Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

RoRA: Role-Oriented Regional Allocation for Visual Token Pruning in MLLMs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RoRA claims that visual token pruning should allocate the retained budget across three complementary evidence roles—protected semantic core, complementary context, and fine-grained detail—and that this role-oriented regional allocation…

desk verdict RoRA is a genuine engineering contribution with a clean evaluation, but the paper's causal claim that role-oriented allocation drives its gains is not isolated from the object prior. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07088 v1 pith:Y3QSFFE4 submitted 2026-08-07 cs.CV cs.AI

Qiyanhui Lu , Han Wu , Rongjian Xu , Tingzhang Luo , Cheng Fan , Xinghao Chen , Minjing Dong , Jufeng Yang
show 1 more author
Jianyuan Guo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords visualtokenpruningmultimodallargelanguagemodelstraining-freeaccelerationattentiondebiasingAttention-AnchoredRegionsrole-awareallocationKV-cachereductionLLaVA-1.5
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

This paper argues that visual token pruning in multimodal language models should allocate the retained budget across three complementary evidence roles—a protected semantic core, complementary context, and fine-grained detail—instead of ranking every token with one homogeneous importance score. Its central claim is that role-oriented regional allocation, guided by Attention-Anchored Regions (AARs), retains more of the unpruned model's accuracy than prior training-free pruning methods at the same token budget. Under matched budgets, RoRA consistently leads across the LLaVA and Qwen-VL families, holding 96.5% of full LLaVA-1.5 performance while dropping 88.9% of visual tokens, and improving on the strongest baseline by about five normalized points on Qwen3-VL at 75% pruning. A sympathetic reader would care because the method is training-free, adds only about 0.7 ms of selection cost, and preserves object and detail evidence that attention-only or crop-based schemes miss. The method treats pruning as evidence allocation rather than as a single importance ranking, which is why it remains accurate at very aggressive retention ratios.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Attention-Anchored Region (AAR): the union $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{AAR}} = \bigcup_{a \in A} \mathcal{N}_{r_a}(a)$ of local grid neighborhoods centered at the $M_a$ highest-calibrated-attention tokens. An AAR is not an object mask; it is a spatial proxy for 'object support already covered.' It carries the argument by making coverage explicit, so the residual budget can be spent asymmetrically: context tokens get a boost outside AARs ($c_i = p_i + \lambda_{\mathrm{ctx}} \mathbb{1}[i \notin \mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{AAR}}]$), while detail tokens get a bonus inside AARs ($d_i = \omega_a \hat{a}_i + \omega_m \hat{m}_i + \omega_\ell \hat{\ell}_i + \lambda_{\mathrm{det}} \eta_i$). Redundancy filtering then compares candidates only against retained evidence instead of building a full $N \times N$ similarity matrix, which is why the selection overhead stays near 0.7 ms per image.

What would settle it

Re-fit the two calibration priors on a source with no overlap with the evaluation benchmarks, for example 1,000 unlabeled images from COCO or Flickr, keep every other hyperparameter fixed, and re-run the LLaVA-1.5 and Qwen tables; a meaningful drop in normalized average accuracy on GQA, or in the overall average, would show that the reported gains depend on the particular calibration corpus rather than on generic role allocation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RoRA's central claim is that the reason training-free pruning fails at high ratios is not a weak importance signal but a missing model of what each retained token is for. It partitions the retained set into a disjoint union $S = P \cup C \cup D$: protected semantic-core tokens lock onto the queried object; complementary-context tokens cover secondary objects and scene structure outside core regions; detail tokens recover text, boundaries, and small parts. The paper proposes Attention-Anchored Regions (AARs), unions of local 2D-grid neighborhoods around high-confidence anchor tokens, as lightweight proxies for object support already covered by the core. Context candidates outside AARs receive an exploration bonus, detail candidates inside AARs receive a repair bonus, and token-token similarity is used only when filtering context redundancy against already-retained tokens, not as a global pairwise graph. With this allocation, the paper reports the best normalized averages among training-free baselines at every matched budget on LLaVA-1.5-7B, LLaVA-NeXT-7B, Qwen2.5-VL-7B, and Qwen3-VL-8B, including 96.5% of unpruned performance at 88.9% pruning on LLaVA-1.5.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two calibration statistics learned from 1,000 unlabeled GQA images—where the model tends to look and where objects tend to appear—are generic enough to transfer to every test benchmark, including GQA itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because coverage is made explicit by AARs, the residual budget can be spent asymmetrically—context outside the AAR, detail inside it—so the method avoids the dense pairwise redundancy graph that dominates D2Pruner's selection cost.
  • At 66.7% pruning on LLaVA-1.5-7B, RoRA keeps 99.8% of the normalized average performance across nine benchmarks, and 96.5% at 88.9% pruning, the best among training-free baselines at each matched budget.
  • On Qwen3-VL-8B at 75% and 90% pruning, RoRA beats D2Pruner by 5.4 and 5.3 normalized average points, showing the allocation transfers to newer dynamic-resolution backbones.
  • The full POPE run with 192 retained tokens finishes in 5:43 on an H800 with batch size 1, giving a 24.6% end-to-end runtime reduction and 0.7 ms selection overhead while retaining 98.4% of unpruned accuracy.
  • Localization ablations on RefCOCO-family splits show the protected semantic core is the dominant component: normalized accuracy rises from 35.44% to 74.44% at 144 retained tokens once core protection is added, with AAR-guided context adding a further improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that at extreme pruning ratios, accuracy is limited less by the quality of the importance signal than by whether the retained set contains at least one anchor per semantically distinct region; this suggests budgets should scale with the number of salient regions, not with image resolution.
  • The transferability of the GQA-fit priors is directly testable: fitting them on a non-GQA corpus such as COCO or Flickr and re-running the same tables would reveal whether the GQA column is inflated by prior leakage.
  • The same anchor neighborhoods could seed region-level grounding or KV-cache eviction policies, a use the paper does not explore.
  • A natural extension to video would treat frame-local anchors as AARs and allocate spatiotemporal context outside them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RoRA, a training-free visual token pruning method for multimodal LLMs. The method operates at an early LLM layer, debiases text-conditioned attention with a positional prior and a prompt-calibrated object prior, selects a protected semantic core, then builds Attention-Anchored Regions (AARs) from high-confidence anchors. The remaining budget is allocated to complementary context outside AARs and to fine-grained detail inside AARs, with pairwise similarity used only as a redundancy filter in the context stage. Experiments are reported on LLaVA-1.5, LLaVA-NeXT, Qwen2.5-VL, and Qwen3-VL across many benchmarks, with normalized averages under matched token budgets. The paper claims consistent gains over prior training-free baselines, including 96.5% of full LLaVA-1.5 performance at 88.9% pruning, a 5.4-point normalized average gain over D2Pruner on Qwen3-VL at 75% pruning, and a selector overhead of 0.7 ms at 66.7% pruning on an H800.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, RoRA is a practically useful contribution: it is training-free, has low selection overhead, and its component-wise ablations show that each of the three roles contributes. The paper also evaluates on four model families spanning different visual encoders and token budgets, which is a broad and appropriate experimental scope. The main weakness is that the causal claim 'role-oriented regional allocation drives the gains' is not cleanly isolated from the new object prior, and the prior calibration source overlaps with an evaluation benchmark. These issues are fixable with additional ablations and validation details, so the work is potentially publishable, but the current evidence is not fully conclusive for the headline causal interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (3), and Fig. 3] The central claim that role-oriented regional allocation is what enables RoRA's gains is not isolated from the prompt-calibrated object prior. RoRA differs from D2Pruner in two ways: it adds the λ_obj o_i term in Eq. (3) and it replaces D2Pruner's dense diversity graph with AAR-guided context/detail allocation in Eqs. (5)-(10). The ablations in Fig. 3 vary core/context/detail composition but never vary λ_obj, and no experiment compares D2Pruner with and without the object prior. Thus the 5.4- and 5.3-point gains over D2Pruner in Table 2 could be driven entirely by the object prior rather than by role allocation. Please add an ablation with λ_obj = 0 and a D2Pruner-plus-object-prior variant, and report the effect of λ_obj on each model family.
  2. [Methods, calibration paragraph; Table 1] The positional prior b_i and object prior o_i are estimated from 1,000 images sampled from the GQA training split, and GQA is one of the nine evaluation benchmarks in Table 1. Because the priors are fixed spatial distributions derived from the same image distribution as the evaluation set, the GQA column (e.g., 57.5 vs. 56.9 at K=64 for LLaVA-1.5) and the overall average may be inflated by construction. The Qwen experiments are less affected because GQA is not in Table 2, but the LLaVA tables still support part of the paper's claims. Please validate with priors estimated from an unrelated source (e.g., COCO or a mixed collection) and also report GQA-excluded averages.
  3. [Experiments, Implementation details] The paper states that 'RoRA uses one fixed configuration for each backbone–pruning-ratio pair' and that the configuration is shared across tasks, but it does not disclose how these configurations were selected. The method has many free parameters: λ_obj, λ_ctx, λ_det, ω_a, ω_m, ω_l, τ_sem, Kp/Kc/Kd, anchor count M and radius r_a, and pruning layer ℓ_p. If these were tuned on the evaluation benchmarks, the matched-budget comparisons would be biased in RoRA's favor. Please specify the validation set and selection criterion used to fix these hyperparameters, and include a sensitivity analysis over the most influential parameters, particularly λ_obj and the budget split.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] Several normalized averages in Table 2 exceed 100% of the unpruned model (e.g., FastV 101.4%, D2Pruner 105.6%, and RoRA 106.9% on Qwen2.5-VL at 75% pruning). Since these numbers are presented as percentages of full performance, the paper should explain how pruning can improve the normalized average and should include the raw benchmark scores to aid interpretation.
  2. [Conclusion, complexity discussion] The complexity claim 'RoRA has complexity O(N + N_t^2)' is not fully supported by the algorithm description. The context-stage selection in Eq. (7) compares each candidate only against the currently retained tokens, which gives O(N_t * (Kp + Kc)) in the worst case rather than O(N_t^2). Please either correct the complexity expression or clarify the assumed implementation.
  3. [Figure 3 and ablation text] The ablation text refers to a 'standard detail configuration' and to 'allocating 18 detail tokens', but the corresponding number of detail tokens for the standard configuration is not defined in the main text or figure caption. Please state the exact Kd values and the hyperparameter settings used for each ablation point.
  4. [Appendix availability] The implementation details and the RefCOCO evaluation protocol are deferred to the appendix, but the provided manuscript does not include the appendix. Please ensure the appendix is part of the submission so that the hyperparameter tables and the localization evaluation protocol are available to reviewers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; RoRA's components are defined by distinct selection equations and evaluated against external benchmarks.

full rationale

I examined the claimed derivation chain: Eq. (3) defines calibrated scores p_i from attention a_i, positional prior b_i, and object prior o_i; Eq. (4) selects the core as top-K_p of p_i; Eq. (5) builds AARs from anchors chosen by p_i; Eqs. (6)-(7) define context scores c_i and select C; Eqs. (8)-(10) define detail scores d_i and select D. Each retained set is produced by a distinct scoring rule from the same calibrated signal plus explicit spatial indicators; none of the reported normalized averages is defined as the prior or as the fitted calibration values. The GQA calibration is an empirical prior estimated from 1,000 unlabeled GQA training images and then evaluated on GQA test; even if one worries about benchmark-specific spatial statistics, that is a data-hygiene and transferability concern, not a definitional reduction, and the paper's headline Qwen results and POPE timing results are obtained on benchmarks outside that calibration set. The per-backbone-per-ratio configurations are described as frozen and shared across tasks, with no equation or reported result reducing the benchmark accuracy to a parameter fitted on that same benchmark. Ablations in Figure 3 isolate the semantic core, AAR context, and detail stages and show each contributes, with core accounting for most of the localization gain; this is an empirical causal claim about ablation variants, not a tautology. I found no load-bearing self-citation: the cited prior works (D2Pruner, FastV, HoloV) are baselines or adopted debiasing components, and none is invoked as an authority that uniquely forces the RoRA design. Accordingly, no circular step is present and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

RoRA introduces no new physical entities. The Attention-Anchored Region is an algorithmic construct rather than an independently evidenced entity, so it is not listed here. The main load-bearing ingredients are the nine fitted hyperparameters and priors listed above and four domain assumptions about attention, spatial locality, transfer of GQA-calibrated priors, and cosine-similarity redundancy.

free parameters (9)
  • λ_obj = deferred to appendix
    Strength of the prompt-calibrated object prior in Eq. (3); controls how much the static object-position prior steers core selection.
  • λ_ctx = deferred to appendix
    Exploration bonus for context candidates outside AARs in Eq. (6).
  • λ_det = deferred to appendix
    Bonus for detail tokens inside AARs in Eq. (9).
  • ω_a, ω_m, ω_l = deferred to appendix
    Weights in the detail score Eq. (9) for attention response, feature magnitude, and local contrast.
  • τ_sem = deferred to appendix
    Cosine-similarity threshold that skips redundant context tokens in Eq. (7).
  • Budget split Kp, Kc, Kd = deferred to appendix
    Token counts assigned to semantic core, context, and detail in Eq. (2); values are chosen per backbone-pruning-ratio pair.
  • Anchor count M and radius r_a = deferred to appendix
    Number of high-confidence anchors and neighborhood radius defining AARs in Eq. (5).
  • Pruning layer ℓ_p = deferred to appendix
    Early LLM layer where pruning is applied; determines how much text-conditioned information the attention scores carry.
  • Positional prior b_i and object prior o_i = per-position attention averages over 1,000 GQA training images
    Fitted offline on the GQA training split with generic caption and object-listing prompts; used to debias and calibrate attention in Eq. (3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Text-conditioned attention, after positional debiasing, is a reliable proxy for semantic relevance of visual tokens.
    Both the semantic core (Eq. 4) and the anchors (Eq. 5) are chosen from calibrated attention scores; if the proxy is unreliable, the allocation collapses.
  • domain assumption Spatially contiguous neighborhoods around high-attention anchors approximate object-related support regions.
    AARs are unions of local grid neighborhoods N_{r_a}(a) in Eq. (5); the method assumes objects occupy localized spatial regions.
  • domain assumption The GQA-calibrated positional and object priors transfer to all evaluation benchmarks without dataset-specific bias.
    Priors estimated from 1,000 GQA training images are applied to GQA evaluation and to all other benchmarks; no alternative calibration source is tested.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between candidate and retained tokens above τ_sem is a valid redundancy signal.
    Eq. (7) skips candidates whose cosine similarity to retained tokens exceeds τ_sem; the method assumes hidden-state similarity corresponds to visual redundancy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RoRA: Role-Oriented Regional Allocation for Visual Token Pruning in MLLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3QSFFE4

@misc{pith2026260807088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RoRA: Role-Oriented Regional Allocation for Visual Token Pruning in MLLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3QSFFE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07088}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) encode images as long visual token sequences, making prefilling and KV-cache storage expensive. Existing training-free pruning methods select tokens by importance, diversity, or spatial coverage, but treat retained tokens as interchangeable and do not explicitly track which object-related regions are already covered. We present RoRA, a training-free framework that casts visual token pruning as role-oriented regional evidence allocation. Given a fixed budget, RoRA partitions tokens into a protected semantic core, complementary context, and fine-grained detail. It first calibrates text-conditioned attention with a positional prior and a prompt-calibrated object prior, then builds Attention-Anchored Regions (AARs) from high-confidence anchors as lightweight proxies for covered object support. Context is explored mainly outside AARs, while a small AAR-guided budget restores local detail; pairwise similarity is used only for context-stage redundancy filtering. Under matched budgets, RoRA consistently outperforms strong training-free baselines across LLaVA and Qwen-VL families, retaining most of the unpruned accuracy even at aggressive pruning ratios, e.g., 96.5% of full performance at 88.9% pruning on LLaVA-1.5, and improving over D2Pruner by about 5% on Qwen3-VL at 75-90% pruning. At a 66.7% pruning ratio, RoRA requires only 0.7 ms for token selection and reduces end-to-end inference time by 24.6%, corresponding to a 1.33x speedup over unpruned inference on an NVIDIA H800.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Qualitative comparison of FastV, HoloV, and RoRA un￾der the same visual token budget. FastV is affected by positional attention sinks, while HoloV’s crop-wise allocation assigns tokens to high-variance but task-irrelevant regions. In contrast, RoRA uses AARs to allocate tokens across semantic core, complementary con￾text, and fine-grained detail, thereby preserving the evidence needed to identify the jersey number a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of RoRA. RoRA decomposes the retained visual token budget into a protected semantic core, complementary context, and fine-grained details. Attention-Anchored Regions represent object-related spatial support already covered by high-confidence evidence, guiding outside-AAR context exploration and inside-AAR detail repair. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Component-wise ablation on LLaVA-1.5-7B. Left: effects of semantic-core protection and complementary-context allocation on eight RefCOCO-family localization splits at 75% and 90% pruning. Right: ablation about detail tokens at K = 128 on TextVQA and VizWiz. Method Qwen2.5-VL-7B Qwen3-VL-8B AI2D MME T-VQA NB RW TC SQA Avg. BLK Ill VR POPE T-VQA CV MUIR Avg. Upper Bound, All Tokens (100%) Upper Bound, All Tokens (100%… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision-language models , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  2. [2]

    Highlighted Tokens

    Don't Just Chase “Highlighted Tokens” in MLLMs: Revisiting Visual Holistic Context Retention , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    work page

  3. [3]

    Important Tokens

    Stop Looking for “Important Tokens” in Multimodal Language Models: Duplication Matters More , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2025

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    D ^2 Pruner: Debiased Importance and Structural Diversity for MLLM Token Pruning , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    work page

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03615 , year=

    KTV: Keyframes and Key Tokens Selection for Efficient Training-Free Video LLMs , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03615 , year=

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

  7. [7]

    Llavanext: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge , author=

  8. [8]

    2025 , eprint=

    Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

Show all 78 references
  1. [10]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  2. [13]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Llava-prumerge: Adaptive token reduction for efficient large multimodal models , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

  3. [15]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Beyond text-visual attention: Exploiting visual cues for effective token pruning in vlms , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

  4. [17]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    Conical visual concentration for efficient large vision-language models , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  5. [18]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Filter, correlate, compress: Training-free token reduction for mllm acceleration , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  6. [19]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Hired: Attention-guided token dropping for efficient inference of high-resolution vision-language models , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  7. [20]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Fit and prune: Fast and training-free visual token pruning for multi-modal large language models , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  8. [21]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    Visionzip: Longer is better but not necessary in vision language models , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  9. [23]

    Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pages=

    Divprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large multimodal models , author=. Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , pages=

  10. [24]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 , pages=

    Look-m: Look-once optimization in kv cache for efficient multimodal long-context inference , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 , pages=

    2024

  11. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05534 , year=

    FlowMM: Cross-Modal Information Flow Guided KV Cache Merging for Efficient Multimodal Context Inference , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05534 , year=

  12. [26]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

    Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

  13. [27]

    European conference on computer vision , pages=

    Mmbench: Is your multi-modal model an all-around player? , author=. European conference on computer vision , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  14. [28]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  15. [29]

    Proceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

    2023

  16. [30]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  17. [31]

    Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

    Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

  18. [32]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

    Towards vqa models that can read , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

  19. [33]

    Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

    Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages=

  20. [34]

    European conference on computer vision , pages=

    A diagram is worth a dozen images , author=. European conference on computer vision , pages=. 2016 , organization=

    2016

  21. [35]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Naturalbench: Evaluating vision-language models on natural adversarial samples , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  22. [36]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Mme-realworld: Could your multimodal llm challenge high-resolution real-world scenarios that are difficult for humans? , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  23. [37]

    European conference on computer vision , pages=

    Textcaps: a dataset for image captioning with reading comprehension , author=. European conference on computer vision , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  24. [38]

    European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Blink: Multimodal large language models can see but not perceive , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  25. [40]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    VisRes Bench: On Evaluating the Visual Reasoning Capabilities of VLMs , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  26. [41]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Cambrian-1: A fully open, vision-centric exploration of multimodal llms , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  27. [42]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Muirbench: A comprehensive benchmark for robust multi-image understanding , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  28. [43]

    Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    ReferItGame: Referring to Objects in Photographs of Natural Scenes , author=. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  29. [44]

    Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    Generation and Comprehension of Unambiguous Object Descriptions , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  30. [45]

    R.; Singh, G.; Akbari, M.; and Zhang, Y

    Alvar, S. R.; Singh, G.; Akbari, M.; and Zhang, Y. 2025. Divprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large multimodal models. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 9392--9401

    2025

  31. [46]

    Arif, K. H. I.; Yoon, J.; Nikolopoulos, D. S.; Vandierendonck, H.; John, D.; and Ji, B. 2025. Hired: Attention-guided token dropping for efficient inference of high-resolution vision-language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, ...

    2025

  32. [47]

    Bai, S.; Cai, Y.; Chen, R.; Chen, K.; Chen, X.; Cheng, Z.; Deng, L.; Ding, W.; Gao, C.; Ge, C.; et al. 2025 a . Qwen3-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631

    2025 arXiv

  33. [48]

    Bai, S.; Chen, K.; Liu, X.; Wang, J.; Ge, W.; Song, S.; Dang, K.; Wang, P.; Wang, S.; Tang, J.; Zhong, H.; Zhu, Y.; Yang, M.; Li, Z.; Wan, J.; Wang, P.; Ding, W.; Fu, Z.; Xu, Y.; Ye, J.; Zhang, X.; Xie, T.; Cheng, Z.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Z.; Xu, H.; and Lin, J. 2025 b . Qwen2.5-V...

    2025 arXiv

  34. [49]

    Bolya, D.; Fu, C.-Y.; Dai, X.; Zhang, P.; Feichtenhofer, C.; and Hoffman, J. 2022. Token merging: Your vit but faster. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09461

    2022 arXiv

  35. [50]

    Chen, L.; Zhao, H.; Liu, T.; Bai, S.; Lin, J.; Zhou, C.; and Chang, B. 2024. An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision-language models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 19--35. Springer

    2024

  36. [51]

    Chen, Y.; Wen, Z.; Wu, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, S.; Ma, J.; Li, W.; He, C.; and Zhang, L. 2025. IPCV: Information-Preserving Compression for MLLM Visual Encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18747

    2025

  37. [52]

    Fu, C.; Chen, P.; Shen, Y.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, M.; Lin, X.; Yang, J.; Zheng, X.; Li, K.; Sun, X.; et al. 2026. Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38

    2026

  38. [53]

    A.; Ma, W.-C.; and Krishna, R

    Fu, X.; Hu, Y.; Li, B.; Feng, Y.; Wang, H.; Lin, X.; Roth, D.; Smith, N. A.; Ma, W.-C.; and Krishna, R. 2024. Blink: Multimodal large language models can see but not perceive. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 148--166. Springer

    2024

  39. [54]

    Goyal, Y.; Khot, T.; Summers-Stay, D.; Batra, D.; and Parikh, D. 2017. Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 6904--6913

    2017

  40. [55]

    J.; Guo, A.; Lin, C.; Grauman, K.; Luo, J.; and Bigham, J

    Gurari, D.; Li, Q.; Stangl, A. J.; Guo, A.; Lin, C.; Grauman, K.; Luo, J.; and Bigham, J. P. 2018. Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3608--3617

    2018

  41. [56]

    Han, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Ding, P.; Chen, J.; Chen, H.; Wang, D.; Yan, Q.; and Huang, S. 2026. Filter, correlate, compress: Training-free token reduction for mllm acceleration. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, 4601--4609

    2026

  42. [57]

    A.; and Manning, C

    Hudson, D. A.; and Manning, C. D. 2019. Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 6700--6709

    2019

  43. [58]

    Kazemzadeh, S.; Ordonez, V.; Matten, M.; and Berg, T. 2014. ReferItGame: Referring to Objects in Photographs of Natural Scenes. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 787--798. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2014

  44. [59]

    Kembhavi, A.; Salvato, M.; Kolve, E.; Seo, M.; Hajishirzi, H.; and Farhadi, A. 2016. A diagram is worth a dozen images. In European conference on computer vision, 235--251. Springer

    2016

  45. [60]

    Li, B.; Lin, Z.; Peng, W.; Nyandwi, J. d. D.; Jiang, D.; Ma, Z.; Khanuja, S.; Krishna, R.; Neubig, G.; and Ramanan, D. 2024. Naturalbench: Evaluating vision-language models on natural adversarial samples. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 17044--17068

    2024

  46. [61]

    Li, J.; Li, D.; Savarese, S.; and Hoi, S. 2023 a . Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In International conference on machine learning, 19730--19742. PMLR

    2023

  47. [62]

    Li, Y.; Du, Y.; Zhou, K.; Wang, J.; Zhao, X.; and Wen, J.-R. 2023 b . Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 292--305

    2023

  48. [63]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Li, Y.; and Lee, Y. J. 2024 a . Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 26296--26306

    2024

  49. [64]

    Liu, H.; Li, C.; Li, Y.; Li, B.; Zhang, Y.; Shen, S.; and Lee, Y. J. 2024 b . Llavanext: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge

    2024

  50. [65]

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

    2024 arXiv

  51. [66]

    Liu, Y.; Duan, H.; Zhang, Y.; Li, B.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, W.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, J.; He, C.; Liu, Z.; et al. 2024 d . Mmbench: Is your multi-modal model an all-around player? In European conference on computer vision, 216--233. Springer

    2024

  52. [67]

    Lu, P.; Mishra, S.; Xia, T.; Qiu, L.; Chang, K.-W.; Zhu, S.-C.; Tafjord, O.; Clark, P.; and Kalyan, A. 2022. Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 2507--2521

    2022

  53. [68]

    L.; and Murphy, K

    Mao, J.; Huang, J.; Toshev, A.; Camburu, O.; Yuille, A. L.; and Murphy, K. 2016. Generation and Comprehension of Unambiguous Object Descriptions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11--20

    2016

  54. [69]

    S.; Sayeed, K

    Shahgir, H. S.; Sayeed, K. S.; Bhattacharjee, A.; Ahmad, W. U.; Dong, Y.; and Shahriyar, R. 2024. Illusionvqa: A challenging optical illusion dataset for vision language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15952

    2024 arXiv

  55. [70]

    J.; and Yan, Y

    Shang, Y.; Cai, M.; Xu, B.; Lee, Y. J.; and Yan, Y. 2025. Llava-prumerge: Adaptive token reduction for efficient large multimodal models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 22857--22867

    2025

  56. [71]

    Sidorov, O.; Hu, R.; Rohrbach, M.; and Singh, A. 2020. Textcaps: a dataset for image captioning with reading comprehension. In European conference on computer vision, 742--758. Springer

    2020

  57. [72]

    Singh, A.; Natarajan, V.; Shah, M.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, X.; Batra, D.; Parikh, D.; and Rohrbach, M. 2019. Towards vqa models that can read. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 8317--8326

    2019

  58. [73]

    C.; Yang, J.; Yang, S.; Iyer, A.; Pan, X.; et al

    Tong, S.; Brown, E.; Wu, P.; Woo, S.; Middepogu, M.; Akula, S. C.; Yang, J.; Yang, S.; Iyer, A.; Pan, X.; et al. 2024. Cambrian-1: A fully open, vision-centric exploration of multimodal llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 87310--87356

    2024

  59. [74]

    M.; Dahou, Y.; Huynh, N

    T \"o rtei, B. M.; Dahou, Y.; Huynh, N. D.; Para, W. R.; Khac, P. H. L.; Singh, A.; Chaybouti, S.; and Narayan, S. 2026. VisRes Bench: On Evaluating the Visual Reasoning Capabilities of VLMs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,...

    2026

  60. [75]

    Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, Q.; Liu, X.; Ma, M

    Wang, F.; Fu, X.; Huang, J. Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, Q.; Liu, X.; Ma, M. D.; Xu, N.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, K.; et al. 2025. Muirbench: A comprehensive benchmark for robust multi-image understanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, 62624--62650

    2025

  61. [76]

    Important Tokens

    Wen, Z.; Gao, Y.; Wang, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, W.; He, C.; and Zhang, L. 2025. Stop Looking for “Important Tokens” in Multimodal Language Models: Duplication Matters More. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 9972--9991

    2025

  62. [77]

    Xing, L.; Huang, Q.; Dong, X.; Lu, J.; Zhang, P.; Zang, Y.; Cao, Y.; He, C.; Wang, J.; Wu, F.; et al. 2025. Conical visual concentration for efficient large vision-language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14593--14603

    2025

  63. [78]

    Yang, S.; Chen, Y.; Tian, Z.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Yu, B.; and Jia, J. 2025. Visionzip: Longer is better but not necessary in vision language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19792--19802

    2025

  64. [79]

    Yao, L.; Li, L.; Ren, S.; Wang, L.; Liu, Y.; Sun, X.; and Hou, L. 2024. Deco: Decoupling token compression from semantic abstraction in multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20985

    2024 arXiv

  65. [80]

    Ye, W.; Wu, Q.; Lin, W.; and Zhou, Y. 2025. Fit and prune: Fast and training-free visual token pruning for multi-modal large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 22128--22136

    2025

  66. [81]

    Zhang, E.; Yu, F.; Wu, A.; Wen, Z.; Yan, K.; Ding, S.; Qi, B.; and Zhang, L. 2026. D ^2 Pruner: Debiased Importance and Structural Diversity for MLLM Token Pruning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, 12412--12420

    2026

  67. [82]

    Zhang, Q.; Cheng, A.; Lu, M.; Zhang, R.; Zhuo, Z.; Cao, J.; Guo, S.; She, Q.; and Zhang, S. 2025 a . Beyond text-visual attention: Exploiting visual cues for effective token pruning in vlms. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 20857--20867

    2025

  68. [83]

    Zhang, Y.; Fan, C.-K.; Ma, J.; Zheng, W.; Huang, T.; Cheng, K.; Gudovskiy, D.; Okuno, T.; Nakata, Y.; Keutzer, K.; et al. 2024. Sparsevlm: Visual token sparsification for efficient vision-language model inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04417

    2024 arXiv

  69. [84]

    Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Tian, H.; Fu, C.; Zhang, S.; Wu, J.; Li, F.; Wang, K.; Wen, Q.; Zhang, Z.; et al. 2025 b . Mme-realworld: Could your multimodal llm challenge high-resolution real-world scenarios that are difficult for humans? In International Conference on Learning Repre...

    2025

  70. [85]

    Highlighted Tokens

    Zou, X.; Lu, D.; Wang, Y.; Yan, Y.; Lyu, Y.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, L.; and Hu, X. 2026. Don't Just Chase “Highlighted Tokens” in MLLMs: Revisiting Visual Holistic Context Retention. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38: 39800--39832

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.