Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

VCM: Vision Concept Modeling Based on Implicit Contrastive Learning with Vision-Language Instruction Fine-Tuning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read VCM lets a vision-language model answer questions from a small set of instruction-selected vision concept tokens, cutting FLOPs by up to 85%.

desk verdict VCM offers a genuinely new CTC-style token-selection mechanism, but the paper never specifies inference-time length choice, leaving its core adaptivity claim untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19627 v2 pith:S6YGWZU4 submitted 2025-04-28 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CVcs.LG

Run Luo , Renke Shan , Longze Chen , Ziqiang Liu , Lu Wang , Min Yang , Xiaobo Xia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CVcs.LG
keywords visionconceptmodeltokencompressionlargevision-languagemodelsinstructionfine-tuningimplicitcontrastivelearningforward-backwardalgorithmdynamicprogrammingopen-vocabularyperception
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

The paper tries to establish a new operating principle for large vision-language models: instead of feeding an LLM all of an image's vision tokens, a model can be taught to model visual concepts and keep only the tokens that a given instruction actually needs, along with their spatial locations. VCM is a self-supervised framework that learns this without concept-level labels, by exploiting the correlation between text keywords and the minimum number of vision tokens required to answer correctly. If it works as claimed, LVLMs become cheaper to train and run, and their vision encoders become better at dense perception tasks such as open-vocabulary detection and segmentation. The sympathetic reading is that VCM replaces a fixed token budget with an instruction-dependent one, and makes the pruning itself semantically meaningful.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a trainable vision-concept selector attached between the vision encoder and the LLM. It computes a per-token 'retain vs blank' probability, estimates the number of concepts to keep from the text prior, and optimizes the chosen alignment with a forward-backward algorithm: the target concept sequence is padded with blanks, and the loss is the negative log probability of all feasible alignments, $\mathcal{L}_{VCM} = -\log p(Z^V \mid Y^V)$, with gradient $\partial \mathcal{L}_{VCM}/\partial y^V_t(z^V_l) = p(z^V_l \mid y^V_t) - \gamma(t,l)$. The segment-merging (SM) operation then compresses each retained run of tokens into one weighted-average concept feature, preserving position information. The keyword selector, trained with a semantic-alignment loss during pretraining, provides the text prior that drives both the length estimate and the per-token scores.

What would settle it

Run VCM's length estimator on a held-out set of VQA pairs by computing the keyword-count difference from each instruction, predicting the concept length, then sweeping a token-pruning tool over many lengths with an evaluator to find the true minimum; if the formula's prediction is no better than a constant or random baseline, the load-bearing mapping is false. A cheaper check is to replace the formula with the oracle response-derived length and show the gains vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

VCM claims that the right unit of vision processing for LVLMs is not the individual patch token but the 'vision concept': a contiguous, spatially grounded segment of tokens whose count and position should be selected by the instruction. The framework learns this selection in two stages: a pretraining stage aligns global text, vision and language-model features through a keyword selector and a semantic alignment loss, and an instruction fine-tuning stage trains a binary classifier to mark each vision token as retained or blank. The target length for retained concepts is estimated from the keyword-count difference between response and instruction by the formula $L = \lfloor M S (1 - (N_{\text{key}} - N_{\min})/(N_{\max} - N_{\min})) \rfloor$ with $N_{\max}=10$, $N_{\min}=-35$, $S=1/4$. A forward-backward dynamic program over an extended target sequence of retained and blank symbols supplies a differentiable loss whose gradient is $p(z \mid y) - \gamma$, and a parallel segment-merging operation turns the chosen path into weighted-average concept features for the LLM. The paper's stated result is that this reduces computational cost (85% fewer FLOPs for LLaVA-1.5-7B) while matching or improving VQA scores, and that the VCM-trained CLIP encoder transfers to zero-shot classification, open-vocabulary detection, and semantic segmentation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on one empirical mapping: the minimum number of vision tokens an answer needs is a fixed function of the keyword-count difference between instruction and response, with constants chosen from a single 5,000-example study, and this same mapping is used at inference even though the response is absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Instruction-conditioned token budgets work: a model can drop from 576 to 128-144 vision tokens for LLaVA-1.5 while keeping a higher average across 11 VQA benchmarks than the full-token baseline.
  • The same trained vision encoder transfers to dense tasks: VCM improves CLIP ViT's K-Means grouping, zero-shot classification on COCO panoptic masks, and open-vocabulary detection and segmentation, e.g. $AP_{50}^{\text{novel}}$ on OV-COCO rises from 9.2 to 12.6 with ViT-L/14.
  • The gain carries to high-resolution and video settings: with LLaVA-NeXT, VCM keeps only 160 of 2880 tokens and stays close to the full model; with Video-LLaVA, 136 tokens beat token-reduction baselines at similar token counts.
  • The framework scales with data and model size: increasing training steps or moving to a 13B LLM improves VQA averages under the same 144-token budget.
  • The method is architecture-general: Qwen2-VL keeps most of its performance with 576 of 1326 vision tokens, roughly a 57% reduction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not pursue is to replace the response-dependent length formula with a predictor that sees only the instruction at inference; the paper substitutes the mask ratio r for the absent response but never specifies the mapping, so an instruction-only length network is the obvious next step.
  • Because the VCM-trained CLIP encoder improves F-VLM and Cat-Seg, the same fine-tuning step could plausibly be used as a drop-in upgrade for any frozen-ViT system, including retrieval or few-shot classifiers that never generate text.
  • The 85 percent FLOP reduction is computed from sequence-length asymptotics, so real wall-clock gains will vary by hardware and implementation; the paper's parallel segment-merging speedup is necessary for the benefit to materialize in practice.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VCM (Vision Concept Modeling), a self-supervised framework for adaptive vision token compression in LVLMs. VCM learns to select a small, instruction-dependent set of vision concepts via implicit contrastive learning: a keyword selector highlights instruction-relevant text keywords, a forward-backward dynamic programming algorithm aligns variable-length retained token segments to a target concept length, and segment merging converts selected tokens into concept-level features. The authors report strong VQA performance at reduced token counts (e.g., 144 tokens for LLaVA-1.5-7B), improved dense-perception results on region-level VQA, zero-shot classification, open-vocabulary detection, and open-vocabulary segmentation, and claim an 85% FLOP reduction. The paper also includes extensive ablations, high-resolution and video experiments, and a derivation of the gradient of the VCM loss.

Significance. If the reported results hold, VCM would be a valuable addition to vision token compression: it introduces a theoretically motivated forward-backward objective for variable-length concept extraction, a parallelizable segment-merging operation, and evidence of improved dense visual features. The main VQA comparison at 144 tokens is internally consistent and broadly competitive with, and in several benchmarks superior to, existing token-reduction methods. However, the paper's central claim of dynamic, instruction-dependent length selection is not actually tested, because the inference-time mapping from instruction to token count is never specified and all experiments use fixed token budgets. The headline 85% FLOP reduction is contradicted by the paper's own Table 10 (63% at 128 tokens, 73% at 64 tokens). The dense-perception improvements lack a control that isolates VCM from additional instruction fine-tuning and possible encoder unfreezing. The information-domain scalar S is tuned on the same benchmarks used for evaluation. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main contributions and require substantial revision before the results can be considered established.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, §3.4] The inference-time length selection is not specified. The target length in Section 3.3 is L = floor(M*S*(1 - (Nkey - Nmin)/(Nmax - Nmin))), where Nkey is the keyword-count difference between instruction and response; at inference the response is absent. Section 3.4 states that the model can 'precisely output vision concepts of different lengths based on the mask ratio r', but no formula or algorithm maps r (or the instruction alone) to a concrete L. All reported experiments (Tables 1, 7, 8, 10) evaluate fixed token counts (144, 160, 136, 128, or 64), so the central claim that VCM 'dynamically determines the required vision concepts' (Section 1) is not tested. Appendix I acknowledges the coarse min-max estimation as a limitation, but this does not resolve the missing inference recipe. The authors should specify the inference-time length rule and evaluate instances with per-instruction variable lengths.
  2. [Abstract; Table 10; Appendix D] The claim of '85% fewer FLOPs for LLaVA-1.5-7B' is contradicted by the paper's own measurements. Table 10 reports FLOPs of 4.62T for LLaVA-v1.5, 1.71T at 128 vision tokens, and 1.24T at 64 vision tokens, which correspond to reductions of approximately 63% and 73%, respectively. The asymptotic derivation in Appendix D gives a ratio near 3/25 (an 88% reduction) by assuming the sequence length is scaled by 1/8, but the experimental token counts (e.g., 576 to 128, or 2880 to 160 in Table 7) do not match that assumption. The theoretical and empirical efficiency numbers must be reconciled, and all claims should be stated to match the measured values.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3; §4.3] The dense-perception improvements are confounded with additional fine-tuning and possible image-encoder unfreezing. Table 2 compares LLaVA-v1.5 without VCM to LLaVA-v1.5 with VCM, but the VCM variant undergoes additional instruction fine-tuning, and Table 1 shows that unfreezing the image encoder ('*') is itself a design choice. Without a control that applies the same training recipe (including any unfreezing and the same instruction data) minus the VCM loss, the gains on RefCOCO region-level VQA, COCO panoptic classification, and open-vocabulary detection/segmentation cannot be attributed to VCM. Please add such a no-VCM fine-tuned baseline.
  4. [Table 4; §4.4] The information-domain scalar S is selected by ablation on the same four benchmarks (SciQA, VizWiz, POPE, MME) that appear in the main evaluation in Table 1. This constitutes model selection on the evaluation set, so the reported gains on those benchmarks partially reflect tuning rather than an intrinsic property of VCM. The paper should either fix S on a separate validation split or derive S from a criterion that does not involve the evaluation benchmarks.
  5. [§3.2, Eq. (2)] The keyword selector in Eq. (2) uses both instruction tokens HI and response tokens HR: K = Softmax(MHSA([HI; HR])(GV)^T). Since the response is unavailable at inference time, the manuscript does not describe how keyword selection is performed at inference, nor how the mask ratio r is derived in practice. This is an integral part of the claimed dynamic behavior, not a minor implementation detail, and it must be specified together with the length-selection rule.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The caption uses 'KMeans' while the text uses 'K-Means'; please unify the spelling.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (13)] The approximation that discards d*σ_n^2/32 and d^3/512 in the denominator is not justified in general; the variance σ_n^2 can be substantial, so the reported ratio should state the regime in which the approximation holds.
  3. [References] There are duplicated references (e.g., GUI-R1 appears as [5] and [61]; MiniGPT-4 as [7] and [70]; MQT-LLaVA as [12] and [59]); these should be consolidated.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 uses the term 'Norm(Ntext)' without defining it in the pseudocode; please define it consistently with Eq. (4) in Section 3.3.
  5. [Eq. (4)] The equality p(ZV|YV) = Σ_l α(t,l)β(t,l) for all t is a standard CTC property, but it is stated without a derivation; citing or briefly deriving this property would improve accessibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the VCM loss and length estimator use an external text-prior calibration, not the predicted quantity itself; the reported scores are measured on public benchmarks. Minor non-circular concerns are the underspecified inference-time length rule and evaluation-set-guided selection of S.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is not circular. The target vision-concept length L is defined from an external text-prior statistic Nkey (keyword-count difference between instruction and response) calibrated on a 5K-instance GPT-4o/VisionZip study; the forward-backward objective LVCM = -log p(ZV|YV) optimizes a CTC-style alignment to that externally specified length, and the SM operation extracts the resulting concepts. None of the paper's equations uses the quantity being predicted as its own input: Table 1's VQA scores are measured on held-out public benchmarks, the dense-perception gains transfer to F-VLM and Cat-Seg with a VCM-tuned frozen encoder, and the FLOP reduction follows from nimg shrinking by a factor of 1/8 in Appendix D. The self-citations ([4], [5], [60], [61]) appear only in related-work or architectural-context descriptions and are not load-bearing for the main claim. Two non-circular weaknesses prevent a score of 0. First, Section 3.4 says inference length is controlled 'based on the mask ratio r' but gives no formula or experiment in which per-instance L was chosen at inference; every reported evaluation uses a fixed token count (144, 160, 136, 128, or 64), so the central 'dynamically determines' claim is under-supported. Second, the information-domain scalar S = 1/4 is selected in Table 4 by maximizing accuracy on SciQA, VizWiz, POPE, and MME, and these same four benchmarks are included in the Table 1 average used to claim 'strong performance'; this is an evaluation-selection concern, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. Appendix I's acknowledged limitations (coarse min-max normalization and heuristic keyword selection) reinforce these concerns without changing the circularity verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's supervision signal rests on a calibrated, not derived, relationship between text keywords and the required number of vision tokens. The length formula's constants, the information domain scalar, and the alpha and epsilon weights are all hand-set or fitted to data, including the evaluation benchmarks for S. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'vision concept' is a representation defined by segment merging within the model.

free parameters (5)
  • Information domain scalar S = 1/4
    Controls target concept length L = floor(M*S*(1 - normalized Nkey)); selected by ablation on SciQA, VizWiz, POPE, and MME (Table 4), not derived.
  • Min-max normalization constants Nmax and Nmin for keyword difference = Nmax=10, Nmin=-35
    Used to normalize Nkey in the length estimator; values are stated without derivation and come from the 5K-instance GPT-4o study (Sections 3.1 and 3.3).
  • Keyword-count to length scaling factor after local merging = sqrt(2)
    Applied to convert vision token length to estimated vision concept length (Section 3.1); the factor is an ad hoc calibration.
  • VCM loss weighting coefficient epsilon(r) parameters = a=0.2, b=1.2, k=5
    Tuning constants for the tanh-based coefficient function in Appendix B; hand-chosen defaults with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Semantic alignment loss weight alpha = 0.05
    Set as constant coefficient for L_SA in the pretraining loss (Section 3.2); no sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Minimum required vision token length is a monotone function of the keyword-count difference between response and instruction.
    Section 3.1 establishes this empirically on 5K instances with GPT-4o as judge; the paper then uses the correlation as the supervision signal for concept length.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o keyword identification and minimum-length judgments are accurate enough to calibrate the target length formula.
    Used to define Nkey and the L estimate (Section 3.1); no independent validation of the judge is provided.
  • domain assumption A vision concept corresponds to a contiguous run of retained vision tokens, and blanks between concepts are mandatory in the alignment.
    The forward-backward DP in Section 3.3 uses an extended target sequence of retained symbols and blanks; the segment merging operation defines concepts as contiguous runs.
  • domain assumption The binary classification head f_CLS can learn retain/blank decisions from instruction-conditioned features alone.
    Equation (3) and Algorithm 1 assume f_CLS predictions provide meaningful alignment probabilities; this is a learned model assumption, not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VCM: Vision Concept Modeling Based on Implicit Contrastive Learning with Vision-Language Instruction Fine-Tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6YGWZU4

@misc{pith2026250419627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VCM: Vision Concept Modeling Based on Implicit Contrastive Learning with Vision-Language Instruction Fine-Tuning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6YGWZU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19627}
}
read the original abstract

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are pivotal for real-world AI tasks like embodied intelligence due to their strong vision-language reasoning abilities. However, current LVLMs process entire images at the token level, which is inefficient compared to humans who analyze information and generate content at the conceptual level, extracting relevant visual concepts with minimal effort. This inefficiency, stemming from the lack of a visual concept model, limits LVLMs' usability in real-world applications. To address this, we propose VCM, an end-to-end self-supervised visual concept modeling framework. VCM leverages implicit contrastive learning across multiple sampled instances and vision-language fine-tuning to construct a visual concept model without requiring costly concept-level annotations. Our results show that VCM significantly reduces computational costs (e.g., 85\% fewer FLOPs for LLaVA-1.5-7B) while maintaining strong performance across diverse image understanding tasks. Moreover, VCM enhances visual encoders' capabilities in classic visual concept perception tasks. Extensive quantitative and qualitative experiments validate the effectiveness and efficiency of VCM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrations of VCM in enhancing efficiency and dense perception capability. VCM can select relevant vision concept tokens based on instructions, significantly reducing redundant attention computations in LVLMs. This reduction lowers both training and inference costs while maintaining strong performance, as shown in (a). Additionally, VCM enhances the dense concept prediction capability of the vision encoder, as il… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlations between vision tokens and text prior. (a) Positive correlation between the text response and minimum vision tokens: the more image-related keywords in the text response, the longer the minimum token length required. (b) Negative correlation between the text instruction and minimum vision tokens: the more image-related keywords in the text instruction, the shorter the minimum token length required. (c) N… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of our VCM framework. (a) The workflow architecture: vision concepts are extracted from image inputs based on instruction priors and fed into the LLM to generate corresponding answers. (b) Adaptive keyword selection module: image-relevant keywords (highlighted in red) are selected by calculating text-image similarity, retaining keywords with scores above the average. (c) Implicit contrastive sampling module… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization results about our VCM. (Top) Visualization of VCM with different instructions. From left to right, the visual representation becomes increasingly sparse, leaving corresponding vision tokens to unmasked keywords (highlighted in red). (Bottom) K-Means visua…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of three different vision token reduction paradigms. (a) Regular training-free token pruning method based on threshold filtering of the atten￾tion matrix. (b) Regular token merging method based on the attention mechanism and fixed-length trainable query vect…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of the workflow in VCM. Specifically, the VCM loss computes all possible alignment paths with the extended target sequence, maximizing the probabilities of feasible paths (blue paths) while minimizing the probabilities of infeasible paths (yellow paths), whi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: More visualization results of VCM on different instructions. From left to right, the visual representation becomes increasingly sparse, leaving corresponding vision tokens to unmasked keywords (highlighted in red). VCM can capture the corresponding vision concepts rela…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: More K-Means visualization of the dense feature maps of CLIP ViT trained with VCM. Specifically, we show the raw images, the K-Means results without VCM, and those of our fine-tuned model by VCM. As we can see, VCM has significant conceptual enhancements in multiple sc…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of open-vocabulary object detection results. The red boxes are for novel categories. The blue boxes are for base categories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. The images are sampled from the COCO val set [31]. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Modality Generalization: A Benchmark and Prospective Analysis

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces a benchmark showing that current multimodal and domain-generalization methods perform poorly on unseen modalities, with domain-generalization methods winning in the weak setting but not in the str...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Llava-next: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge, January 2024

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Sheng Shen, and Yong Jae Lee. Llava-next: Improved reasoning, ocr, and world knowledge, January 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Shusheng Yang, Shijie Wang, Sinan Tan, Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning

    Wenliang Dai, Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Anthony Meng Huat Tiong, Junqi Zhao, Weisheng Wang, Boyang Li, Pascale N Fung, and Steven Hoi. Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning. In NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Deem: Diffusion models serve as the eyes of large language models for image perception

    Run Luo, Yunshui Li, Longze Chen, Wanwei He, Ting-En Lin, Ziqiang Liu, Lei Zhang, Zikai Song, Xiaobo Xia, Tongliang Liu, et al. Deem: Diffusion models serve as the eyes of large language models for image perception. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15232, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [6]

    Few-shot adversarial prompt learning on vision-language models

    Yiwei Zhou, Xiaobo Xia, Zhiwei Lin, Bo Han, and Tongliang Liu. Few-shot adversarial prompt learning on vision-language models. In NeurIPS, pages 3122–3156, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [8]

    A survey on vision-language-action models for embodied ai

    Yueen Ma, Zixing Song, Yuzheng Zhuang, Jianye Hao, and Irwin King. A survey on vision-language-action models for embodied ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14093, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [9]

    Embspatial-bench: Benchmarking spatial understanding for embodied tasks with large vision-language models

    Mengfei Du, Binhao Wu, Zejun Li, Xuanjing Huang, and Zhongyu Wei. Embspatial-bench: Benchmarking spatial understanding for embodied tasks with large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05756, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [10]

    Senna: Bridging large vision-language models and end-to-end autonomous driving

    Bo Jiang, Shaoyu Chen, Bencheng Liao, Xingyu Zhang, Wei Yin, Qian Zhang, Chang Huang, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. Senna: Bridging large vision-language models and end-to-end autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22313, 2024

    arXiv

Show all 77 references
  1. [11]

    Large (vision) language models for autonomous vehicles: Current trends and future directions

    Hanlin Tian, Kethan Reddy, Yuxiang Feng, Mohammed Quddus, Yiannis Demiris, and Panagiotis Angeloudis. Large (vision) language models for autonomous vehicles: Current trends and future directions. Authorea Preprints, 2024

    2024

  2. [13]

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

    Yuan Zhang, Chun-Kai Fan, Junpeng Ma, Wenzhao Zheng, Tao Huang, Kuan Cheng, Denis Gudovskiy, Tomoyuki Okuno, Yohei Nakata, Kurt Keutzer, et al. Sparsevlm: Visual token sparsification for efficient vision-language model inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04417, 2024

    arXiv

  3. [14]

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

    Senqiao Yang, Yukang Chen, Zhuotao Tian, Chengyao Wang, Jingyao Li, Bei Yu, and Jiaya Jia. Visionzip: Longer is better but not necessary in vision language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04467, 2024

    2024

  4. [15]

    Dynamic programming

    Richard Bellman. Dynamic programming. Science, 153(3731):34–37, 1966

    1966

  5. [16]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In ICML, pages 8748–8763, 2021

    2021

  6. [17]

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

    Liang Chen, Haozhe Zhao, Tianyu Liu, Shuai Bai, Junyang Lin, Chang Zhou, and Baobao Chang. An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision-language models. In ECCV, pages 19–35, 2025

    2025

  7. [18]

    Visual instruction tuning

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning. In NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  8. [19]

    Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering

    Yash Goyal, Tejas Khot, Douglas Summers-Stay, Dhruv Batra, and Devi Parikh. Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering. In CVPR, pages 6904–6913, 2017

    2017

  9. [20]

    Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and composi- tional question answering

    Drew A Hudson and Christopher D Manning. Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and composi- tional question answering. In CVPR, pages 6700–6709, 2019

    2019

  10. [21]

    Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people

    Danna Gurari, Qing Li, Abigale J Stangl, Anhong Guo, Chi Lin, Kristen Grauman, Jiebo Luo, and Jeffrey P Bigham. Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people. In CVPR, pages 3608–3617, 2018. 10 A PREPRINT

    2018

  11. [22]

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

    Pan Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Tony Xia, Liang Qiu, Kai-Wei Chang, Song-Chun Zhu, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  12. [23]

    Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models

    Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Jinpeng Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10355, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [24]

    Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models

    Chaoyou Fu, Peixian Chen, Yunhang Shen, Yulei Qin, Mengdan Zhang, Xu Lin, Jinrui Yang, Xiawu Zheng, Ke Li, Xing Sun, et al. Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13394, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [25]

    Mmbench: Is your multi-modal model an all-around player? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06281, 2023

    Yuan Liu, Haodong Duan, Yuanhan Zhang, Bo Li, Songyang Zhang, Wangbo Zhao, Yike Yuan, Jiaqi Wang, Conghui He, Ziwei Liu, et al. Mmbench: Is your multi-modal model an all-around player? arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06281, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [26]

    Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal llms with generative comprehension

    Bohao Li, Rui Wang, Guangzhi Wang, Yuying Ge, Yixiao Ge, and Ying Shan. Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal llms with generative comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.16125, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [27]

    Mm-vet: Evaluating large multimodal models for integrated capabilities

    Weihao Yu, Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Jianfeng Wang, Kevin Lin, Zicheng Liu, Xinchao Wang, and Lijuan Wang. Mm-vet: Evaluating large multimodal models for integrated capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02490, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [28]

    Towards vqa models that can read

    Amanpreet Singh, Vivek Natarajan, Meet Shah, Yu Jiang, Xinlei Chen, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Marcus Rohrbach. Towards vqa models that can read. In CVPR, pages 8317–8326, 2019

    2019

  18. [29]

    Are we on the right way for evaluating large vision-language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20330, 2024

    Lin Chen, Jinsong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Zehui Chen, Haodong Duan, Jiaqi Wang, Yu Qiao, Dahua Lin, et al. Are we on the right way for evaluating large vision-language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20330, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes

    Sahar Kazemzadeh, Vicente Ordonez, Mark Matten, and Tamara Berg. Referitgame: Referring to objects in photographs of natural scenes. In EMNLP, pages 787–798, 2014

    2014

  20. [31]

    Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server

    Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  21. [32]

    Open-vocabulary detr with conditional matching

    Yuhang Zang, Wei Li, Kaiyang Zhou, Chen Huang, and Chen Change Loy. Open-vocabulary detr with conditional matching. In ECCV, pages 106–122, 2022

    2022

  22. [33]

    Scene parsing through ade20k dataset

    Bolei Zhou, Hang Zhao, Xavier Puig, Sanja Fidler, Adela Barriuso, and Antonio Torralba. Scene parsing through ade20k dataset. In CVPR, 2017

    2017

  23. [34]

    Tgif-qa: Toward spatio-temporal reasoning in visual question answering

    Yunseok Jang, Yale Song, Youngjae Yu, Youngjin Kim, and Gunhee Kim. Tgif-qa: Toward spatio-temporal reasoning in visual question answering. In CVPR, pages 2758–2766, 2017

    2017

  24. [35]

    Video question answering via gradually refined attention over appearance and motion

    Dejing Xu, Zhou Zhao, Jun Xiao, Fei Wu, Hanwang Zhang, Xiangnan He, and Yueting Zhuang. Video question answering via gradually refined attention over appearance and motion. In ACM MM, pages 1645–1653, 2017

    2017

  25. [36]

    Activitynet-qa: A dataset for understanding complex web videos via question answering

    Zhou Yu, Dejing Xu, Jun Yu, Ting Yu, Zhou Zhao, Yueting Zhuang, and Dacheng Tao. Activitynet-qa: A dataset for understanding complex web videos via question answering. In AAAI, pages 9127–9134, 2019

    2019

  26. [37]

    Lmms-eval: Reality check on the evaluation of large multimodal models, 2024

    Kaichen Zhang, Bo Li, Peiyuan Zhang, Fanyi Pu, Joshua Adrian Cahyono, Kairui Hu, Shuai Liu, Yuanhan Zhang, Jingkang Yang, Chunyuan Li, and Ziwei Liu. Lmms-eval: Reality check on the evaluation of large multimodal models, 2024

    2024

  27. [38]

    Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models

    Muhammad Maaz, Hanoona Rasheed, Salman Khan, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    I Loshchilov. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [40]

    Least squares quantization in pcm

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28(2):129–137, 1982

    1982

  30. [41]

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In ICML, pages 19730–19742, 2023

    2023

  31. [42]

    Introducing idefics: An open reproduction of state-of-the-art visual language model

    IDEFICS. Introducing idefics: An open reproduction of state-of-the-art visual language model. https:// huggingface.co/blog/idefics, 2023

    2023

  32. [43]

    Sphinx: The joint mixing of weights, tasks, and visual embeddings for multi-modal large language models

    Ziyi Lin, Chris Liu, Renrui Zhang, Peng Gao, Longtian Qiu, Han Xiao, Han Qiu, Chen Lin, Wenqi Shao, Keqin Chen, et al. Sphinx: The joint mixing of weights, tasks, and visual embeddings for multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07575, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [44]

    mplug-docowl: Modularized multimodal large language model for document understanding

    Jiabo Ye, Anwen Hu, Haiyang Xu, Qinghao Ye, Ming Yan, Yuhao Dan, Chenlin Zhao, Guohai Xu, Chenliang Li, Junfeng Tian, et al. mplug-docowl: Modularized multimodal large language model for document understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02499, 2023. 11 A PREPRINT

    2023 arXiv

  34. [45]

    Llava-prumerge: Adaptive token reduction for efficient large multimodal models

    Yuzhang Shang, Mu Cai, Bingxin Xu, Yong Jae Lee, and Yan Yan. Llava-prumerge: Adaptive token reduction for efficient large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15388, 2024

    2024

  35. [46]

    Pyramiddrop: Accelerating your large vision-language models via pyramid visual redundancy reduction

    Long Xing, Qidong Huang, Xiaoyi Dong, Jiajie Lu, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Yuhang Cao, Conghui He, Jiaqi Wang, Feng Wu, et al. Pyramiddrop: Accelerating your large vision-language models via pyramid visual redundancy reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17247, 2024

    arXiv

  36. [47]

    Panoptic segmentation

    Alexander Kirillov, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, Carsten Rother, and Piotr Doll ´ar. Panoptic segmentation. In CVPR, pages 9404–9413, 2019

    2019

  37. [48]

    Mask r-cnn

    Kaiming He, Georgia Gkioxari, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Ross Girshick. Mask r-cnn. In ICCV, pages 2961–2969, 2017

    2017

  38. [49]

    Side adapter network for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation

    Mengde Xu, Zheng Zhang, Fangyun Wei, Han Hu, and Xiang Bai. Side adapter network for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. In CVPR, pages 2945–2954, 2023

    2023

  39. [50]

    F-vlm: Open-vocabulary object detection upon frozen vision and language models

    Weicheng Kuo, Yin Cui, Xiuye Gu, AJ Piergiovanni, and Anelia Angelova. F-vlm: Open-vocabulary object detection upon frozen vision and language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15639, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  40. [51]

    Coco-stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context

    Holger Caesar, Jasper Uijlings, and Vittorio Ferrari. Coco-stuff: Thing and stuff classes in context. In CVPR, pages 1209–1218, 2018

    2018

  41. [52]

    Cat-seg: Cost aggregation for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation

    Seokju Cho, Heeseong Shin, Sunghwan Hong, Anurag Arnab, Paul Hongsuck Seo, and Seungryong Kim. Cat-seg: Cost aggregation for open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. In CVPR, pages 4113–4123, 2024

    2024

  42. [53]

    Not all patches are what you need: Expediting vision transformers via token reorganizations

    Youwei Liang, Chongjian Ge, Zhan Tong, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Pengtao Xie. Not all patches are what you need: Expediting vision transformers via token reorganizations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07800, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  43. [54]

    Token merging: Your vit but faster

    Daniel Bolya, Cheng-Yang Fu, Xiaoliang Dai, Peizhao Zhang, Christoph Feichtenhofer, and Judy Hoffman. Token merging: Your vit but faster. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09461, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Qg-vtc: Question-guided visual token compression in mllms for efficient vqa

    Shuai Li, Jian Xu, Xiao-Hui Li, Chao Deng, and Lin-Lin Huang. Qg-vtc: Question-guided visual token compression in mllms for efficient vqa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00654, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  45. [56]

    Hybrid-level instruction injection for video token compression in multi-modal large language models

    Zhihang Liu, Chen-Wei Xie, Pandeng Li, Liming Zhao, Longxiang Tang, Yun Zheng, Chuanbin Liu, and Hongtao Xie. Hybrid-level instruction injection for video token compression in multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16036, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  46. [57]

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

    Shaolei Zhang, Qingkai Fang, Zhe Yang, and Yang Feng. Llava-mini: Efficient image and video large multimodal models with one vision token. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03895, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  47. [58]

    Efficient large multi-modal models via visual context compression

    Jieneng Chen, Luoxin Ye, Ju He, Zhao-Yang Wang, Daniel Khashabi, and Alan Yuille. Efficient large multi-modal models via visual context compression. In NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  48. [59]

    Matryoshka query transformer for large vision-language models

    Wenbo Hu, Zi-Yi Dou, Liunian Harold Li, Amita Kamath, Nanyun Peng, and Kai-Wei Chang. Matryoshka query transformer for large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19315, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [60]

    Mmevol: Empowering multimodal large language models with evol-instruct

    Run Luo, Haonan Zhang, Longze Chen, Ting-En Lin, Xiong Liu, Yuchuan Wu, Min Yang, Minzheng Wang, Pengpeng Zeng, Lianli Gao, et al. Mmevol: Empowering multimodal large language models with evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05840, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [61]

    Gui-r1: A generalist r1-style vision-language action model for gui agents

    Run Luo, Lu Wang, Wanwei He, and Xiaobo Xia. Gui-r1: A generalist r1-style vision-language action model for gui agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10458, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  51. [62]

    Vary: Scaling up the vision vocabulary for large vision-language model

    Haoran Wei, Lingyu Kong, Jinyue Chen, Liang Zhao, Zheng Ge, Jinrong Yang, Jianjian Sun, Chunrui Han, and Xiangyu Zhang. Vary: Scaling up the vision vocabulary for large vision-language model. In ECCV, pages 408–424, 2024

    2024

  52. [63]

    Distilling large vision-language model with out-of-distribution generalizability

    Xuanlin Li, Yunhao Fang, Minghua Liu, Zhan Ling, Zhuowen Tu, and Hao Su. Distilling large vision-language model with out-of-distribution generalizability. In ICCV, pages 2492–2503, 2023

    2023

  53. [64]

    Rs5m and georsclip: A large scale vision-language dataset and a large vision-language model for remote sensing

    Zilun Zhang, Tiancheng Zhao, Yulong Guo, and Jianwei Yin. Rs5m and georsclip: A large scale vision-language dataset and a large vision-language model for remote sensing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024

    2024

  54. [65]

    Visual in-context learning for large vision-language models

    Yucheng Zhou, Xiang Li, Qianning Wang, and Jianbing Shen. Visual in-context learning for large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11574, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [66]

    Anomalygpt: Detecting industrial anomalies using large vision-language models

    Zhaopeng Gu, Bingke Zhu, Guibo Zhu, Yingying Chen, Ming Tang, and Jinqiao Wang. Anomalygpt: Detecting industrial anomalies using large vision-language models. In AAAI, pages 1932–1940, 2024

    1932

  56. [67]

    Matryoshka query transformer for large vision-language models

    Wenbo Hu, Zi-Yi Dou, Liunian Li, Amita Kamath, Nanyun Peng, and Kai-Wei Chang. Matryoshka query transformer for large vision-language models. In NeurIPS, pages 50168–50188, 2024. 12 A PREPRINT

    2024

  57. [68]

    Pyramidclip: Hierarchical feature alignment for vision-language model pretraining

    Yuting Gao, Jinfeng Liu, Zihan Xu, Jun Zhang, Ke Li, Rongrong Ji, and Chunhua Shen. Pyramidclip: Hierarchical feature alignment for vision-language model pretraining. In NeurIPS, pages 35959–35970, 2022

    2022

  58. [69]

    Matryoshka multimodal models

    Mu Cai, Jianwei Yang, Jianfeng Gao, and Yong Jae Lee. Matryoshka multimodal models. In ICLR, 2025

    2025

  59. [70]

    Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models

    Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  60. [71]

    Dreamllm: Synergistic multimodal comprehension and creation

    Runpei Dong, Chunrui Han, Yuang Peng, Zekun Qi, Zheng Ge, Jinrong Yang, Liang Zhao, Jianjian Sun, Hongyu Zhou, Haoran Wei, et al. Dreamllm: Synergistic multimodal comprehension and creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11499, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey

    Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu. Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  62. [73]

    Benchmark evaluations, applications, and challenges of large vision language models: A survey

    Zongxia Li, Xiyang Wu, Hongyang Du, Huy Nghiem, and Guangyao Shi. Benchmark evaluations, applications, and challenges of large vision language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02189, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  63. [74]

    A survey of vision-language pre-trained models

    Yifan Du, Zikang Liu, Junyi Li, and Wayne Xin Zhao. A survey of vision-language pre-trained models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10936, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  64. [75]

    A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models

    Hanchao Liu, Wenyuan Xue, Yifei Chen, Dapeng Chen, Xiutian Zhao, Ke Wang, Liping Hou, Rongjun Li, and Wei Peng. A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00253, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  65. [76]

    Vqa: Visual question answering

    Stanislaw Antol, Aishwarya Agrawal, Jiasen Lu, Margaret Mitchell, Dhruv Batra, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. Vqa: Visual question answering. In ICCV, pages 2425–2433, 2015

    2015

  66. [77]

    Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people

    Danna Gurari, Qing Li, Abigale J Stangl, Anhong Guo, Chi Lin, Kristen Grauman, Jiebo Luo, and Jeffrey P Bigham. Vizwiz grand challenge: Answering visual questions from blind people. In CVPR, pages 3608–3617, 2018

    2018

  67. [78]

    Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation

    Ramakrishna Vedantam, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh. Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation. In CVPR, pages 4566–4575, 2015

    2015

  68. [79]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR, pages 3431–3440, 2015. 13 A PREPRINT A Additional Related Work A.1 Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) Benefiting from the success of large language models (LLM...

    2015

  69. [80]

    ℎ#"ℎ$"ℎ%

    (13) This shows that VCM can significantly reduce computational costs, e.g., achieving an 85% reduction with respect to FLOPs for LLaV A-1.5-7B. E Additional Implementation Details More details of evaluation. In this paper, we demonstrate the superiority of VCM on several task...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.