LinMorph: Learning to Morph Weights
for Efficient Video DiT Linearization

Better linearization starts with better initialization.
Learn how to transform pretrained attention weights into linear-attention modules, then recover video generation with fewer updates.

24 selected samples from LinMorph-14, converted from Wan2.1-T2V-1.3B.
Historical VBench evaluation videos · 14 GDN blocks · checkpoint step 8,000.

What does LinMorph make possible?

Recovery-update counts exclude mapper fitting. The quality reference is a published result; the speed result uses a separate long-video setting. See the experiments below.

Abstract

Post-hoc linearization is an attractive way to accelerate pretrained Video Diffusion Transformers (Video DiTs), yet existing methods largely treat the quality loss induced by attention replacement as a recovery problem. We show that a more fundamental bottleneck lies upstream: initialization. Random initialization discards pretrained knowledge, whereas manual weight reuse transfers it through rigid and incomplete source–target correspondences.

We introduce LinMorph, which recasts Video DiT linearization as a learnable softmax-to-linear weight transformation problem. Instead of copying predefined counterparts, LinMorph learns a cross-parameter morphism that lets each target Gated DeltaNet (GDN) parameter draw jointly from pretrained query, key, value, and output projections, including for parameters with no direct softmax counterpart. A single morphism is shared across layers and learned through local teacher alignment, while producing layer-specific initializations from their respective pretrained weights.

The resulting weights are then materialized as independent GDN modules for progressive distillation and joint recovery. Since the morphism operates in weight space rather than token space, it can be learned on short, low-resolution clips and directly reused at larger video scales. Across pretrained Video DiTs, LinMorph enables markedly faster recovery and better final generation quality than random initialization and heuristic weight reuse. Results show that efficient linearization depends not only on how a converted model is recovered, but critically on how pretrained knowledge is transferred before recovery.

Why learn the initialization?

Replacing softmax attention changes the operator and its parameterization. A GDN module has update gates, decay terms, short convolutions, and normalization parameters that do not have direct softmax counterparts. How pretrained knowledge enters these new parameters determines the starting point for recovery.

LinMorph learns a cross-parameter transformation: each target can draw jointly from the pretrained Q/K/V/O projections. A shared rule produces different initializations for different layers because their source weights differ.

Random initialization

Starts the replacement from scratch and asks recovery to reconstruct the pretrained functionality.

0.09483 block NMSE ↓

Manual weight copying

Reuses predefined counterparts, with incomplete coverage of the target operator’s parameters.

0.09446 block NMSE ↓

LinMorph initialization

Learns source mixing and target-specific construction, then refines the result with a shared residual.

0.01239 block NMSE ↓

Initialization fidelity before downstream recovery, after mapper fitting. Table 1: 64 HQ videos, 30 blocks, five timesteps; teacher-forced local block evaluation. Lower normalized mean squared error (NMSE) means closer alignment to the teacher. Section 3.2

Random initialization, manual copying, and LinMorph learned initialization, with recovery loss curves.
Learn how to initialize, then recover. LinMorph learns cross-parameter correspondences instead of discarding pretrained knowledge or imposing one-to-one copying. On the controlled Wan2.1 ablation, the learned initialization gives stronger alignment with half as many recovery updates. Figure 1 of the paper.

The learned correspondences matter. Permuting the learned source assignments for GDN-specific parameters increases block NMSE by 171.44%, even while preserving coefficient-vector norms. This intervention supports learning how information should transfer across parameter types. Figure 4 and Section 3.1

How LinMorph works

LinMorph pipeline: weight mapper learning, progressive GDN distillation, and full fine-tuning.
Three-stage conversion. A shared mapper generates layer-specific GDN initializations. The mapped weights are materialized as independent modules, progressively recovered, and jointly fine-tuned. Figure 2 of the paper.
  1. Weight mapper learning. Combine pretrained Q/K/V/O projections through source-conditioned mixing, target-space construction, and residual refinement. Fit the shared morphism through local teacher alignment.
  2. Progressive distillation. Materialize the mapped weights and progressively convert 0 → 7 → 14 → 21 blocks. Recover the replacements by matching the frozen teacher’s denoising predictions.
  3. Joint recovery. Fine-tune the hybrid DiT with the flow-matching objective, without teacher supervision. The mapper is discarded before inference; only the recovered hybrid DiT is used at runtime.

Stronger alignment with half the recovery updates

The controlled experiments hold the target architecture and recovery recipe fixed within each backbone. LinMorph reaches lower block error in half as many recovery updates as the longer-trained random and manual baselines.

Wan2.1 · 7 GDN blocks

Depth-rollout block fidelity · Table 2
InitializationUpdatesBlock NMSE ↓
Random3,0000.1168
Manual3,0000.0905
LinMorph1,5000.0525

Wan2.2 · 6 GDN blocks

Depth-rollout block fidelity · Table 2
InitializationUpdatesBlock NMSE ↓
Random2,5000.2148
Manual2,5000.1872
LinMorph1,2500.1476

At the same 1,500-update budget on Wan2.1, LinMorph lowers block NMSE by 61.4% versus manual copying and 65.5% versus random initialization. Its final-output NMSE is 0.0101, compared with 0.0230 and 0.0250, respectively.

These comparisons measure recovery updates, excluding the separate mapper-fitting stage. Wan2.2 uses a separately fitted mapper variant. The tables measure prediction fidelity, not final video benchmark scores. Table 2 and Section 4.2

Fit on short clips. Reuse at larger video scales.

The transformation acts on model weights, so its parameterization depends on the architecture rather than the number of video tokens. At a fixed architecture, the same fitted mapper and residual can be reused at a larger resolution and duration without further optimization.

FIT & EVALUATE17 frames · 256 × 448

Block NMSE: 0.01121

REUSE WITHOUT REFITTING81 frames · 480 × 832

Block NMSE: 0.01418

Cross-layer sharing provides another form of reuse: one learned transformation serves participating layers while each layer receives its own materialized GDN weights. After materialization, the replacements are independently trainable and no mapper execution is added to inference.

Cross-scale values are for the base + residual mapper in Table 13: 64 paired OpenVid video indices, five timesteps, and 30 blocks, for 9,600 teacher-forced local comparisons per setting. They measure initialization alignment before recovery, rather than generated-video quality. Appendix C.4.1

Results

Generation quality after conversion

LinMorph-14 reaches 82.16 on VBench and 55.11 on VBench-2.0 after 4,000 optimizer updates of final full-model fine-tuning. Its VBench total is within 0.33 points of the published Wan2.1 reference. LinMorph-21 retains an 81.85* VBench total while replacing 70% of the attention blocks. The LinMorph results use 50-step sampling.

ModelGDN blocksVBench ↑VBench-2.0 ↑
Wan2.1 reference†0 / 3082.4956.02
LinMorph-1414 / 3082.1655.11
LinMorph-2121 / 3081.85*52.13

Reported in Table 3 of the paper. Each model uses the same checkpoint across both benchmarks: microstep 8,000 for LinMorph-14 and 40,000 for LinMorph-21. *The 21-GDN VBench result includes the temporal-flickering prompt correction described in Appendix C.6. †The Wan2.1 values are published reference scores reproduced in the paper, rather than a matched-budget experiment. Evaluation settings and reference provenance are detailed in the paper.

Acceleration grows with video length

On an A800-80GB, the 21-GDN model achieves 1.47× end-to-end speedup at 321 frames, reducing generation time from 1,604.7 to 1,094.0 seconds. Attention-module speedup reaches 3.91× at 641 frames.

480 × 832, BF16, batch size 1, Wan2.1 with FlashAttention-2 as baseline. Attention and backbone measurements use three paired rounds; end-to-end uses one pair. At 81 frames, the measured end-to-end ratio is 0.78×; the reported acceleration is for longer videos. See Section 4.5 and Appendix C.7.

Figure 5: 21-GDN attention, backbone, and end-to-end speedup as video length increases.

Code & Models

Training and inference code are available in the GitHub repository. Download the recovered DiT checkpoints from Hugging Face, together with the original Wan2.1 text encoder, tokenizer, and VAE required for inference.

Installation guide · Training recipes · Evaluation protocol