TUNA: Taming Unified Visual Representations for Native Unified Multimodal Models

Conference: CVPR 2026
Paper: CVF Open Access
Area: Multimodal VLM
Keywords: Unified Multimodal Models, Unified Visual Representations, Flow Matching, VAE Latent Space, Image-Text Generation

TL;DR

TUNA cascades a VAE encoder and a semantic representation encoder to obtain a set of continuous unified visual representations compatible with both "understanding" and "generation." Combined with an autoregressive text head and a flow-matching generation head, a single native model at 1.5B/7B scale achieves SOTA results in image/video understanding, image/video generation, and image editing (MMStar 61.2, GenEval 0.90).

Background & Motivation

Background: Unified Multimodal Models (UMM) aim to perform both multimodal understanding and generation within a single model. Current mainstream approaches are divided into two categories: one uses decoupled representations (understanding uses semantic encoders like SigLIP, while generation uses VAE latent spaces), represented by BAGEL and Mogao; the other pursues unified representations where all tasks share a single visual encoding, represented by Chameleon, Transfusion, and Harmon.

Limitations of Prior Work: The decoupled approach requires stuffing two completely incompatible visual encoders into one model. For the same image, SigLIP features and Wan VAE latents mismatch in spatial compression (16× vs 8×), temporal compression (None vs 4×), and channel dimensions (1152 vs 16), forcing the use of MoE-style architectures which increase parameters and training/inference costs while introducing representation conflicts. The unified approach should be more efficient and elegant, but its actual performance often lags behind decoupled approaches: a single encoder (VQ-VAE or MAR) is naturally biased—favoring understanding leads to weak generation, and vice versa. Show-o2 attempts to mitigate this via "dual-path late-fusion" of SigLIP and VAE features, but the analysis in §3.4 reveals that the fused representation is heavily biased toward semantic features, limiting generation quality.

Key Challenge: Understanding tasks require high-level semantic features, while generation tasks require high-fidelity reconstructible latent spaces. A single encoder cannot satisfy both, and forced concatenation of two encoders introduces format conflicts. The fundamental problem is the lack of a unified visual representation that is both "semantic" and "reconstructible."

Key Insight: The authors observe several overlooked facts: ① Continuous representations (KL-VAE latent space) are superior to discrete ones for generation, and understanding models also prefer continuous semantic features; thus, unified representations should be built on continuous VAE latent spaces. ② Semantic features can assist generation (as proven by REPA and RAE). ③ VAE latents can already support semantic understanding (as seen in UniTok, TokLIP, etc.). Since the VAE latent space is viable for both directions, it should not be discarded; instead, another semantic encoder layer should be stacked on top of it to extract high-level features.

Core Idea: Directly cascade a representation encoder (SigLIP2) after the VAE encoder. The VAE preserves the reconstructible continuous latent space, while the semantic encoder extracts high-level semantics from it. This yields a unified visual representation "expressive enough" for both understanding and generation. Understanding follows autoregressive text generation, and generation follows flow matching, with end-to-end joint training throughout.

Method

Overall Architecture

TUNA is a native UMM (jointly pre-trained on both understanding and generation from scratch, rather than stitching pre-trained models with connectors). The data flow for a single forward pass is: Input image/video → 3D Causal VAE encoder compressed into continuous latents → Noised latents via flow-matching → Modified SigLIP2 encoder for semantic extraction → MLP connector projected into unified visual representation \(z\) → Concatenated with text tokens and fed into the LLM decoder → Two task-specific exits: Understanding uses a language modeling head for next-token prediction; Generation uses a flow-matching head to predict the velocity field for denoising.

The switch between understanding and generation is solely the noise timestep \(t\): for understanding, \(t=1\) is fixed to degrade noised latents to clean ones; for generation, \(t\) is randomly sampled from \([0,1]\) to train the model to recover images from noise. The same representation and decoder backbone are used, toggling between tasks via \(t\) and attention masks.

%%{init: {'flowchart': {'rankSpacing': 24, 'nodeSpacing': 28, 'padding': 6, 'wrappingWidth': 400}}}%%
flowchart TD
    A["Input Image / Video X"] --> B["3D Causal VAE Encoder<br/>Space 16× Time 4× Compression"]
    B --> C["Cascaded Unified Visual Representation<br/>VAE Latent Noising → SigLIP2 → MLP"]
    C -->|Video| D["Video Window Attention<br/>4-frame Independent Window Encoding"]
    C --> E["Concatenate Text Tokens + Timestep Token"]
    D --> E
    E --> F["LLM Decoder with Dual Output Heads<br/>Text Causal Mask / Visual Bidirectional Mask"]
    F -->|Understanding t=1| G["Language Modeling Head<br/>Autoregressive Text"]
    F -->|Generation t∈[0,1]| H["Flow Matching Head<br/>Predict Velocity Field for Denoising"]

Key Designs

1. Cascaded Unified Visual Representation: Stacking a semantic encoder directly after the VAE encoder for a dual-task representation

This is the core of TUNA, addressing the "single encoder bias and dual encoder format conflict" pain point. The approach is counter-intuitively simple: given input \(X\), it is first compressed into continuous latent \(x_1\) by the 3D Causal VAE of Wan 2.2 (16× spatial, 4× temporal downsampling); then, semantic features are extracted by a SigLIP2 visual encoder \(\Phi\) on this latent; finally, a two-layer MLP connector outputs the unified representation \(z=\mathrm{MLP}(\Phi'(x_t))\). A key engineering change involves replacing SigLIP2's original 16×16 patch embedding with a randomly initialized 1×1 patch embedding layer (denoted as \(\Phi'\)) because the VAE has already compressed the image by 16×, and a further 16×16 patch sequence would be too short.

Why is this effective? Contrasting with Show-o2's late-fusion (where VAE and semantic encoders run independently and fuse at the final layer), CKNNA alignment analysis in §3.4 shows that late-fusion causes the final representation to inherit almost exclusively from the semantic branch. TUNA allows the semantic encoder to perform deep fusion layer-by-layer on the VAE latents, resulting in a representation balanced between SigLIP2 (semantic reference, CKNNA > 0.5) and SD3-Medium (generation reference).

2. Shared Latent Noising + Timestep Condition: Integrating generation into the same representation via Flow Matching

Addressing the tension between "clean features for understanding" and "noisy features for generation," TUNA does not create a separate input for generation. Instead, it interpolates noise into the same VAE latent following flow-matching rules:

\[x_t = t\,x_1 + (1-t)\,x_0,\quad t\in[0,1],\ x_0\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1)\]

During training, \(t\) is sampled randomly for generation and fixed at \(t=1\) for understanding (where \(x_t=x_1\), the clean latent). Since the semantic encoder \(\Phi'\) consumes \(x_t\), both tasks share the same representation path, differing only in noise level. For generation, a timestep token representing \(t\) is prepended to \(z\) to inform the decoder of the noise intensity. This design allows gradients from generation to backpropagate to the representation encoder, ensuring a truly unified representation shaped by both objectives.

3. Video Window Attention: Folding frame dimensions into batch dimensions to avoid sequence explosion

To address efficiency issues with long video sequences, the video latent \(x_t\in\mathbb{R}^{b\times c\times f\times h\times w}\) is rearranged by folding the frame dimension \(f\) into the batch dimension:

\[\bar{x}_t=\mathrm{rearrange}(x_t,\ b\,c\,f\,h\,w\to (b f)\,c\,h\,w)\]

\[\bar{z}_v=\mathrm{MLP}(\Phi'(\bar{x}_t)),\quad z_v=\mathrm{rearrange}(\bar{z}_v,\ (b f)\,d\to b\,(f d))\]

This enables the semantic encoder to perform attention independently on each 4-frame window (the temporal compression unit of the VAE). While windows do not interact during encoding, efficiency improves significantly, allowing the 1.5B decoder to handle video generation.

4. Dual-Head LLM Decoder: Causal mask for text and bidirectional mask for vision

To allow a single decoder to handle both autoregressive and diffusion-like tasks, unified representation \(z\) and text tokens are concatenated and fed into a Qwen2.5 decoder. The attention mask shifts based on modality: text tokens use a causal mask, while visual tokens use a bidirectional mask. The output splits into two paths: understanding passes through a language modeling head to predict text tokens; generation/editing feeds the complete token sequence into a randomly initialized flow-matching head to predict the denoising velocity field. This head reuses the decoder architecture and injects timestep conditions via AdaLN-Zero.

Loss & Training

A three-stage progressive training strategy adapts components to dual tasks:

• Stage 1 (Unified Representation + Flow Matching Pre-training): Freezes the LLM decoder and trains only the representation encoder and flow-matching head using image captioning and text-to-image (T2I) objectives. Captioning aligns the encoder with strong semantic targets, while T2I initializes the flow-matching head.
• Stage 2 (Full Model Continued Pre-training): Unfreezes the LLM decoder for end-to-end training. Image instruction following, image editing, and video captioning data are added to expand capabilities.
• Stage 3 (Supervised Fine-Tuning - SFT): Refines the model with image editing, image/video instruction following, and high-quality generation data at a lower learning rate (\(2\times10^{-5}\)).

Data scale: 177M image-text pairs + 13M FineVision dialogue samples + 2M OmniEdit samples + 10M high-quality SFT pairs for images; 10M video-description pairs + 1.6M LLaVA-Video instruction samples for videos. The 7B variant did not use video data due to cost.

Key Experimental Results

Main Results

On the understanding side, TUNA achieves SOTA across 9 benchmarks at both 1.5B and 7B scales, outperforming larger composite UMMs:

Scale	Model	MMStar	RealWorldQA	ChartQA	OCRBench
1.5B	Show-o2	43.4	56.5	40.0	24.5
1.5B	TUNA	54.6	62.5	82.1	71.9
7B	Show-o2	56.6	64.7	52.3	32.4
7B	TUNA	61.2	66.1	85.8	74.3

On the generation side, it leads concurrent methods (including decoupled models like BAGEL and Mogao):

Benchmark	Task	TUNA-1.5B	TUNA-7B	Comparison SOTA
GenEval	Image Gen	0.88	0.90	Mogao-7B 0.89
DPG-Bench	Image Gen	86.03	86.76	Show-o2-7B 86.14
VBench	Video Gen (1.5B Dec)	84.06	—	Show-o2-1.5B 81.34
ImgEdit	Image Editing	—	4.31	BAGEL-14B 3.20

Ablation Study

Core ablation (Table 6, 1.5B lightweight version, 2-stage training) comparing visual representation designs:

ID	Rep Design	Data	MMMU	SEED	GenEval	DPG
6	Decoupled (SigLIP2 + VAE)	Und & Gen	37.2	61.4	78.3	83.50
7	TUNA (SigLIP)	Und & Gen	36.3	64.6	76.9	83.10
8	TUNA (SigLIP2)	Und & Gen	38.1	66.5	79.4	84.20
9	TUNA (DINOv3)	Und & Gen	37.3	65.6	78.9	84.08
2	TUNA (SigLIP2)	Und Only	37.6	62.9	—	—
4	TUNA (SigLIP2)	Gen Only	—	—	77.8	83.33

Key Findings

• Unified > Decoupled: Model 8 (Unified TUNA) outperforms Model 6 (Decoupled) across all metrics, proving that multiple visual representations in one model cause conflict.
• Stronger Encoders Help: SigLIP2 and DINOv3 outperform SigLIP. SigLIP2 was chosen for its balance of performance and efficiency.
• Understanding-Generation Synergy: Model 8 (dual-task) exceeds Model 2 (understanding only) and Model 4 (generation only), showing that joint training on a unified representation leads to mutual task enhancement.
• Why it Beats Show-o2: CKNNA analysis shows TUNA's representation aligns more balancedly with both semantic and generation references, whereas Show-o2 is heavily biased toward the semantic branch.

Highlights & Insights

• The cascade of VAE + Semantic Encoder is clever: It uses existing modules but cascades them with a 1×1 patch embedding to solve format conflicts—a "simple yet effective" solution.
• Timestep \(t\) as a switch: Using \(t=1\) for understanding and \(t \in [0,1]\) for generation seamlessly embeds "diffusion" into an "autoregressive" framework without architectural redundancy.
• CKNNA Analysis: Provides a quantitative way to prove why deep fusion beats late-fusion, offering a methodological tool for representation alignment.
• Video Window Attention: By folding dimensions, it allows small decoders to handle video tasks, which is highly practical for resource-constrained scenarios.

Limitations & Future Work

• Inconsistent Video Scaling: The 7B variant lacks video training; hence unified representation scalability for massive video data remains untested.
• Inter-window Dependencies: Video window attention might weaken long-term temporal dependencies since windows are encoded independently.
• Data Dependency: The reliance on vast in-house data (177M images) makes reproduction difficult and obscures the exact architectural contribution versus data scaling.
• Cold-start Flow Matching Head: The generation head is trained from scratch; exploring pre-trained diffusion weights for initialization could improve efficiency.

Related Work & Insights

• vs Show-o2: Show-o2 uses late-fusion to merge VAE and semantic features at the end, while TUNA uses deep fusion layer-by-layer. TUNA's balanced representation leads to superior performance across all benchmarks.
• vs BAGEL / Mogao: These use MoE-style architectures with higher parameter counts and potential conflicts; TUNA proves that a single representation space is more efficient and effective.
• vs REPA / RAE: While REPA/RAE show that semantic alignment helps generation, TUNA generalizes this "semantic-assisting-generation" insight to a full unified multimodal framework.

Rating

• Novelty: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
• Experimental Thoroughness: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
• Writing Quality: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
• Value: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Related Papers

• [CVPR 2026] DuetSVG: Unified Multimodal SVG Generation with Internal Visual Guidance
• [CVPR 2026] GGBench: A Geometric Generative Reasoning Benchmark for Unified Multimodal Models
• [CVPR 2026] Customized Visual Storytelling with Unified Multimodal LLMs
• [ICCV 2025] Harmonizing Visual Representations for Unified Multimodal Understanding and Generation
• [CVPR 2026] Unified Personalized Understanding, Generating and Editing