the per-configuration GFLOPs in Tables 1-3 unreliable as stated. Please correct the update and recompute all GFLOPs.
  2. [Appendix D, Table 9 (get_flops)] The attention term is inconsistent with the nested-model description in Section 3. The `qkv` and `mlp` terms divide the feature dimension by `model_id`, reflecting the p-times downscaled head and MLP dimensions, but the attention term uses the full `hidden_size`. Since Section 3 states that Q, K, V features have dimension n_h * d_h / p, the attention FLOPs (QK^T and AV) should also scale by `hidden_size // model_id`. This overestimates MaGNeTS's cost for p=8,4,2 and is again conservative, but the pseudocode and the architecture description are in direct conflict. The corrected attention term will make the reported compute reductions larger and should be reported accurately.
  3. [Section 5 and Table 8] The only wall-clock measurement is Table 8 (ImageNet XL on a single TPUv5 chip, 22.5 vs 56.3 images/s, a 2.5x speedup). The upper end of the claimed 2.5-3.7x range, which covers UCF101 and Kinetics600, is supported only by the Appendix D FLOPs model. Given the two accounting issues above, the paper should provide at least one wall-clock timing for a video or frame-prediction configuration, or state clearly that the 3.7x figure is a theoretical FLOPs estimate rather than an end-to-end speedup.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The table reports only point estimates of FID. Given that the main image result is a comparison of FID 2.9 (MaGNeTS) vs 2.3 (MaskGIT++), confidence intervals or multiple-seed results would help the reader judge whether the quality drop is significant.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The symbol N is used for both the number of visual tokens (in Section 3, X in Z^N) and the number of nested models in Eq. (3); please use different symbols to avoid confusion.
  3. [Table 4] The column header 'Algorithm Baseline + Cache + Refresh Scheduled + Cache + Refresh' is ambiguous. Please expand it so the six result columns are unambiguously labeled.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (2)] The notation (m_{p_i})^{k_i} for 'model m executed for k_i iterations' is easily misread as an exponent; define it explicitly in words.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (5)] The hyperparameter default is given as bias=0.5 and scale=0.8, but Table 6 does not list STemp; please include these values in the table for completeness.
  6. [Appendix D, Table 9] The pseudo-code mutates `total_tokens` inside `get_total_flops` and leaves `num_heads` unused; add clarifying comments or restructure the code to make the FLOPs model easier to audit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the compute and quality claims are empirical and are validated against independent baselines and an explicit FLOPs model.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derivation chain in which an output is defined in terms of an input or in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central claims are empirical: MaGNeTS trains nested models and measures FID/FVD and inference GFLOPs against MaskGIT++ and MAGVIT baselines. The decode-time schedule and guidance hyperparameters are selected by ablations and held-out metrics, and the reported compute numbers come from the explicit pseudo-code in Appendix D rather than from the quality metric being predicted. The only notable self-citation is MatFormer (Kudugunta et al., 2023), used as the nesting mechanism, but this is prior art and not invoked to establish the paper's own empirical results; even if the nesting mechanism were taken as given, the contribution of scheduling and KV caching is still evaluated independently. The skeptic's concern about the cache-size update in the GFLOPs model is a correctness/accuracy issue, not circularity, because the compute count is not being defined in terms of the claimed outcome. The Limitations section acknowledges tokenizer dependence and inherited artifacts, which further indicates the results are treated as empirical rather than as consequences of the method by construction. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar of equating the prediction with its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method, being empirical, depends on a small set of domain assumptions (coarse-to-fine decoding, validity of caching mask-derived features, trainability of shared nested sub-models) rather than on free parameters fitted to the final result. The schedule and sampling hyperparameters are validation choices, not fitted constants, so they are listed as free parameters but do not introduce circularity.

free parameters (4)
  • Decode-time model schedule (k1,k2,k3,k4) = (3,3,3,3) for K=12; downscaling factors p in {8,4,2,1}
    Chosen by validation (Figure 7a) rather than derived; the central compute-gain numbers depend on this schedule.
  • Guidance scale (gs) = 65 for ImageNet, 5 for Kinetics600, 0 for UCF101
    Standard sampling hyperparameter tuned per dataset; needed to reproduce the reported FID/FVD numbers.
  • Sampling temperatures (bias, scale, mask temperature) = MaskTemp 6/5, bias=0.5, scale=0.8
    Sampling hyperparameters tuned per dataset; not part of the core method but required for exact replication.
  • Distillation weight alpha_i = Linearly decayed from 1 to 0 over training
    Training hyperparameter; the paper ablates only the endpoints (only ground truth vs only distillation).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Generation proceeds coarse-to-fine, so early decode iterations need less model capacity than later iterations.
    Supported empirically by Figures 3 and 4, but asserted as the motivation for the upscaling schedule; if false, the schedule loses its advantage.
  • domain assumption Key/value features computed for a masked token (mask embedding) remain usable as cached features after the token is assigned a real token id.
    The caching scheme stores KV from the iteration where the token was still masked; the paper does not prove this is a valid approximation, only ablate it (Table 4).
  • domain assumption Nested MatFormer sub-models with shared parameters can be trained jointly with progressive distillation to match or beat standalone models of the same size.
    Relies on MatFormer prior work plus the paper's Appendix C; central to the parameter-sharing claim.
  • standard math Standard transformer attention and MLP FLOP arithmetic as used in Table 9.
    The FLOP counting formula assumes linear scaling of QKV/MLP compute with the downscaling factor and ignores constant overheads.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Masked Generative Nested Transformers with Decode Time Scaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKJAOVPR

@misc{pith2026250200382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Masked Generative Nested Transformers with Decode Time Scaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKJAOVPR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00382}
}
abstract

Recent advances in visual generation have made significant strides in producing content of exceptional quality. However, most methods suffer from a fundamental problem - a bottleneck of inference computational efficiency. Most of these algorithms involve multiple passes over a transformer model to generate tokens or denoise inputs. However, the model size is kept consistent throughout all iterations, which makes it computationally expensive. In this work, we aim to address this issue primarily through two key ideas - (a) not all parts of the generation process need equal compute, and we design a decode time model scaling schedule to utilize compute effectively, and (b) we can cache and reuse some of the computation. Combining these two ideas leads to using smaller models to process more tokens while large models process fewer tokens. These different-sized models do not increase the parameter size, as they share parameters. We rigorously experiment with ImageNet256$\times$256 , UCF101, and Kinetics600 to showcase the efficacy of the proposed method for image/video generation and frame prediction. Our experiments show that with almost $3\times$ less compute than baseline, our model obtains competitive performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Class-conditional image generation on ImageNet256x256.. Comparing MaskGIT++ and MaGNeTS (size: L). size over the decoding iterations instead of using a single large model throughout. Operating on discrete tokens, we cache key-value pairs of unmasked tokens and reuse them in later iterations. A combined effect of these two tech￾niques leads to processing more tokens with smaller and fewer tokens with larger models. T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MaGNeTS Decoding. We start from the smallest nested model with an empty cache and gradually move to bigger models over the decoding iterations. We iterate using a particular sized model for a few iterations, before moving onto the next model size. As we cache the key-value pairs for the unmasked tokens, the KV cache size also increases over time. We also refresh the cache when we switch models, hence its dimension a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Unmasked Token Density visualization in each decoding iteration averaged over 50k generated samples on ImageNet. Yellow represents higher density. Each pixel represent a token from 16×16 latent token space. (See Appendix A for category-wise token density). factor. We choose four downscaled models C = 4, with p ∈ {1, 2, 4, 8} in this work. After attention computation, this gives us features that are also p times down… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nested Models at different decoding iterations. Dif￾ferent values of the downscaling factor p correspond to the nested models. The diameter of the blobs indicates #iterations. Our hypothesis is further motivated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Compute Comparison between uniform model schedule (MaskGIT) and MaG￾NeTS, for 12 decode iters. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 GFLOPs 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 FID ~3x Baseline Scheduled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Compute Scaling Curve. Genera￾tion performance vs compute for different model sizes. The blob size indicates parameter count. and loss function L, our training loss can be expressed as: Ltrain = 1 N (L(mN (X), Y) + N−1 ∑ i=1 αiL(mi(X), Y) + (1 − αi)L(mi(X), mi+1(X))) (…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scheduling Options. (a) This shows the compute-performance trade-off for different schedule options while always scaling up model size over generation iters. The four numbers for each point denote the number of iters each model size operates in the order of downsamplin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of token density unmasked in each iteration averaged over 10k generated samples on different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Inference GFLOPs per step for baseline and MaGNeTS. (b) generation performance (FID) on ImageNet vs Number of decoding iterations w/ guidance for different model scales. Note that we start from last decoding iteration. For example, ”No. of iterations w/ Guidance = …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Class-conditional Image Generation. More qualitative results on ImageNet. Comparing MaskGIT++ and MaGNeTS (size: L, epochs: 270). 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Class-conditional Video Generation on UCF101. 16-frame videos are generated at 128×128 resolution 25 fps. Every third frame is shown for each video. The classes from top to bottom are Lunges, Bench Press, Handstand Pushups, Cutting In Kitchen. MaskGIT++ MaGNeTS [PITH…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Failure cases. Similar to existing methods, our system can produce results with noticeable artifacts. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ELT: Elastic Looped Transformers for Visual Generation

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Weight-shared looped transformers trained with intra-loop self-distillation match MaskGIT-class FID/FVD at roughly 4x fewer parameters and support any-time inference across loop counts.

  2. MARch\'e: Fast Masked Autoregressive Image Generation with Cache-Aware Attention

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MARche accelerates masked autoregressive image generation by caching stable token projections and refreshing only attention-selected tokens, reaching up to 1.72x speedup with some loss in FID.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    Chang, H., Zhang, H., Jiang, L., Liu, C., and Freeman, W

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.01340. Chang, H., Zhang, H., Jiang, L., Liu, C., and Freeman, W. T. Maskgit: Masked generative image transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 11315–11325,

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    T., Rubinstein, M., et al

    Chang, H., Zhang, H., Barber, J., Maschinot, A., Lezama, J., Jiang, L., Yang, M.-H., Murphy, K., Freeman, W. T., Rubinstein, M., et al. Muse: Text-to-image genera- tion via masked generative transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00704,

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    Clark, A., Donahue, J., and Simonyan, K

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00227. Clark, A., Donahue, J., and Simonyan, K. Adversarial video generation on complex datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06571,

    arXiv 1907

  4. [8]

    org/abs/1810.04805

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1810.04805. Dhariwal, P. and Nichol, A. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:8780–8794,

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    Gu, S., Chen, D., Bao, J., Wen, F., Zhang, B., Chen, D., Yuan, L., and Guo, B

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.03638. Gu, S., Chen, D., Bao, J., Wen, F., Zhang, B., Chen, D., Yuan, L., and Guo, B. Vector quantized diffu- sion model for text-to-image synthesis,

    arXiv

  6. [11]

    Heusel, M., Ramsauer, H., Unterthiner, T., Nessler, B., and Hochreiter, S

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.14822. Heusel, M., Ramsauer, H., Unterthiner, T., Nessler, B., and Hochreiter, S. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30,

    arXiv

  7. [12]

    Ho, J., Jain, A., and Abbeel, P

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2207.12598. Ho, J., Jain, A., and Abbeel, P. Denoising diffusion proba- bilistic models. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 33:6840–6851,

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Diffusion models for video prediction and infilling

    H¨oppe, T., Mehrjou, A., Bauer, S., Nielsen, D., and Dittadi, A. Diffusion models for video prediction and infilling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07696,

    arXiv

Show all 45 references
  1. [15]

    H., Kamath, A., Peng, N., and Chang, K.-W

    Hu, W., Dou, Z.-Y ., Li, L. H., Kamath, A., Peng, N., and Chang, K.-W. Matryoshka query transformer for large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19315,

    arXiv

  2. [16]

    Scalable adaptive computation for iterative generation

    Jabri, A., Fleet, D., and Chen, T. Scalable adaptive computation for iterative generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.11972,

    arXiv

  3. [17]

    Kingma, D

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19985. Kingma, D. P. and Gao, R. Understanding the diffusion objective as a weighted integral of elbos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.00848, 2,

    arXiv

  4. [19]

    Lee, Y ., Kim, J.-Y ., Go, H., Jeong, M., Oh, S., and Choi, S

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12173. Lee, Y ., Kim, J.-Y ., Go, H., Jeong, M., Oh, S., and Choi, S. Multi-architecture multi-expert diffusion models,

    arXiv

  5. [20]

    Li, L., Li, H., Zheng, X., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Wang, R., Zheng, M., Pan, X., Chao, F., and Ji, R

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.04990. Li, L., Li, H., Zheng, X., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Wang, R., Zheng, M., Pan, X., Chao, F., and Ji, R. Autodiffusion: Training-free optimization of time steps and architectures for automated diffusion model acceleration,

    arXiv

  6. [21]

    Li, T., Tian, Y ., Li, H., Deng, M., and He, K

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10438. Li, T., Tian, Y ., Li, H., Deng, M., and He, K. Autoregres- sive image generation without vector quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11838, 2024a. Li, T., Tian, Y ., Li, H., Deng, M., and He, K. Autoregres- sive image generation withou...

    arXiv

  7. [22]

    Lou, A., Meng, C., and Ermon, S

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.09778. Lou, A., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. Discrete diffusion mod- eling by estimating the ratios of the data distribution. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learn- ing. Lu, C., Zhou, Y ., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., and Zhu, J. Dpm-...

    arXiv

  8. [23]

    Luc, P., Clark, A., Dieleman, S., Casas, D

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2206.00927. Luc, P., Clark, A., Dieleman, S., Casas, D. d. L., Doron, Y ., Cassirer, A., and Simonyan, K. Transformation-based adversarial video prediction on large-scale data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04035,

    2003 arXiv

  9. [24]

    Mirzadeh, S.-I., Farajtabar, M., Li, A., Levine, N., Mat- sukawa, A., and Ghasemzadeh, H

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2210.03142. Mirzadeh, S.-I., Farajtabar, M., Li, A., Levine, N., Mat- sukawa, A., and Ghasemzadeh, H. Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant,

    arXiv

  10. [25]

    Nash, C., Menick, J., Dieleman, S., and Battaglia, P

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1902.03393. Nash, C., Menick, J., Dieleman, S., and Battaglia, P. W. Generating images with sparse representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03841,

    1902 arXiv

  11. [26]

    Transframer: Arbitrary frame prediction with generative models

    Nash, C., Carreira, J., Walker, J., Barr, I., Jaegle, A., Ma- linowski, M., and Battaglia, P. Transframer: Arbitrary frame prediction with generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09494,

    arXiv

  12. [27]

    and Dhariwal, P

    Nichol, A. and Dhariwal, P. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2021a. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2102.09672. 10 MaGNeTS Nichol, A. Q. and Dhariwal, P. Improved denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. In International conference on machine learning, pp. 8162...

    arXiv

  13. [28]

    Peebles, W

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2307.12868. Peebles, W. and Xie, S. Scalable diffusion models with trans- formers,

    arXiv

  14. [29]

    Razavi, A., Van den Oord, A., and Vinyals, O

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2212.09748. Razavi, A., Van den Oord, A., and Vinyals, O. Generating diverse high-fidelity images with vq-vae-2. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32,

    arXiv

  15. [30]

    Saharia, C., Chan, W., Saxena, S., Li, L., Whang, J., Denton, E

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2112.10752. Saharia, C., Chan, W., Saxena, S., Li, L., Whang, J., Denton, E. L., Ghasemipour, K., Gontijo Lopes, R., Karagol Ayan, B., Salimans, T., et al. Photorealistic text-to-image dif- fusion models with deep language understanding. Ad- vances i...

    arXiv

  16. [31]

    Salimans, T., Goodfellow, I., Zaremba, W., Cheung, V ., Radford, A., and Chen, X

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2202.00512. Salimans, T., Goodfellow, I., Zaremba, W., Cheung, V ., Radford, A., and Chen, X. Improved techniques for train- ing gans,

    arXiv

  17. [33]

    Singer, U., Polyak, A., Hayes, T., Yin, X., An, J., Zhang, S., Hu, Q., Yang, H., Ashual, O., Gafni, O., et al

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2202.00273. Singer, U., Polyak, A., Hayes, T., Yin, X., An, J., Zhang, S., Hu, Q., Yang, H., Ashual, O., Gafni, O., et al. Make-a- video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14792,

    arXiv

  18. [34]

    Song, Y ., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M., and Sutskever, I

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2010.02502. Song, Y ., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M., and Sutskever, I. Con- sistency models,

    2010 arXiv

  19. [35]

    Soomro, K., Zamir, A

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2303.01469. Soomro, K., Zamir, A. R., and Shah, M. Ucf101: A dataset of 101 human actions classes from videos in the wild,

    arXiv

  20. [37]

    Tian, K., Jiang, Y ., Yuan, Z., Peng, B., and Wang, L

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2106.05945. Tian, K., Jiang, Y ., Yuan, Z., Peng, B., and Wang, L. Visual autoregressive modeling: Scalable image generation via next-scale prediction,

    arXiv

  21. [38]

    org/abs/2404.02905

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2404.02905. Unterthiner, T., van Steenkiste, S., Kurach, K., Marinier, R., Michalski, M., and Gelly, S. Fvd: A new metric for video generation

    arXiv

  22. [39]

    Wang, Z., Wang, J., Liu, Z., and Qiu, Q

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2412.15119. Wang, Z., Wang, J., Liu, Z., and Qiu, Q. Binary latent diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 22576– 22585,

    arXiv

  23. [40]

    Weber, M., Yu, L., Yu, Q., Deng, X., Shen, X., Cre- mers, D., and Chen, L.-C

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2202.05830. Weber, M., Yu, L., Yu, Q., Deng, X., Shen, X., Cre- mers, D., and Chen, L.-C. Maskbit: Embedding-free image generation via bit tokens,

    arXiv

  24. [41]

    11 MaGNeTS Yan, J

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.16211. 11 MaGNeTS Yan, J. N., Gu, J., and Rush, A. M. Diffusion models without attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 8239– 8249,

    arXiv

  25. [42]

    Yu, J., Li, X., Koh, J

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03337. Yu, J., Li, X., Koh, J. Y ., Zhang, H., Pang, R., Qin, J., Ku, A., Xu, Y ., Baldridge, J., and Wu, Y . Vector-quantized image modeling with improved vqgan. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04627,

    arXiv

  26. [43]

    G., Yang, M.-H., Hao, Y ., Essa, I., et al

    Yu, L., Cheng, Y ., Sohn, K., Lezama, J., Zhang, H., Chang, H., Hauptmann, A. G., Yang, M.-H., Hao, Y ., Essa, I., et al. Magvit: Masked generative video transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10459–10469, 2023a. ...

    arXiv

  27. [44]

    Representation alignment for generation: Training diffusion transformers is easier than you think, 2024c

    Yu, S., Kwak, S., Jang, H., Jeong, J., Huang, J., Shin, J., and Xie, S. Representation alignment for generation: Training diffusion transformers is easier than you think, 2024c. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06940. Yuan, Z., Zhang, H., Lu, P., Ning, X., Zhang, L., Zhao, T., Y...

    arXiv

  28. [45]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209. 09002. Zheng, H., Nie, W., Vahdat, A., and Anandkumar, A. Fast training of diffusion models with masked transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09305,

    arXiv

  29. [2012]

    Stanton, S., Izmailov, P., Kirichenko, P., Alemi, A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1212.0402. Stanton, S., Izmailov, P., Kirichenko, P., Alemi, A. A., and Wilson, A. G. Does knowledge distillation re- ally work?,

    arXiv

  30. [2016]

    Sauer, A., Schwarz, K., and Geiger, A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1606.03498. Sauer, A., Schwarz, K., and Geiger, A. Stylegan-xl: Scaling stylegan to large diverse datasets,

    arXiv

  31. [2018]

    Cai, M., Yang, J., Gao, J., and Lee, Y . J. Matryoshka multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17430, 2024a. Cai, R., Muralidharan, S., Heinrich, G., Yin, H., Wang, Z., Kautz, J., and Molchanov, P. Flextron: Many- in-one flexible large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv...

    arXiv

  32. [2019]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., and Fei-Fei, L. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 248–255. Ieee,

    2009

  33. [2020]

    J., Norouzi, M., and Salimans, T

    Ho, J., Saharia, C., Chan, W., Fleet, D. J., Norouzi, M., and Salimans, T. Cascaded diffusion models for high fidelity image generation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(47):1–33, 2022a. Ho, J., Salimans, T., Gritsenko, A., Chan, W., Norouzi, M., and Fleet, D. J. Video...

    arXiv

  34. [2021]

    Kudugunta, S., Kusupati, A., Dettmers, T., Chen, K., Dhillon, I., Tsvetkov, Y ., Hajishirzi, H., Kakade, S., Farhadi, A., Jain, P., et al

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2106.00132. Kudugunta, S., Kusupati, A., Dettmers, T., Chen, K., Dhillon, I., Tsvetkov, Y ., Hajishirzi, H., Kakade, S., Farhadi, A., Jain, P., et al. Matformer: Nested transformer for elastic inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07707,

    arXiv

  35. [2022]

    Brock, A

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2106.05237. Brock, A. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.11096,

    arXiv

  36. [2023]

    Beyer, L., Zhai, X., Royer, A., Markeeva, L., Anil, R., and Kolesnikov, A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.04248. Beyer, L., Zhai, X., Royer, A., Markeeva, L., Anil, R., and Kolesnikov, A. Knowledge distillation: A good teacher is patient and consistent,

    arXiv

  37. [2024]

    Gao, S., Zhou, P., Cheng, M.-M., and Yan, S

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.07679. Gao, S., Zhou, P., Cheng, M.-M., and Yan, S. Masked diffusion transformer is a strong image synthesizer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 23164–23173,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.