Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 77 references

This paper claims that visual-token pruning in vision-language models can be trained by continuously throttling each token's information with score-modulated noise, then applying hard top-K removal at inference, avoiding the surrogate-gradi

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 17:12 UTC pith:GZC5YTVY

load-bearing objection Solid empirical pruning paper with a clean but incremental idea; the headline transfer claim is only fully verified on DeiT and is confounded by the train-only denoiser, so the central mechanism needs a VLM-level check. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01985 v1 pith:GZC5YTVY submitted 2026-08-03 cs.CV

DiffPrune: differentiable information throttling for token pruning in vision-language models

Landi He , Mingde Yao , Shawn Young , Lijian Xu This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords visual token pruningvision-language modelsdifferentiable pruningGumbel-Softmaxstraight-through estimatornoise injectiontop-K selectionefficient inference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that the standard way of training a token pruner—relaxing discrete keep-or-drop decisions with Gumbel-Softmax and a straight-through estimator—is unstable because the backward pass differentiates a function that was not executed in the forward pass. DiffPrune instead keeps all tokens during training and weakens each token's information in proportion to its learned importance score, using a variance-preserving noise injection. Because the loss is differentiated through this same continuous operation, the scorer gets gradients that reflect the actual consequence of information loss. At deployment, the noise gate is removed and the top-K tokens by learned score are hard-selected. If right, this gives a cheap (0.69 ms) selector that retains 96.5% of full-model accuracy while pruning roughly 89% of visual tokens, with an approach that transfers across three 7B-scale backbones.

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing discrete selection with continuous information throttling during training gives token scores a direct, operational meaning: a token's score controls how much of its original representation survives, so the scorer is trained by the actual task-loss consequence of suppressing each token. The paper implements this with a Soft Top-K head that produces weights summing to the token budget, a VP-Noise Gate that interpolates each token with Gaussian noise under square-root coefficients (preserving variance), and a train-only diagonal-attention block that maps noised tokens back into the frozen model's expected representation space. At inference these components ar

What carries the argument

The Information Throttler, specifically the VP-Noise Gate: for each token x_i with score α_i in [0,1], it produces x̃_i = √α_i x_i + √(1−α_i) ε_i with ε_i ~ N(0,I). High-scoring tokens stay close to their original representation; low-scoring tokens are mostly replaced by noise. Combined with a budgeted Soft Top-K head whose weights sum to the token budget K, and a train-only diagonal-attention block that adapts noised tokens without letting them mix, this creates the differentiable score-to-loss path. The same scores are then used for hard top-K gathering at inference, with the throttler removed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the continuous information-throttling operator (Eq. 6) trains a token ranking that transfers to hard top-K removal at inference; the paper itself notes Proposition 1 only establishes training-gradient faithfulness and does not bound hard-deployment risk, and the support for transferability (Fig. 5 and the main tables) comes from a single-seed run.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier would be a setting, at a given budget and backbone, where a scorer trained with the noise-throttling path yields a ranking that, when evaluated under hard top-K removal, underperforms a scorer trained with Gumbel-Softmax on the same architecture and data—or where the Top-1 accuracy gap in Fig. 5 becomes large (e.g., >5 points) across budgets. Concretely, rerun the main LLaVA-1.5-7B comparison at K=64 across five seeds and check whether DiffPrune's average retention advantage over the best baseline persists under seed variation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A scorer trained through the noise-throttling path can be transferred to hard top-K removal with no retraining or recalibration; Fig. 5 shows small Top-1/Top-5 gaps across budgets.
  • On LLaVA-1.5-7B, DiffPrune reports the highest average retention among compared methods at K=128, 64, and 32, exceeding the closest baseline by 0.4, 1.4, and 2.0 points respectively.
  • On LLaVA-NEXT-7B at K=320 (11.1% tokens kept) it reports 96.1% average retention, and on Qwen2.5-VL-7B it leads on 13 of 15 benchmark–rate combinations.
  • The inference path is a single scorer pass plus index gathering, costing 0.69 ms and reducing LLM prefill from 118.66 ms to 41.61 ms on the profiled setup.
  • Replacing the continuous score-to-loss path with Gumbel-STE in the same framework lowers retention by 8.1 points at K=64, supporting the paper's diagnosis that the operator-level mismatch is the problem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transferability claim holds beyond the reported settings, the same information-throttling trick could be applied to other sparsity operators—e.g., pruning KV cache entries or attention heads—where a continuous weakening operator can be defined and the final deployment is a hard selection.
  • Because training never executes discrete selection, the method may be less sensitive to the choice of temperature schedule than Gumbel-Softmax; the cosine annealing toward a sharp mask is presented as a detail, but the low-temperature limit analysis suggests ranking-level agreement only when boundary scores are strictly separated.
  • The single-seed evaluation of VLM results leaves open whether the reported margins are stable; a multi-seed repetition of the main tables would be a natural first test of the transferability claim.
  • The diagonal-attention block's role suggests a broader design principle: when training with stochastic perturbations, a lightweight trainable adaptation layer may be needed to keep the perturbed features within the frozen model's manifold—this could transfer to other noise-based fine-tuning or distillation schemes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. DiffPrune is a token-pruning method for vision-language models. Instead of training a discrete or Gumbel-STE pruning path, it keeps all visual tokens during training and throttles each token's information by interpolating it with Gaussian noise according to a learned score, using a variance-preserving schedule. The score is normalized by a budgeted Soft Top-K head so that the scores sum to the target token budget. A train-only Diagonal-Attention Block maps the noised tokens back to the representation space expected by the frozen projector. At inference the throttler is removed and hard top-K selection is applied using the learned scores. The paper reports state-of-the-art retention on LLaVA-1.5-7B, LLaVA-NEXT-7B, and Qwen2.5-VL-7B across ten benchmarks, claims a 2.85x LLM prefill acceleration with only 0.69 ms selection overhead, and provides a DeiT-based diagnostic study showing greater gradient consistency and smoother loss landscapes than Gumbel-STE. The authors explicitly distinguish training-gradient faithfulness from training-inference operator alignment, and Proposition 1 formalizes only the former.

Significance. If the central mechanism were verified, the paper would make a useful conceptual contribution: training a token scorer through a continuous information-throttling path that is not confounded by surrogate relaxation, and showing that it transfers to hard pruning. The paper has several strengths: the method is trained on ImageNet captions and evaluated on external VLM benchmarks, avoiding direct benchmark fitting; the ablations in Table 5 isolate the score-to-loss path, the VP-Noise gate, and the Diagonal-Attention Block; the efficiency table is concrete and reproducible in structure; and Proposition 1 is stated carefully, with the paper explicitly refusing to overclaim it as a transfer guarantee. However, the key empirical claim—that the continuous throttling operator trains a score that faithfully represents the cost of hard token removal in the VLM setting—is not directly tested in the deployment architecture. The train-only Diagonal-Attention Block can in principle compensate for noise, and the only operator-alignment check is a DeiT image-classification probe. The main benchmark tables also compare averages computed over different benchmark subsets and are based on single runs,

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (3), Eq. (6)] The train-only Diagonal-Attention Block D_phi is optimized jointly with the Scorer and removed at inference. Because D_phi transforms each noised token independently and is trained to minimize the same LM loss, it can learn to attenuate the effect of the injected noise for low-score tokens. The gradient w.r.t. alpha then measures sensitivity of the loss after D_phi has had a chance to 'repair' the noised token, not the sensitivity to removing the token in the deployed hard top-K graph. This confound directly affects the paper's core explanatory claim in Sec. 4.1 that a low score means weakening the token does not hurt the task. A controlled experiment is needed, e.g., training the Scorer with D_phi frozen or removed and comparing the downstream hard-top-K retention, or directly measuring whether the continuous-throttled loss for a held-out example tracks the hard-removal loss of the top-
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 5] The only operator-alignment check (continuous throttling vs. hard top-K with identical scores and no retraining) is shown in Fig. 5, but the figure reports Top-1/Top-5 accuracy, i.e., it is a DeiT image-classification probe, not the VLM setting with frozen projector and LLM. No table or figure in the paper performs the same 'continuous-throttle vs. hard-top-K' comparison on LLaVA or Qwen checkpoints. Tables 1–3 evaluate only the deployed hard top-K path, so they demonstrate that hard top-K with the learned scores works, but they do not establish that the noise-throttling objective is the reason, especially in the presence of D_phi. The authors should add a VLM-side operator-alignment experiment, e.g., evaluating the same trained Scorer on a validation split under (i) the continuous throttling used in training and (ii) hard top-K, and report the retention gap. This is load-bearing for the
  3. [Tables 1–3, 'Avg.' reporting] The averaged retention values in Tables 1–3 appear to be computed over the benchmarks actually reported by each baseline, since many entries are marked '–'. For example, Table 1 at K=128 lists '–' for VisionZip on MMB-CN and VizWiz, for HoloV on MMB-CN and VizWiz, and for OC-VTP on MMB-CN and VizWiz, yet reports an average retention for each method. If the averages are over different subsets of benchmarks, the stated margins between DiffPrune and the closest baseline (0.4, 1.4, and 2.0 points at K=128/64/32) are not directly comparable, and the claim of 'strongest average retention' is not well defined. Please state explicitly how 'Avg.' is computed when benchmarks are missing, and provide a common-subset comparison over the benchmarks available for every method, or impute missing values with a clearly described rule.
  4. [Appendix A, 'Randomness and reporting'] All downstream VLM, ablation, and scalability results are reported from a single run with a fixed random seed 42, while only the DeiT probes use five seeds. Many comparison margins in Tables 1–3 are small (0.4–2.0 points), and without multiple seeds or at least error bars it is impossible to assess whether the reported improvements are meaningful. The manuscript should either run the main comparisons with multiple seeds and report mean/standard deviation, or clearly justify that the benchmark evaluation is deterministic enough that single-seed reporting is appropriate. This is particularly important because the headline numbers (96.5%, 2.85x, 96.1%) are all derived from the single-seed runs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix F] The limitation section refers to 'Scorer and Denoiser' while the method section calls the second component the Diagonal-Attention Block D_phi. The terminology is inconsistent; please use one name throughout.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (6)] The reference [44] is attributed to 'VP-Noise', but the cited paper is the DDPM paper. The noise interpolation in Eq. (6) is a standard variance-preserving diffusion-style schedule; please cite the original VP schedule or a direct source for this exact formulation, and distinguish it from the DDPM training objective.
  3. [Tables 1–3 and Sec. 5.2] For Qwen2.5-VL, results are reported by pruning rate rather than a fixed K, but the text does not explain how the per-image token budget is derived from a desired pruning rate. Please specify the rule used to map a pruning rate to a token count (e.g., floor of (1-rate)*N per image) and whether the same rule is applied to all baselines.
  4. [Fig. 5] The caption of Fig. 5 says 'Both operators use identical token scores and budgets from the same trained Scorer', but it does not state which backbone and training setup produced those scores. Please state explicitly that this is a DeiT probe, or if it is a VLM experiment, provide the model name and training details in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the score-to-loss path is trained on external caption data and the deployment claim is empirically evaluated rather than derived from its own definition.

full rationale

DiffPrune's central claim is that training through the continuous Information Throttler (Eq. 6) yields a token ranking that transfers to hard top-K at inference. This is not circular: the ranking is trained on ImageNet-1K captions, not on the ten downstream benchmarks used for evaluation, so the headline retention numbers are external validation rather than fitted values. Proposition 1 only asserts that backpropagation through the executed differentiable maps returns the pathwise gradient; the paper explicitly states it 'neither makes hard top-K differentiable nor bounds the hard-deployment risk,' and Sec. 4.1 separates training-inference operator alignment as 'evaluated separately in Fig. 5 and Tables 1 to 3.' The train-only Diagonal-Attention Block is a potential confound in that it could alter how information loss is reflected in the score gradient, but this is an empirical verification gap, not a definitional reduction: no equation constructs the downstream benchmark result from the training objective or from a self-citation. Self-citations appear only in the limitation/future-work discussion (Refs. 60-77) and are not load-bearing for the method's derivation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is repackaged as a new derivation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained, with the acknowledged operator-alignment assumption tested against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or ontological entities are introduced; the Information Throttler, VP-Noise Gate, and Diagonal-Attention Block are neural network components whose behavior is measured within the paper, not free-floating postulates. The method relies on hand-chosen annealing and interpolation parameters plus assumptions about how noise maps to information loss.

free parameters (3)
  • Soft Top-K temperature schedule = tau_start=2.0, tau_end=0.1, Tanneal=2000
    Cosine annealing schedule in Eq. (9); hand-chosen and controls how close training weights come to a hard mask. The paper does not derive it from any principle.
  • VP-Noise interpolation coefficients = sqrt(alpha), sqrt(1-alpha)
    Square-root coefficients in Eq. (6) chosen to preserve feature variance; a reasonable but ad hoc modeling choice that defines what information throttling means.
  • Training data subset = 10% of ImageNet-1K-VL-Enriched (seed 42)
    The Scorer is trained on a single 10% subset with no sensitivity analysis, yet all downstream results depend on this choice.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Frozen VLM can be adapted by training only the Scorer and an 84M-parameter Diagonal-Attention Block on captioning data.
    Section 4.1 and Appendix A: only theta and phi are optimized; the paper assumes this lightweight adaptation produces a ranking that transfers to the frozen model at inference.
  • domain assumption Isotropic Gaussian noise added with sqrt(1-alpha) strength reduces a token's contribution to the task in the same way that removing the token does.
    Section 4.3, Eq. (6): the entire training signal is built on this proxy; the paper offers only empirical evidence (Fig. 5) and no formal argument that noise-throttling is equivalent to removal.
  • standard math The strict score gap s_piK > s_piK+1 at the top-K boundary, needed for the low-temperature limit in Eq. (8), holds during training.
    Appendix B: the limit to a hard mask requires no ties at the boundary; the paper notes the tie case needs a convention but does not verify tie-free boundaries empirically.
  • domain assumption Results from a single seed (42) are representative.
    Appendix A: all VLM experiments use one seed; the DeiT probes use five seeds, so the main claim's reproducibility depends on this assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 17562 in / 14615 out tokens · 159443 ms · 2026-08-04T17:12:53.379039+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DiffPrune: differentiable information throttling for token pruning in vision-language models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZC5YTVY

@misc{pith2026260801985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DiffPrune: differentiable information throttling for token pruning in vision-language models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZC5YTVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01985}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Visual token pruning reduces the computational cost of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) by removing redundant visual tokens. The key is to learn a score that measures whether a token is useful. Existing methods typically rely on Gumbel-Softmax to approximate discrete selection during training. Such selectors make the score depend on the behavior of a relaxed pruning operator, not directly on the consequence of information loss. In this paper, we propose DiffPrune, which gives token scores a direct meaning. During training, DiffPrune keeps all tokens and weakens each token's information according to its score. If weakening a token hurts the task, the scorer is pushed to protect it; if not, the token can receive a lower score. Because the loss is differentiated through this actual information-throttling path, the scorer avoids the unstable surrogate path of relaxed token selection. DiffPrune implements this idea with an Information Throttler, which injects variance-preserving noise into visual tokens, where high-score tokens remain close to their original representations, while low-score tokens carry less original information. At inference, the throttler is removed, and hard top-K pruning is applied using the learned scores. Across ten VLM benchmarks, DiffPrune retains 96.5% of full-model accuracy while accelerating LLM prefill by 2.85x, with only 0.69 ms inference overhead. Code will be publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01985 by Landi He, Lijian Xu, Mingde Yao, Shawn Young.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of training paradigms. (a) Discrete pruning decisions with surrogate gradient updates. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gradient consistency and accuracy in controlled DeiT probes [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Loss around the scorer initialization. (a–b) Two-dimensional loss slices for DiffPrune and Gumbel-Softmax. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of DiffPrune. It has two components: a Scorer and an Information Throttler. The Scorer produces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Validation of training–inference operator alignment. (a) Illustrative examples. (b) Top-1 and Top-5 accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Vita: An efficient video- to-text algorithm using vlm for rag-based video analysis system

    Md Adnan Arefeen, Biplob Debnath, Md Yusuf Sarwar Uddin, and Srimat Chakradhar. Vita: An efficient video- to-text algorithm using vlm for rag-based video analysis system. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2266–2274, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Fastvlm: Efficient vision encoding for vision language models

    Pavan Kumar Anasosalu Vasu, Fartash Faghri, Chun-Liang Li, Cem Koc, Nate True, Albert Antony, Gokula Santhanam, James Gabriel, Peter Grasch, Oncel Tuzel, et al. Fastvlm: Efficient vision encoding for vision language models. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 19769–19780, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Mmtok: Multimodal coverage maximization for efficient inference of vlms.ICLR, 2026

    Sixun Dong, Juhua Hu, Mian Zhang, Ming Yin, Yanjie Fu, and Qi Qian. Mmtok: Multimodal coverage maximization for efficient inference of vlms.ICLR, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    See what matters: Differentiable grid sample pruning for generalizable vision-language-action model.ICML, 2026

    Yixu Feng, Zinan Zhao, Yanxiang Ma, Chenghao Xia, Chengbin Du, Yunke Wang, and Chang Xu. See what matters: Differentiable grid sample pruning for generalizable vision-language-action model.ICML, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    Similarity-aware token pruning: Your vlm but faster.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11549, 2025

    Ahmadreza Jeddi, Negin Baghbanzadeh, Elham Dolatabadi, and Babak Taati. Similarity-aware token pruning: Your vlm but faster.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11549, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Fine-grained vlm fine-tuning via latent hierarchical adapter learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11176, 2025

    Yumiao Zhao, Bo Jiang, Yuhe Ding, Xiao Wang, Jin Tang, and Bin Luo. Fine-grained vlm fine-tuning via latent hierarchical adapter learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11176, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Dynamic token reduction during generation for vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14204, 2025

    Xiaoyu Liang, Chaofeng Guan, Jiaying Lu, Huiyao Chen, Huan Wang, and Haoji Hu. Dynamic token reduction during generation for vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14204, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Hervé Jégou. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 10347–10357. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    Differentiable top-k operator with optimal transport

    Yujia Xie et al. Differentiable top-k operator with optimal transport. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    A survey of token compression for efficient multimodal large language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025

    Kele Shao, TAO Keda, Kejia Zhang, Sicheng Feng, Mu Cai, Yuzhang Shang, Haoxuan You, Can Qin, Yang Sui, and Huan Wang. A survey of token compression for efficient multimodal large language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Towards efficient multimodal large language models: A survey on token compression

    Linli Yao, Long Xing, Yang Shi, Sida Li, Yuanxin Liu, Yuhao Dong, Yi-Fan Zhang, Lei Li, Qingxiu Dong, Xiaoyi Dong, et al. Towards efficient multimodal large language models: A survey on token compression. TechRxiv preprint, 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    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 European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Sparsevlm: Visual token sparsification for efficient vision-language model inference.ICML, 2025

    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.ICML, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    [CLS] attention is all you need for training-free visual token pruning: Make VLM inference faster, 2024

    Haoran Zhang et al. [CLS] attention is all you need for training-free visual token pruning: Make VLM inference faster, 2024. arXiv preprint

    2024

  15. [15]

    Boosting multimodal large language models with visual tokens withdrawal for rapid inference

    Zhihang Lin, Mingbao Lin, Luxi Lin, and Rongrong Ji. Boosting multimodal large language models with visual tokens withdrawal for rapid inference. InAAAI, volume 39, pages 5334–5342, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Hired: Attention-guided token dropping for efficient inference of high-resolution vision-language models

    Kazi Hasan Ibn Arif, JinYi Yoon, Dimitrios S Nikolopoulos, Hans Vandierendonck, Deepu John, and Bo Ji. Hired: Attention-guided token dropping for efficient inference of high-resolution vision-language models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 1773–1781, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Pyramiddrop: Accelerating your large vision-language models via pyramid visual redundancy reduction.CVPR, 2025

    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.CVPR, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Topv: Compatible token pruning with inference time optimization for fast and low-memory multimodal vision language model

    Cheng Yang, Yang Sui, Jinqi Xiao, Lingyi Huang, Yu Gong, Chendi Li, Jinghua Yan, Yu Bai, Ponnuswamy Sadayappan, Xia Hu, and Bo Yuan. Topv: Compatible token pruning with inference time optimization for fast and low-memory multimodal vision language model. InCVPR, pages 19803–19813, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Token merging: Your ViT but faster

    Daniel Bolya, Cheng-Yang Fu, Xiaodong Dai, Peize Zhang, and Judy Hoffman. Token merging: Your ViT but faster. InICLR, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    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, 2024. 11

    2024

  21. [21]

    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. InCVPR, pages 19792–19802, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

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

    Weihao Ye, Qiong Wu, Wenhao Lin, and Yiyi Zhou. Fit and prune: Fast and training-free visual token pruning for multi-modal large language models. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Feather the throttle: Revisiting visual token pruning for vision-language model acceleration

    Mark Endo, Xiaohan Wang, and Serena Yeung-Levy. Feather the throttle: Revisiting visual token pruning for vision-language model acceleration. arXiv preprint, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Divprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large multimodal models

    Saeed Ranjbar Alvar, Gursimran Singh, Mohammad Akbari, and Yong Zhang. Divprune: Diversity-based visual token pruning for large multimodal models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    important tokens

    Zichen Wen, Yifeng Gao, Shaobo Wang, Junyuan Zhang, Qintong Zhang, Weijia Li, Conghui He, and Linfeng Zhang. 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, pages 9972–9991, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    highlighted tokens

    Xin Zou, Di Lu, Yizhou Wang, Yibo Yan, Yuanhuiyi Lyu, Xu Zheng, Linfeng Zhang, and Xuming Hu. Don’t just chase “highlighted tokens” in mllms: Revisiting visual holistic context retention.NeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Balanced token pruning: Accelerating vision language models beyond local optimization

    Kaiyuan Li, Xiaoyue Chen, Chen Gao, Yong Li, and Xinlei Chen. Balanced token pruning: Accelerating vision language models beyond local optimization. arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Prune redundancy, preserve essence: Vision token compression in vlms via synergistic importance-diversity

    Zhengyao Fang, Pengyuan Lyu, Chengquan Zhang, Guangming Lu, Jun Yu, and Wenjie Pei. Prune redundancy, preserve essence: Vision token compression in vlms via synergistic importance-diversity. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Vlm-pruner: Buffering for spatial sparsity in an efficient vlm centrifugal token pruning paradigm.CVPR 2026, 2025

    Zhenkai Wu, Xiaowen Ma, Zhenliang Ni, Dengming Zhang, Han Shu, Xin Jiang, and Xinghao Chen. Vlm-pruner: Buffering for spatial sparsity in an efficient vlm centrifugal token pruning paradigm.CVPR 2026, 2025

    2026

  30. [30]

    Yunqian Yu, Biao Chen, Yunya Zhang, Tonglan Xie, Mengmeng Jing, and Lin Zuo. Instruction-guided cross-modal clustering for training-free visual token pruning in vision-language models.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 40(14):12213–12221, 2026

    2026

  31. [31]

    AgilePruner: An empirical study of attention and diversity for adaptive visual token pruning in large vision-language models

    Changwoo Baek, Jouwon Song, Sohyeon Kim, and Kyeongbo Kong. AgilePruner: An empirical study of attention and diversity for adaptive visual token pruning in large vision-language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    Learnpruner: Rethinking attention-based token pruning in vision language models.ICLR 2026, 2026

    Rinyoichi Takezoe, Yaqian Li, Zihao Bo, Anzhou Hou, Mo Guang, and Kaiwen Long. Learnpruner: Rethinking attention-based token pruning in vision language models.ICLR 2026, 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    Object-centric vision token pruning for vision language models

    Guangyuan Li, Rongzhen Zhao, Jinhong Deng, Yanbo Wang, and Joni Pajarinen. Object-centric vision token pruning for vision language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Findings, pages 7040–7049, June 2026

    2026

  34. [34]

    Dynamicvit: Efficient vision transformers with dynamic token sparsification.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:13937–13949, 2021

    Yongming Rao, Wenliang Zhao, Benlin Liu, Jiwen Lu, Jie Zhou, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. Dynamicvit: Efficient vision transformers with dynamic token sparsification.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:13937–13949, 2021

    2021

  35. [35]

    ATP-LLaV A: Adaptive token pruning for large vision language models

    Xubing Ye, Yukang Gan, Yixiao Ge, Xiao-Ping Zhang, and Yansong Tang. ATP-LLaV A: Adaptive token pruning for large vision language models. InCVPR, pages 24972–24982, 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    Dynamic-llava: Efficient multimodal large language models via dynamic vision-language context sparsification

    Wenxuan Huang, Zijie Zhai, Yunhang Shen, Shaosheng Cao, Fei Zhao, Xiangfeng Xu, Zheyu Ye, and Shaohui Lin. Dynamic-llava: Efficient multimodal large language models via dynamic vision-language context sparsification. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 69927–69955, 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    The better you learn, the smarter you prune: Towards efficient vision-language-action models via differentiable token pruning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12594, 2025

    Titong Jiang, Xuefeng Jiang, Yuan Ma, Xin Wen, Bailin Li, Kun Zhan, Peng Jia, Yahui Liu, Sheng Sun, and Xianpeng Lang. The better you learn, the smarter you prune: Towards efficient vision-language-action models via differentiable token pruning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12594, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Shiva-dit: Residual-based differentiable top-k selection for efficient diffusion transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05605, 2026

    Jiaji Zhang, Hailiang Zhao, Guoxuan Zhu, Ruichao Sun, Jiaju Wu, Xinkui Zhao, Hanlin Tang, Weiyi Lu, Kan Liu, Tao Lan, et al. Shiva-dit: Residual-based differentiable top-k selection for efficient diffusion transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05605, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Growing a multi-head twig via distillation and reinforcement learning to accelerate large vision-language models, 2025

    Zhenwei Shao, Mingyang Wang, Weijun Zhang, Zhou Yu, Wenwen Pan, Yan Yang, Tao Wei, Hongyuan Zhang, and Jun Yu. Growing a multi-head twig via distillation and reinforcement learning to accelerate large vision-language models, 2025

    2025

  40. [40]

    Top-rl: Task-optimized progressive token pruning with reinforcement learning for vision language models

    Hengyi Wang, Weiying Xie, Hui Jiang, Yaotao Wei, Kai Jiang, Mingxiang Cao, Chenhe Hao, and Leyuan Fang. Top-rl: Task-optimized progressive token pruning with reinforcement learning for vision language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 40, pages 15824–15832, 2026. 12

    2026

  41. [41]

    Improving discrete optimisation via decoupled straight-through gumbel-softmax.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13331, 2024

    Rushi Shah, Mingyuan Yan, Michael Curtis Mozer, and Dianbo Liu. Improving discrete optimisation via decoupled straight-through gumbel-softmax.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13331, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Bias-variance tradeoffs in single-sample binary gradient estimators

    Alexander Shekhovtsov. Bias-variance tradeoffs in single-sample binary gradient estimators. InDAGM German Conference on Pattern Recognition, pages 127–141. Springer, 2021

    2021

  43. [43]

    Bednarczyk, Igor T

    Łukasz Struski, Michal B. Bednarczyk, Igor T. Podolak, and Jacek Tabor. LapSum - one method to differentiate them all: Ranking, sorting and top-k selection. In Aarti Singh, Maryam Fazel, Daniel Hsu, Simon Lacoste-Julien, Felix Berkenkamp, Tegan Maharaj, Kiri Wagstaff, and Jerry Zhu, editors,Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learn...

    2025

  44. [44]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  45. [45]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255, 2009

    2009

  46. [46]

    Imagenet-1k-vl-enriched, 2023

    Visual Layer. Imagenet-1k-vl-enriched, 2023. HuggingFace dataset

    2023

  47. [47]

    Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    2023

  48. [48]

    p-mod: Building mixture-of-depths mllms via progressive ratio decay

    Jun Zhang, Desen Meng, Zhengming Zhang, Zhenpeng Huang, Tao Wu, and Limin Wang. p-mod: Building mixture-of-depths mllms via progressive ratio decay. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3705–3715, 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    A glimpse to compress: Dynamic visual token pruning for large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01548, 2025

    Quan-Sheng Zeng, Yunheng Li, Qilong Wang, Peng-Tao Jiang, Zuxuan Wu, Ming-Ming Cheng, and Qibin Hou. A glimpse to compress: Dynamic visual token pruning for large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01548, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and com- positional question answering

    Drew A Hudson and Christopher D Manning. Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and com- positional question answering. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6700–6709, 2019

    2019

  51. [51]

    Mmbench: Is your multi-modal model an all-around player? InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 216–233

    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? InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 216–233. Springer, 2024

    2024

  52. [52]

    Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models.NeurIPS, 2025

    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.NeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  53. [53]

    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. InProceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 292–305, 2023

    2023

  54. [54]

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

    Pan Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Tanglin 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. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:2507–2521, 2022

    2022

  55. [55]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6904–6913, 2017

    2017

  56. [56]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8317–8326, 2019

    2019

  57. [57]

    Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models

    Bohao Li, Yuying Ge, Yixiao Ge, Guangzhi Wang, Rui Wang, Ruimao Zhang, and Ying Shan. Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13299–13308, 2024

    2024

  58. [58]

    Vizwiz: nearly real-time answers to visual questions

    Jeffrey P Bigham, Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Greg Little, Andrew Miller, Robert C Miller, Robin Miller, Aubrey Tatarowicz, Brandyn White, Samual White, et al. Vizwiz: nearly real-time answers to visual questions. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 333–342, 2010

    2010

  59. [59]

    Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, Humen Zhong, Yuanzhi Zhu, Mingkun Yang, Zhaohai Li, Jianqiang Wan, Pengfei Wang, Wei Ding, Zheren Fu, Yiheng Xu, Jiabo Ye, Xi Zhang, Tianbao Xie, Zesen Cheng, Hang Zhang, Zhibo Yang, Haiyang Xu, and Junyang Lin. Qwen2.5-vl technical report, 2025. 13

    2025

  60. [60]

    One leaf reveals the season: Occlusion-based contrastive learning with semantic-aware views for efficient visual representation

    Xiaoyu Yang, Lijian Xu, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. One leaf reveals the season: Occlusion-based contrastive learning with semantic-aware views for efficient visual representation. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 71425–71440, 2025

    2025

  61. [61]

    Fewer tokens, greater scaling: Self-adaptive visual bases for efficient and expansive representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19515, 2026

    Shawn Young, Xingyu Zeng, and Lijian Xu. Fewer tokens, greater scaling: Self-adaptive visual bases for efficient and expansive representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19515, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Scalar: Spatial- concept alignment for robust vision in harsh open world.Pattern Recognition, page 113203, 2026

    Xiaoyu Yang, Lijian Xu, Xingyu Zeng, Xiaosong Wang, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. Scalar: Spatial- concept alignment for robust vision in harsh open world.Pattern Recognition, page 113203, 2026

    2026

  63. [63]

    Segmentation and vascular vectorization for coronary artery by geometry-based cascaded neural network.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 44(1):259–269, 2024

    Xiaoyu Yang, Lijian Xu, Simon Yu, Qing Xia, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. Segmentation and vascular vectorization for coronary artery by geometry-based cascaded neural network.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 44(1):259–269, 2024

    2024

  64. [64]

    Geometry-based end-to-end segmentation of coronary artery in computed tomography angiography

    Xiaoyu Yang, Lijian Xu, Simon Yu, Qing Xia, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. Geometry-based end-to-end segmentation of coronary artery in computed tomography angiography. InInternational Workshop on Trustworthy Machine Learning for Healthcare, pages 190–196. Springer, 2023

    2023

  65. [65]

    Tc-ssa: Token compression via semantic slot aggregation for gigapixel pathology reasoning.MICCAI, 2026

    Zhuo Chen, Shawn Young, and Lijian Xu. Tc-ssa: Token compression via semantic slot aggregation for gigapixel pathology reasoning.MICCAI, 2026

    2026

  66. [66]

    Multimodal model for computational pathology: Representation learning and image compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18660, 2026

    Peihang Wu, Zehong Chen, and Lijian Xu. Multimodal model for computational pathology: Representation learning and image compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18660, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    A unified multi-task framework enables interpretable chest radiograph analysis.Med, 2026

    Lijian Xu, Ziyu Ni, Xinglong Liu, Xiaosong Wang, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. A unified multi-task framework enables interpretable chest radiograph analysis.Med, 2026

    2026

  68. [68]

    Learning a multi-task transformer via unified and customized instruction tuning for chest radiograph interpretation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01092, 2023

    Lijian Xu, Ziyu Ni, Xinglong Liu, Xiaosong Wang, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. Learning a multi-task transformer via unified and customized instruction tuning for chest radiograph interpretation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01092, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    Medvilam: A multimodal large language model with advanced generalizability and explainability for medical data understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19684, 2024

    Lijian Xu, Hao Sun, Ziyu Ni, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. Medvilam: A multimodal large language model with advanced generalizability and explainability for medical data understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19684, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    A foundation model for generalizable disease diagnosis in chest x-ray images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08861, 2024

    Lijian Xu, Ziyu Ni, Hao Sun, Hongsheng Li, and Shaoting Zhang. A foundation model for generalizable disease diagnosis in chest x-ray images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08861, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Efficient chest x-ray representation learning via semantic-partitioned contrastive learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07113, 2026

    Wangyu Feng, Shawn Young, and Lijian Xu. Efficient chest x-ray representation learning via semantic-partitioned contrastive learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07113, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Beyond surrogate gradients: Fully differentiable token pruning for vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28051, 2026

    Landi He, Mingde Yao, Shawn Young, and Lijian Xu. Beyond surrogate gradients: Fully differentiable token pruning for vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28051, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    The model knows which tokens matter:automatic token selection via noise gating.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07135, 2026

    Landi He, Xiaoyu Yang, and Lijian Xu. The model knows which tokens matter:automatic token selection via noise gating.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07135, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Stepwise token selection for efficient multimodal large language models

    Landi He, Shawn Young, and Lijian Xu. Stepwise token selection for efficient multimodal large language models. WAICA, 2026

    2026

  75. [75]

    Learnable token sparsification for efficient gigapixel whole slide image reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.08641, 2026

    Jingzhi Chen, Landi He, Zhuo Chen, Shawn Young, and Lijian Xu. Learnable token sparsification for efficient gigapixel whole slide image reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.08641, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Pathselect: Sequential token selection for whole slide pathology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.23631, 2026

    Jingzhi Chen, Landi He, Zehong Chen, Peihang Wu, and Lijian Xu. Pathselect: Sequential token selection for whole slide pathology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.23631, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    Zerosense: How vision matters in long context compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11846, 2026

    Yonghan Gao, Zehong Chen, Lijian Xu, Jingzhi Chen, Jingwei Guan, and Xingyu Zeng. Zerosense: How vision matters in long context compression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11846, 2026. 14 A Implementation Details and Training Hyperparameters Implementation.All experiments are implemented in PyTorch and run on a single NVIDIA RTX A6000 GPU, except that the Qwen2...

    arXiv 2026