Same-accuracy pruned vision-language prefixes can retain very different amounts of traceable OCR support (PosECR 0.620 vs 0.270 for Target vs Random at 30% budget), so pruning evaluation should report spatial provenance and cost.
Reroute, Don't Remove: Recoverable Visual Token Routing for Vision-Language Models
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Vision-language models (VLMs) project images into hundreds to thousands of visual tokens, making decoder inference expensive in both attention computation and KV-cache memory. Existing visual-token reduction methods largely follow a rank-and-remove paradigm: they score visual tokens, keep a compact subset, and permanently discard the rest. We show that this irreversible action is fragile because visual-token importance changes across decoder depth; tokens ranked low at one stage may become relevant in later layers, especially for grounding-sensitive queries. We propose Reroute, a training-free plug-in that replaces removal with recoverable routing. At each routing stage, selected vision tokens pass through decoder blocks, while deferred tokens bypass the stage and re-enter the candidate pool at the next routing decision. Reroute reuses existing attention-score ranking rules and stage-wise schedules, preserving the theoretical TFLOPs and KV-cache budget class of the pruning method it augments. Across FastV, PDrop, and N\"uwa variants on LLaVA-1.5 and Qwen backbones, reroute improves grounding under aggressive token reduction while maintaining general VQA performance. These results suggest that VLM token reduction should not be viewed only as irreversible pruning, but also as recoverable routing. The code can be found here: https://github.com/elmma/mllm-reroute/
fields
cs.CV 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Beyond Accuracy: Auditing Spatial Provenance in Visual Token Pruning for OCR-Critical MLLM Inference
Same-accuracy pruned vision-language prefixes can retain very different amounts of traceable OCR support (PosECR 0.620 vs 0.270 for Target vs Random at 30% budget), so pruning evaluation should report spatial provenance and cost.