Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Attention-Free and Lightweight Token Reduction for Efficient Vision-Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single pass over visual-token activations — no attention maps, no pairwise comparisons, no training — can keep a vision-language model near full accuracy while dropping two-thirds of its visual tokens.

desk verdict A clearly written, cheap, training-free token-reduction method with solid benchmark numbers; the entropy mechanism is plausible but not rigorously validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13500 v1 pith:JF6KCGBF submitted 2026-07-15 cs.CV

Xuanyi Hao , Zuoyuan Zhang , Zhibo Wang , Xiaoyi Pang , Jiahui Hu , Jiacheng Du , Shuguo Zhuo This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords vision-languagemodelsvisualtokenreductionRényientropytraining-freeinferenceattention-freepruningedgedeploymentacceleration
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

ALTR is a plug-in module that sits between a vision encoder and a language model, reducing N visual tokens to a budget K in one shot. It scores each token's importance by the second-order Rényi entropy of its normalized channel magnitudes, keeping the top K1, and then enforces diversity by sorting the remaining tokens by the cosine similarity between each token and its own transform through the encoder's final MLP, stride-sampling along that order. The whole selection needs no attention maps, no pairwise token comparisons, and no fine-tuning, with claimed complexity O(ND + N log N). On a widely used open vision-language model, cutting 576 tokens to 192 retains 98.86% of average benchmark performance; cutting to 64 retains 94.52%. If correct, this makes aggressive visual compression cheap enough for edge devices.

What carries the argument

Two scalar signals carry the method. First, the second-order Rényi entropy H2(x) = −log Σ_j p_j², with p_j = |x_j| / Σ_k |x_k|, converts a token's channel magnitudes into an importance score: higher entropy means the token's activation is spread over more dimensions and is read as less degenerate. Second, the transformation-induced consistency signal s_i = cos(x'_i, x''_i), where x''_i is the output of the final MLP applied to x'_i, orders tokens so that semantically similar tokens cluster; stride-based sampling over that order selects a diverse subset. These two signals are fused by a ratio λ (K1 importance tokens, K2 diversity tokens), yielding one-shot selection at O(ND + N log N) time.

What would settle it

A concrete check: take a fixed set of images, compute ALTR's per-token entropy ranks, and compare them with per-token importance ranks derived from the language model's attention weights over the same images; if the rank correlation is near zero, the heuristic is not capturing what attention would. Additionally, running ALTR at a 64-token budget on a dense-OCR or fine-grained counting benchmark and comparing against random token selection would reveal whether the entropy signal carries task-relevant information or mostly reflects generic activation dispersion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a token's intrinsic activation statistics carry enough signal to replace attention-based importance estimation. By normalizing the absolute values of a token's feature channels into a probability distribution and computing its second-order Rényi entropy, high-entropy tokens — those that activate many latent factors — are treated as informative and retained. For diversity, the paper exploits that the vision encoder's final MLP maps similar tokens to similar directional changes: the cosine similarity between a token before and after that MLP is a scalar ordering that places similar tokens close together, so striding along the sorted list yields broad coverage. The

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a token whose raw channel activations are spread more evenly across dimensions (higher Rényi entropy) is genuinely more informative for whatever the language model will ask, so that the entropy ranking actually tracks downstream reasoning value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cutting 576 visual tokens to 192 (two-thirds reduction) keeps 98.86% of the full-token average performance across four standard benchmarks on a common open VLM, with no training.
  • At 64 tokens (88.9% reduction) the method still holds 94.52% of full-token performance, degrading more gracefully than attention-based and similarity-based baselines reported in the paper.
  • The reduction module adds only about 4 million FLOPs and roughly 0.6 ms on the tested GPU at the 192-token budget, against tens or hundreds of millions of FLOPs for pairwise-similarity alternatives.
  • Because the method never materializes attention maps, it can be combined with attention kernels that skip materialization; the paper reports about 5x vision-module speedup and 3x prefill speedup when such kernels are enabled.
  • On an edge GPU board with a 16 GB memory cap, keeping 128 or 64 visual tokens extends the longest OOM-free generation length from 768 to 1536 tokens.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The entropy heuristic is not derived from downstream task needs; a natural extension, untested in the paper, is to verify whether high-entropy tokens align with tokens that the language model's own attention would rank as important — if they diverge on OCR-heavy or counting tasks, the method's edge over random selection may shrink there.
  • The paper's ablation at 128 tokens shows removing the importance stage hurts far more than removing the diversity stage (about 5% versus 0.8% average), which suggests the diversity stage is a secondary correction; an untested implication is that the balance parameter λ could be made budget-dependent, shifting more weight to importance at extreme compression.
  • Since both signals come from the vision encoder's forward pass, the method should transfer to any VLM whose encoder has a final MLP; one could in principle apply it at multiple encoder layers to build hierarchical budgets, though the paper does not attempt this.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ALTR, a training-free, attention-free token-reduction module for vision-language models. ALTR selects a compact set of visual tokens by combining two heuristics: an importance score computed as the second-order Rényi entropy of L1-normalized per-channel activation magnitudes (Stage I), and a diversity criterion based on sorting tokens by the cosine similarity between pre- and post-final-MLP representations, followed by stride-based sampling (Stage II). The method is evaluated on LLaVA-v1.5 at 192, 128, and 64 retained tokens, on LLaVA-NeXT on GQA, and on Qwen2.5-VL on TextVQA, reporting favorable retention relative to attention-based and similarity-based baselines. Additional experiments cover FLOPs/CUDA time, FlashAttention compatibility, and an edge-deployment memory study on Jetson AGX Orin. The central empirical claim is that ALTR preserves near-full VLM accuracy under aggressive token compression, e.g., 98.86% average retention at 192 tokens, 97.95% at 128 tokens, and 94.52% at 64 tokens on LLaVA-v1.5, while introducing lower overhead than VisionZip and VisPruner.

Significance. If the reported results hold, ALTR is a practically attractive plug-and-play method for edge VLM deployment: it requires no training, no attention-map access, and no pairwise token comparisons, and the measured CUDA times are substantially lower than the Before-LM baselines. The paper contains a broad set of comparisons, a clear algorithm description, an ablation study showing both components contribute, and a hardware-level testbed experiment. The main limitation is that the two heuristic signals are not validated against independent importance/diversity measures; because the ablation shows the importance stage is load-bearing, the paper's mechanistic story is not yet fully supported. Nonetheless, the empirical benchmark comparison itself is well reported and, with additional validation, the contribution would be solid.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-A, Eqs. (3)-(4) and V-F] The Stage-I importance criterion is load-bearing, but the paper does not provide evidence that the dispersion of absolute channel magnitudes tracks task-relevant visual information. H2(x_i) is invariant to channel permutation and sign, so it measures only the shape of the magnitude vector, not which semantic components are active. The ablation (Fig. 3) shows that removing Stage I reduces average retention from 97.95% to 92.96%, so this is not a negligible design detail. Please add a correlation analysis between H2 rankings and an independent importance signal (e.g., attention-based or gradient-based importance) on a sample of inputs, or compare Stage I against random/uniform importance selection while keeping the diversity stage fixed. Without such a check, the strong retention numbers could be attributed largely to LLM robustness to subsampling rather than to the entropy criterion.
  2. [IV-B, Eq. (6) and Algorithm 1] The diversity stage relies on the claim that sorting tokens by the scalar cosine similarity s_i between pre- and post-MLP representations groups semantically similar tokens, and that stride sampling over this order yields broad feature-space coverage. This is an unproven one-dimensional projection: tokens with very different features can have identical s_i, and the sorted order does not necessarily reflect proximity in the original feature space. The ablation shows w/o Div drops by 0.83%, so the mechanism contributes, but it is not validated. Please provide a direct measurement of pairwise feature diversity of the selected set compared with alternatives (e.g., random selection, importance-only selection, or attention-based diversity), or show empirically that the s_i ordering correlates with feature-space neighborhood structure.
  3. [V-C, Table II] The efficiency claim is central, but the FLOPs comparison is not fully transparent. The paper states that non-arithmetic operations such as topk, argsort, and gather are excluded from FLOPs but are reflected in CUDA time. For a fair comparison, please specify exactly which operations are counted in FLOPs for each method (including VisionZip and VisPruner), and report repeated-run variability or error bars for the CUDA-time measurements. As written, the 0.579 ms CUDA time supports the qualitative conclusion, but the FLOPs numbers alone are not directly comparable because of differing exclusion policies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [I and V-B] The conclusion claims the method can 'in some cases even improve' over the full-token model, but Table I shows no normalized score above 100%; the best is GQA at exactly 100.00%. Please qualify this claim.
  2. [V-C, Table II] The CUDA-time numbers in Table II are on an RTX 5880, while Table IV reports reduction times on Jetson AGX Orin. Please state the hardware and profiling conditions for each table to avoid confusion.
  3. [V-G, Fig. 5] The y-axis label 'Accuracy (%)' should be 'Normalized retention (%)' or 'Relative performance (%)' to match the normalized scores reported elsewhere.
  4. [V-G] The sentence 'all approaches involving a balancing hyperparameter adopt the same value of λ' is ambiguous: specify which baselines have such a hyperparameter and what value is used. If this applies only to ALTR, rephrase.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typographical/formatting issues: 'LLaV A' appears in Tables I, II, IV and elsewhere, and should be 'LLaVA'. Also, 'VScan' in footnote [14] is not cited in the text; either cite or remove.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: ALTR is an empirical, training-free heuristic evaluated on external benchmarks; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmark comparison, not a derivation whose conclusion is contained in its premises. Token importance is operationalized by Rényi entropy (Eq. 4) and diversity by cosine consistency (Eq. 6); both are then assessed against external benchmark accuracy (MME, TextVQA, ScienceQA, GQA) and on other VLMs (LLaVA-NeXT, Qwen2.5-VL). No parameter is fitted to the test benchmarks: λ is a preset balancing hyperparameter shared with baselines, and the top-K selection is deterministic. The entropy and consistency signals are heuristic assumptions about what makes tokens useful (Section IV-A and IV-B), not definitions of the evaluation metric, so the retention numbers are not forced by construction. Self-citations (refs [5]–[8], [12]) support general background claims about edge computing and visual-token volume; they carry no load-bearing step in the selection mechanism. The statements that "higher entropy corresponds to richer information" and that "sorting by s_i places similar tokens close" are empirical/interpretive assertions, not tautologies; they could fail, which is exactly why the benchmark comparisons and ablations are meaningful evidence. Thus there is no circular step that reduces a prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on two unproven heuristics about pretrained vision encoders: entropy over channel magnitudes tracks informativeness, and sorted MLP-consistency scores organize tokens by semantic similarity. No fitted model parameters are introduced, but the balance λ is a hand-chosen hyperparameter whose exact value is not reported, and the 'latent semantic components' interpretation is an invented conceptual gloss without external evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • λ (importance/diversity balance) = not reported; varied in Fig. 5 over {0, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 1}
    Controls the split K1 = λK, K2 = (1-λ)K between importance-selected and diversity-selected tokens. The paper says all methods use 'the same value of λ' but never states the value used for the main tables, so the exact experimental configuration is not reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper L1-normalized channel magnitudes form a distribution over latent semantic components, so second-order Rényi entropy measures token informativeness.
    Section IV-A, Eqs. (3)-(4). No evidence is given that feature channels correspond to independent semantic factors or that high entropy tracks task-relevant content. This is the core importance heuristic.
  • domain assumption Tokens with similar semantics yield similar MLP-transformation consistency scores, so sorting by s_i groups semantically similar tokens.
    Section IV-B, Eq. (6) and Algorithm 1. This depends on continuity/geometry of the pretrained final-layer MLP and is asserted rather than proven; if the ordering does not correlate with semantic similarity, the diversity stage fails.
  • domain assumption Stride-based sampling from the sorted consistency-score list ensures diverse visual coverage.
    Algorithm 1 lines 13-15. Assumes s_i is a meaningful one-dimensional semantic axis along which uniform sampling gives broad coverage; no formal guarantee is provided.
  • domain assumption Pre-MLP and post-MLP activations of the vision encoder's final layer are available from the standard forward pass at no additional computational cost.
    Section IV-B. Standard inference does not normally retain pre-MLP activations; hooks or modified forwards are needed, and the associated memory overhead is not counted in the efficiency analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • latent semantic components as per-channel feature factors
    purpose: Interpretive justification for treating L1-normalized activation magnitudes as a probability distribution over semantic factors in Eqs. (3)-(4).
    The paper provides no falsifiable or external evidence that individual channels correspond to discrete semantic components. The entropy computation works as a dispersion measure regardless, but the semantic interpretation is unverified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attention-Free and Lightweight Token Reduction for Efficient Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JF6KCGBF

@misc{pith2026260713500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attention-Free and Lightweight Token Reduction for Efficient Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JF6KCGBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13500}
}
read the original abstract

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance in multimodal understanding, yet remain challenging to deploy on resource-constrained edge devices due to the substantial computational overhead of processing numerous visual tokens. Token reduction is a promising direction for accelerating VLMs inference, but existing approaches either rely on attention maps that are incompatible with modern acceleration frameworks or depend on computationally intensive pairwise similarity comparisons, which undermine scalability and negate their practical benefits in deployment. In this paper, we propose an attention-free and lightweight token reduction framework as a plug-and-play module for VLMs, which preserves both important and diverse tokens to produce a compact visual representation. First, to enable attention-free importance estimation, we adopt an information-theoretic perspective and quantify token information using a novel entropy-based criterion, retaining those with more expressive and less degenerate feature representations. Second, to ensure diverse visual coverage in a lightweight manner, we introduce a transformation-induced consistency signal where similar tokens yield similar signals, such that sorting by this signal places similar tokens close to each other and enables stride-based selection to produce a diverse token set. Extensive experiments across multiple VLMs benchmarks demonstrate that our framework achieves a favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-off, maintaining competitive performance under aggressive compression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13500 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Framework of ALTR. A. Stage I: Importance-Aware Token Selection via Renyi ´ Entropy The goal of Stage I is to identify visually informative tokens that contribute substantial semantic content to downstream multimodal reasoning. Different from approaches that utilize attention maps to guide token selection, we find that tokens with richer and more uniform feature activations tend to encode im￾portant visual patte… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance on LLaVA-Next of 320 tokens, ALTR achieves 59.28% accuracy, demonstrating graceful degradation and significantly outperforming Pyra￾midDrop (49.86%) while consistently exceeding VisionZip (58.65%), VisPruner (58.95%), and MustDrop (57.36%). We also conduct experiments on Qwen2.5-VL-7B[49] on the TextVQA dataset under the same reduction configurations. Similar to the observations on LLaVA-NeXT, ALTR consi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ablation study results. To further illustrate the effect of each component, we provide qualitative token selection visualizations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative visualization of retained visual tokens in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity of our method to the balancing coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,

    G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, J.-B. Alayrac, J. Yu, R. Soricut, J. Schalkwyk, A. M. Dai, A. Hauth, K. Milli- canet al., “Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks,

    Z. Chen, J. Wu, W. Wang, W. Su, G. Chen, S. Xing, M. Zhong, Q. Zhang, X. Zhu, L. Luet al., “Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2024, pp. 24 185–24 198

    2024

  3. [3]

    Qwen2- VL:enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution,

    P. Wang, S. Bai, S. Tan, S. Wang, Z. Fan, J. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ge, Y . Fan, K. Dang, M. Du, X. Ren, R. Men, D. Liu, C. Zhou, J. Zhou, and J. Lin, “Qwen2- VL:enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    BLIP- 2:bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen 11 image encoders and large language models,

    J. Li, D. Li, S. Savarese, and S. Hoi, “BLIP- 2:bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen 11 image encoders and large language models,” inProc. of ICML, 2023, pp. 19 730–19 742

    2023

  5. [5]

    Cost-efficient and secure federated learning for edge computing,

    Z. Zhang, L. Wu, Z. Wang, J. Hu, C. Ma, and Q. Liu, “Cost-efficient and secure federated learning for edge computing,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 13 615–13 632, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    To- wards online privacy-preserving computation offloading in mobile edge computing,

    X. Pang, Z. Wang, J. Li, R. Zhou, J. Ren, and Z. Li, “To- wards online privacy-preserving computation offloading in mobile edge computing,” inProc. of IEEE INFOCOM, 2022, pp. 1179–1188

    2022

  7. [7]

    Aflora: Adap- tive federated fine-tuning of large language models with resource-aware low-rank adaption,

    Y . Zhou, X. Pang, and Z. Wang, “Aflora: Adap- tive federated fine-tuning of large language models with resource-aware low-rank adaption,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24773, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Towards efficient edge learning for large models in heterogeneous resource-limited environments,

    D. Liu, Z. Wang, X. Pang, Y . Sun, J. Hu, P. Sun, and Y . Hu, “Towards efficient edge learning for large models in heterogeneous resource-limited environments,” inProc. of IEEE BigCom, 2023, pp. 223–230

    2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gellyet al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” in Proc. of ICLR, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inProc. of ICML, 2021, pp. 8748– 8763

    2021

  3. [11]

    Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training,

    X. Zhai, B. Mustafa, A. Kolesnikov, and L. Beyer, “Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF ICCV, 2023, pp. 11 975–11 986

    2023

  4. [12]

    Tap-vits: Task-adaptive pruning for on- device deployment of vision transformers,

    Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, X. Pang, Q. Zhang, X. Hao, S. Zhuo, and P. Sun, “Tap-vits: Task-adaptive pruning for on- device deployment of vision transformers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02437, 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision- language models,

    L. Chen, H. Zhao, T. Liu, S. Bai, J. Lin, C. Zhou, and B. Chang, “An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision- language models,” inProc. of ECCV, 2024, pp. 19–35

    2024

  6. [14]

    VScan: Rethinking visual token reduction for efficient large vision-language models,

    C. Zhang, K. Ma, T. Fang, W. Yu, H. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y . Xie, K. Sycara, H. Mi, and D. Yu, “VScan: Rethinking visual token reduction for efficient large vision-language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22654, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Adaptinfer: Adaptive token pruning for vision-language model inference with dynamical text guidance,

    W. Zhang, Z. Zhu, N. Li, S. Tao, K. Liu, and Y . Liu, “Adaptinfer: Adaptive token pruning for vision-language model inference with dynamical text guidance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06084, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Variation-aware vision token dropping for faster large vision-language models,

    J. Chen, X. Liu, Z. Wen, Y . Wang, S. Huang, and H. Chen, “Variation-aware vision token dropping for faster large vision-language models,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2026, pp. 3489–3499

    2026

  9. [17]

    Sparsevlm: Visual token sparsification for efficient vision-language model inference,

    Y . Zhang, C.-K. Fan, J. Ma, W. Zheng, T. Huang, K. Cheng, D. Gudovskiy, T. Okuno, Y . Nakata, K. Keutzer et al., “Sparsevlm: Visual token sparsification for efficient vision-language model inference,” inProc. of ICML, 2025, pp. 74 840–74 857

    2025

  10. [18]

    Pyramiddrop: Accelerating your large vision-language models via pyra- mid visual redundancy reduction,

    L. Xing, Q. Huang, X. Dong, J. Lu, P. Zhang, Y . Zang, Y . Cao, C. He, J. Wang, F. Wuet al., “Pyramiddrop: Accelerating your large vision-language models via pyra- mid visual redundancy reduction,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2024, pp. 14 593–14 603

    2024

  11. [19]

    Multi-stage vision token dropping: Towards efficient multimodal large language model,

    T. Liu, L. Shi, R. Hong, Y . Hu, Q. Yin, and L. Zhang, “Multi-stage vision token dropping: Towards efficient multimodal large language model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10803, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lightvlm: Acceleraing large multimodal models with pyramid token merging and kv cache compression,

    L. Hu, F. Shang, W. Feng, and L. Wan, “Lightvlm: Acceleraing large multimodal models with pyramid token merging and kv cache compression,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00419, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Visionzip: Longer is better but not necessary in vision language models,

    S. Yang, Y . Chen, Z. Tian, C. Wang, J. Li, B. Yu, and J. Jia, “Visionzip: Longer is better but not necessary in vision language models,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2025, pp. 19 792–19 802

    2025

  14. [22]

    Beyond text-visual attention: Exploiting visual cues for effective token pruning in vlms,

    Q. Zhang, A. Cheng, M. Lu, R. Zhang, Z. Zhuo, J. Cao, S. Guo, Q. She, and S. Zhang, “Beyond text-visual attention: Exploiting visual cues for effective token pruning in vlms,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF ICCV, 2025, pp. 20 857–20 867

    2025

  15. [23]

    Flashat- tention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness,

    T. Dao, D. Fu, S. Ermon, A. Rudra, and C. R ´e, “Flashat- tention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 16 344–16 359

    2022

  16. [24]

    Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning,

    T. Dao, “Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning,” inProc. of ICLR, vol. 2024, 2024, pp. 35 549–35 562

    2024

  17. [25]

    Flashattention-3: Fast and accurate attention with asynchrony and low-precision,

    J. Shah, G. Bikshandi, Y . Zhang, V . Thakkar, P. Ramani, and T. Dao, “Flashattention-3: Fast and accurate attention with asynchrony and low-precision,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 37, 2024, pp. 68 658–68 685

    2024

  18. [26]

    Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention,

    W. Kwon, Z. Li, S. Zhuang, Y . Sheng, L. Zheng, C. H. Yu, J. Gonzalez, H. Zhang, and I. Stoica, “Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention,” inProc. of ACM SOSP, 2023, pp. 611–626

    2023

  19. [27]

    Similarity-aware token pruning: Your vlm but faster,

    A. Jeddi, N. Baghbanzadeh, E. Dolatabadi, and B. Taati, “Similarity-aware token pruning: Your vlm but faster,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11549, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dymu: Dynamic merging and virtual unmerg- ing for efficient vlms,

    Z. Wang, S. Purushwalkam, C. Xiong, S. Savarese, H. Ji, and R. Xu, “Dymu: Dynamic merging and virtual unmerg- ing for efficient vlms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17040, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Holitom: Holistic token merging for fast video large language models,

    K. Shao, K. Tao, C. Qin, H. You, Y . Sui, and H. Wang, “Holitom: Holistic token merging for fast video large language models,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 38, 2026, pp. 135 547–135 570

    2026

  22. [30]

    Dycoke: Dynamic compression of tokens for fast video large language models,

    K. Tao, C. Qin, H. You, Y . Sui, and H. Wang, “Dycoke: Dynamic compression of tokens for fast video large language models,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2025, pp. 18 992–19 001

    2025

  23. [31]

    Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and- language tasks,

    J. Lu, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and S. Lee, “Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and- language tasks,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 32, 2019, pp. 13–23

    2019

  24. [32]

    Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning,

    Y .-C. Chen, L. Li, L. Yu, A. El Kholy, F. Ahmed, Z. Gan, Y . Cheng, and J. Liu, “Uniter: Universal image-text representation learning,” inProc. of ECCV, 2020, pp. 12 104–120

    2020

  25. [33]

    Vflowopt: A token pruning framework for lmms with visual information flow-guided optimization,

    S. Yang, R. Xu, C. Cui, T. Wang, D. Lin, and J. Pang, “Vflowopt: A token pruning framework for lmms with visual information flow-guided optimization,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF ICCV, 2025, pp. 23 924–23 934

    2025

  26. [34]

    Hidrop: Hierarchical vision token reduction in mllms via late injection, concave pyramid pruning, and early exit,

    H. Wu, Y . Fan, J. Dai, J. Tong, Y . Ma, and X. Shen, “Hidrop: Hierarchical vision token reduction in mllms via late injection, concave pyramid pruning, and early exit,” inProc. of ICLR, 2026

    2026

  27. [35]

    Todre: Visual token pruning via diversity and task awareness for efficient large vision- language models,

    D. Li, Z. Yang, and S. Lu, “Todre: Visual token pruning via diversity and task awareness for efficient large vision- language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18757, pp. arXiv–2505, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Tamp: Token-adaptive layerwise pruning in multimodal large language models,

    J. Lee, K. Xuan, C. Ekbote, S. Polisetty, Y . R. Fung, and P. P. Liang, “Tamp: Token-adaptive layerwise pruning in multimodal large language models,” inFindings of ACL, 2025, pp. 6892–6908

    2025

  29. [37]

    Swiftvlm: Efficient vision-language model inference via cross-layer token bypass,

    C. Qian, X. Yu, D. Li, G. Chi, Z. Yang, Q. Ma, and X. Miao, “Swiftvlm: Efficient vision-language model inference via cross-layer token bypass,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03134, 2026

    2026

  30. [38]

    Fit and prune: Fast and training-free visual token pruning for multi-modal large language models,

    W. Ye, Q. Wu, W. Lin, and Y . Zhou, “Fit and prune: Fast and training-free visual token pruning for multi-modal large language models,” inProc. of AAAI, vol. 39, no. 21, 2025, pp. 22 128–22 136

    2025

  31. [39]

    Llava-mini: Efficient image and video large multimodal models with one vision token,

    S. Zhang, Q. Fang, Y . Yang, and Y . Feng, “Llava-mini: Efficient image and video large multimodal models with one vision token,” inProc. of ICLR, 2025, pp. 53 285– 53 310

    2025

  32. [40]

    Lvpruning: An effective yet simple language- guided vision token pruning approach for multi-modal large language models,

    Y . Sun, Y . Xin, H. Li, J. Sun, C. Lin, and R. T. Batista- Navarro, “Lvpruning: An effective yet simple language- guided vision token pruning approach for multi-modal large language models,” inFindings of NAACL, 2025, pp. 4299–4308

    2025

  33. [41]

    Matryoshka multimodal models,

    M. Cai, J. Yang, J. Gao, and Y . J. Lee, “Matryoshka multimodal models,” inProc. of ICLR, 2025, pp. 46 254– 46 272

    2025

  34. [42]

    Matryoshka query transformer for large vision-language models,

    W. Hu, Z.-Y . Dou, L. H. Li, A. Kamath, N. Peng, and K.-W. Chang, “Matryoshka query transformer for large vision-language models,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 37, 2024, pp. 50 168–50 188

    2024

  35. [43]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, and Y . J. Lee, “Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2024, pp. 26 296–26 306

    2024

  36. [44]

    Llava-next: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, B. Li, Y . Zhang, S. Shen, and Y . J. Lee, “Llava-next: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge,” January 2024. [Online]. Available: https://llava-vl.github.io/blog/2024-01-30-llava-next/

    2024

  37. [45]

    Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models,

    C. Fu, P. Chen, Y . Shen, Y . Qin, M. Zhang, X. Lin, J. Yang, X. Zheng, K. Li, X. Sunet al., “Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 38, 2026

    2026

  38. [46]

    Towards vqa models that can read,

    A. Singh, V . Natarajan, M. Shah, Y . Jiang, X. Chen, D. Batra, D. Parikh, and M. Rohrbach, “Towards vqa models that can read,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2019, pp. 8317–8326

    2019

  39. [47]

    Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering,

    P. Lu, S. Mishra, T. Xia, L. Qiu, K.-W. Chang, S.-C. Zhu, O. Tafjord, P. Clark, and A. Kalyan, “Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 2507–2521

    2022

  40. [48]

    Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering,

    D. A. Hudson and C. D. Manning, “Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering,” inProc. of IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2019, pp. 6700–6709

    2019

  41. [49]

    Qwen2.5-vl,

    Q. Team, “Qwen2.5-vl,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-vl/

    2025

  42. [50]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al., “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” inProc. of NeurIPS, vol. 32, 2019, pp. 8024–8035

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.