UniCom: Unified Multimodal Understanding and Generation
via Compressed Continuous Representation

Yaqi Zhao1,3*, Wang Lin2,3*, Zijian Zhang3, Miles Yang3, Jingyuan Chen2†, Wentao Zhang1†, Zhao Zhong3, Liefeng Bo3,
1Peking University    2Zhejiang University    3Tencent Hunyuan
* Equal contribution    † Corresponding authors

Text-to-Image Generation Results

UniCom generates high-quality images from text prompts with exceptional controllability and semantic consistency.

Abstract

Current unified multimodal models typically rely on discrete visual tokenizers to bridge the modality gap. However, discretization inevitably discards fine-grained semantic information, leading to suboptimal performance in visual understanding tasks. Conversely, directly modeling continuous semantic representations (e.g., CLIP, SigLIP) poses significant challenges in high-dimensional generative modeling, resulting in slow convergence and training instability. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce UniCom, a unified framework that harmonizes multimodal understanding and generation via compressed continuous representation. We empirically demonstrate that reducing channel dimension is significantly more effective than spatial downsampling for both reconstruction and generation. Accordingly, we design an attention-based semantic compressor to distill dense features into a compact unified representation. Furthermore, we validate that the transfusion architecture surpasses query-based designs in convergence and consistency. Experiments demonstrate that UniCom achieves state-of-the-art generation performance among unified models. Notably, by preserving rich semantic priors, it delivers exceptional controllability in image editing and maintains image consistency even without relying on VAE.

Method

Method Overview
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed framework. For a controlled comparison, both pathways are built upon the same compressed representations and jointly optimized with cross-entropy loss (\(\mathcal{L}_{ce}\)) and flow matching loss (\(\mathcal{L}_{fm}\)).

We construct a compressed semantic latent space \(\tilde{\mathcal{Z}}\) via an attention-based compressor \(\mathcal{C}_\phi: \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{Z}}\), where \(\tilde{\mathcal{Z}} \subset \mathbb{R}^{N \times d}\) and \(d \ll D\). The compressor and diffusion decoder are jointly optimized with a reconstruction loss:

\[ \mathcal{L}_{\text{recon}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{flow}}(\mathbf{x}, \hat{\mathbf{x}}) + \lambda \cdot \mathcal{L}_{\text{perc}}(\mathbf{x}, \hat{\mathbf{x}}) \]

We explore two prediction pathways: Pathway I (Transfusion) integrates text and image generation in a single transformer using causal masking for text and bidirectional attention for image latents; Pathway II (MLLM) leverages a frozen pre-trained MLLM with learnable MetaQueries \(\mathcal{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times d}\) to extract semantic conditions.

For generation, we follow the Flow Matching objective. Given text condition \(\mathbf{c}\), time step \(t \sim \mathcal{U}[0, 1]\), and noise \(\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0, I)\), the interpolated latent and target velocity are:

\[ \tilde{\mathbf{z}}_t = t\tilde{\mathbf{z}}_1 + (1 - t)\epsilon, \quad \mathbf{v}_t = \tilde{\mathbf{z}}_1 - \epsilon \]

The model is trained to predict the velocity field with the loss:

\[ \mathcal{L}_{\text{FM}} = \mathbb{E}_{t, \mathbf{c}, \tilde{\mathbf{z}}_1, \epsilon} \left[ \|\mathbf{v}_t - \mathbf{v}_\theta(\tilde{\mathbf{z}}_t, t; \mathbf{c})\|_2^2 \right] \]

Experimental Results

Table 1: Image Generation Results

Image Generation Results on GenEval, DPG-Bench, and WISE. refers to methods using LLM rewriters on GenEval. Abbreviations for WISE attributes: Cult. (Cultural), Bio. (Biology), Phy. (Physics), Chem. (Chemistry).

Models GenEval DPG WISE
Single Two Count Colors Pos Col-Attr Overall Overall Cult. Time Space Bio. Phy. Chem. Overall
Generation-only Models
SD3-Medium 0.990.940.720.890.330.600.74 - -------
FLUX.1 [Dev] 0.980.930.750.930.680.650.82 84.00 0.480.580.620.420.510.350.50
Unified Multimodal Models
MetaQuery-XL ------0.80 - 0.560.550.620.490.630.410.55
Tar 0.990.920.830.850.800.650.84 84.19 -------
BLIP3-o ------0.84 - -------
UniWorld-V1 0.980.930.810.890.740.710.84 - 0.530.550.730.450.590.410.55
OmniGen2 0.990.960.740.980.710.750.86 83.57 -------
D-DiT 0.970.800.540.760.320.500.65 - -------
Show-o 0.980.800.660.840.310.500.68 - 0.280.400.480.300.460.300.35
Harmon 0.990.860.660.850.740.480.76 - 0.380.480.520.370.440.290.41
MUSE-VL ------0.57 - -------
Transfusion ------0.63 - -------
Emu3 ------0.66 81.60 0.340.450.480.410.450.270.39
Show-o2 1.000.870.580.920.520.620.76 86.14 -------
Janus-Pro 0.990.890.590.900.790.660.80 84.19 0.300.370.490.360.420.260.35
Mogao 1.000.970.830.930.840.800.89 84.33 -------
X-Omni 0.980.950.750.910.710.680.83 87.65 -------
Ming-UniVision 1.000.930.590.930.920.700.85 82.12 -------
BAGEL 0.980.950.840.950.780.770.88 85.07 0.440.550.680.440.600.390.52
UniCom (Ours) 0.980.940.810.910.820.770.87 85.92 0.550.560.730.580.660.470.58

Bold: best results. Underline: second-best.



Table 2: Image Editing Results

Comparison of image editing capabilities on ImgEdit-Bench, GEdit-Bench, KRIS-Bench and WorldEdit. For ImgEdit-Bench, performance is evaluated across nine distinct operation categories (e.g., 'Add', 'Adjust', 'Extract', 'Replace', 'Remove', 'Background', 'Style', 'Hybrid', and 'Action'). For GEdit-Bench, metrics include 'G-Semantic Consistency' (G-SC) and 'G-Perceptual Quality' (G-PQ). For KRIS-Bench, we report Factual (Fact.), Conceptual (Conc.), and Procedural (Proc.) knowledge scores.

Models ImgEdit-Bench GEdit-Bench KRIS-Bench WorldEdit
Add Adj. Ext. Rep. Rm. Bg. Sty. Hyb. Act. Overall G-SC G-PQ G-Overall Fact. Conc. Proc. Overall Overall
Generation-only Models
FLUX.1 Kontext [Pro] 4.254.152.354.563.574.264.573.684.634.00 7.027.606.56 57.2255.0646.6954.17 3.21
Qwen-Image 4.384.163.434.664.144.384.813.824.694.27 8.007.867.56 ---- -
Specialized Editing Models
Instruct-Pix2Pix 2.451.831.442.011.501.443.551.201.461.88 3.585.493.68 23.3325.5917.2822.82 2.44
MagicBrush 2.841.581.511.971.581.752.381.621.221.83 4.685.664.52 41.8439.2426.5437.15 2.14
AnyEdit 3.182.951.882.472.232.242.851.562.652.45 3.185.823.21 39.2641.8831.7438.55 2.09
Step1X-Edit 3.883.141.763.402.413.164.632.642.523.06 7.096.766.70 45.5248.0131.8243.29 -
Unified Multimodal Models
OmniGen 3.473.041.712.942.433.214.192.243.382.96 5.965.895.06 33.1128.0223.8928.85 2.52
Ming-Univision ---------- 6.046.865.54 ---- -
BAGEL 3.563.311.703.302.623.244.492.384.173.20 7.366.836.52 60.2655.8651.6956.21 2.76
UniWorld-V1 3.823.642.273.473.242.994.212.962.743.26 4.937.434.85 ---- -
OmniGen2 3.573.061.773.743.203.574.812.524.683.44 7.166.776.41 57.3644.2047.7949.71 2.51
TUNA 4.464.522.474.684.584.564.734.074.694.31 7.797.487.29 ---- -
UniCom (Ours) 4.364.043.304.634.404.244.793.544.694.22 8.067.337.32 74.6369.4865.3070.11 4.12

Bold: best results. Underline: second-best.

Image Editing Results

UniCom delivers exceptional controllability in image editing and maintains image consistency even without relying on VAE.

Sinlge Image Editing

Remove / Add / Extract

Remove Add Extract

Replace

Replace

Background

Background

Style Transfer

Style Transfer

Subject Driven

Subject Driven

Controllable Generation

Controllable Generation

Multi-element Composition

Multi element composition example

Intelligent Image Editing

Intelligent image editing example