Vision-language models (VLMs) face significant computational inefficiencies caused by excessive generation of visual tokens. While prior work shows that a large fraction of visual tokens are redundant, existing compression methods struggle to balance importance preservation and information diversity. To address this, we propose PruneSID, a training-free Synergistic Importance-Diversity approach featuring a two-stage pipeline: (1) Principal Semantic Components Analysis (PSCA) for clustering tokens into semantically coherent groups, ensuring comprehensive concept coverage, and (2) Intra-group Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS) for pruning redundant tokens while preserving key representative tokens within each group. Additionally, PruneSID incorporates an information-aware dynamic compression ratio mechanism that optimizes token compression rates based on image complexity, enabling more effective average information preservation across diverse scenes. Extensive experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, achieving 96.3% accuracy on LLaVA-1.5 with only 11.1% token retention, and 92.8% accuracy at extreme compression rates (5.6%) on LLaVA-NeXT, outperforming prior methods by 2.5% with 7.8 × faster prefilling speed compared to the original model. Our framework generalizes across diverse VLMs and both image and video modalities, showcasing strong cross-modal versatility. Code is available at https://github.com/ZhengyaoFang/PruneSID.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of visual token reduction paradigms in VLMs. (a) Original input image. (b) Attention-guided methods preserve high-attention tokens but discard contextual background. (c) Duplication-aware methods remove redundant tokens via similarity pruning, yet may discard semantically important regions with high attention. (d) Our proposed semantically group-guided method balances semantic importance and information diversity.
Figure 2: Performance comparison of token reduction methods across multiple vision-language benchmarks on LLaVA-1.5.
Figure 3: Overview of our two-stage compression framework. PSCA first clusters visual tokens into semantically coherent groups via low-rank PCA decomposition. Then, intra-group NMS removes redundant tokens within each group using adaptive similarity thresholds τ , retaining the most informative representatives.
Method
Early Cmp.
GQA
MMB
MME
POPE
SQA
VQA v2
VQA Text
MMMU
SEED
VizWiz
LLaVa-B
Avg.
Upper Bound, 576 Tokens (100%)
Vanilla CVPR24
−
61.9
64.7
1862
85.9
69.5
78.5
58.2
36.3
60.5
54.3
66.8
100%
Retain 192 Tokens ( ↓ 66.7%)
FastV ECCV24
×
52.7
61.2
1612
64.8
67.3
67.1
52.5
34.3
57.1
50.8
49.4
88.2%
SparseVLM 24.10
×
57.6
62.5
1721
83.6
69.1
75.6
56.1
33.8
55.8
50.5
66.1
95.3%
MustDrop 24.11
×
58.2
62.3
1787
82.6
69.2
76.0
56.5
−
−
51.4
−
96.3%
Table 1: Performance of PruneSID on LLaVA-1.5. Vanilla refers to the uncompressed baseline model using all 576 visual tokens, serving as the upper performance bound. Early Cmp. indicates whether the compression is applied prior to the LLM for improved efficiency. PruneSID -Dyn denotes the variant of our method augmented with the Dynamic Compression Ratio mechanism.
Table 5
Method
TGIF
MSVD
MSRVTT
A-Net
Avg.
Video-LLaVA
47.1
70.7
59.2
43.1
100%
FastV
23.1
38.0
19.3
30.6
52.1%
SparseVLM
44.7
68.2
31.0
42.6
86.5%
VisionZip
42.4
63.5
52.1
43.0
93.2%
PruneSID
45.8
67.1
53.3
43.1
95.5%
Table 4: Performance on Video-LLaVA.
Method
Retain 64
Retain 128
Retain 192
Avg.
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
random
56.2
1707
79.6
67.5
57.8
1723
84.0
66.0
59.4
1743
85.6
67.5
94.8%
kmeans
56.5
1630
82.8
67.8
58.7
1714
86.3
67.8
60.0
1745
86.8
68.0
95.6%
PruneSID
57.1
1733
83.8
67.8
58.8
1749
86.5
68.3
60.1
1793
86.9
68.5
96.8%
Table 5: Ablation study of group method on LLaVA-1.5.
K
Retain 64
Retain 128
Retain 192
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
Avg.
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
Avg.
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
Avg.
8
56.2
1684
81.4
67.1
93.1%
58.2
1720
85.3
68.3
96.0%
59.2
1763
83.0
67.9
96.2%
16
57.1
1733
83.8
67.8
95.1%
58.6
1692
86.4
68.2
96.1%
59.2
1755
85.4
68.3
96.9%
32
57.1
1700
83.7
68.0
94.7%
58.8
1749
86.5
68.3
97.0%
60.1
1763
86.8
68.4
97.9%
48
56.9
1668
83.7
67.6
94.1%
58.7
1720
85.8
68.3
96.3%
60.1
1793
86.9
68.5
98.3%
60
56.7
1657
83.6
67.6
93.8%
58.6
1715
85.7
68.0
96.1%
60.0
1774
86.9
68.5
98.0%
Table 6: Ablation study of group K on LLaVA-1.5.
Figure 4: Ablation study on ViT layer features for PSCA Grouping.
Methods
LLaVA-1.5
LLaVA-NeXT
Mini-Gemini
MME
SQA
MMMU
POPE
Avg.
Δ
MME
SQA
MMMU
POPE
Avg.
Δ
MME
SQA
MMMU
POPE
Avg.
Δ
baseline
1862
69.5
36.3
85.9
100%
1842
70.2
35.1
86.4
100%
1841
70.7
36.1
85.8
100%
Retain 192 Tokens ( ↓ 66.7%)
Retain 128 Tokens ( ↓ 77.8%)
Retain 192 Tokens ( ↓ 66.7%)
PruneSID
1791
68.5
36.1
86.9
98.8%
1795
68.3
37.9
86.3
100.7%
1842
71.1
36.1
84.4
99.7%
PruneSID -Dyn
1797
69.1
36.8
87.1
99.7%
+0.9
1798
68.9
38.2
86.5
101.2%
+0.5
1845
71.3
36.9
84.6
100.5%
+0.8
Retain 128 Tokens ( ↓ 77.8%)
Retain 64 Tokens ( ↓ 88.9%)
Retain 128 Tokens ( ↓ 77.8%)
Table 7: Ablation study of dynamic compression ratio mechanism.
Figure 5: Histogram of Information Score distributions for the MMMU and GQA benchmarks. A higher Information Score indicates greater visual information content.
Method
Token
Inference
Prefilling
POPE
Time ↓
Time ↓
(F 1 ) ↑
LLaVA-NeXT
2880
254ms
218ms
86.4
FastV
160
199ms
119ms
50.5%
SparseVLM
160
211ms
128ms
80.2%
VisionZip
160
84ms
27.8ms
86.6%
PruneSID
160
89ms
27.8ms
89.0%
Table 8: Efficiency analysis and comparison. Inference and prefilling times represent the average per-sample latency.
Figure 6: Visualization of a limitation of our method. Left: input image and the corresponding question. Right: tokens retained by our method and the VLM’s response after compression. In fine-grained scenarios, our method may discard important local details due to redundancy in the relevant region, leading to incomplete answers.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Runtime comparison of different methods. Vanilla denotes the average runtime of the uncompressed LLaVA-NeXT 7B model on the POPE dataset and the upper performance bound. VisionZip and PruneSID represent the runtimes after applying the corresponding compression methods. While maintaining comparable efficiency to VisionZip, our method achieves better performance.
Method
GQA
MMB
MME
POPE
SQA
VQA v2
VQA Text
MMMU
SEED I
VizWiz
Avg.
Upper Bound, 576 Tokens (100%)
Vanilla CVPR24
63.2
67.7
1818
85.9
72.8
80.0
61.3
36.4
66.9
56.6
100%
Retain 192 Tokens ( ↓ 66.7%)
VisionZip
59.6
65.9
1770
86.4
72.8
78.0
58.6
36.9
65.2
54.9
97.8%
PruneSID
59.6
65.9
1770
86.4
72.8
78.0
58.6
36.9
65.2
56.0
98.0%
Retain 128 Tokens ( ↓ 77.8%)
Appendix
Table 9: Performance of PruneSID on LLaVA-1.5 13B. Vanilla refers to the uncompressed baseline model using all 576 visual tokens, serving as the upper performance bound.
Method
GQA
MMB
MME
POPE
SQA
VQA v2
VQA Text
MMMU
SEED I
VizWiz
Avg.
Upper Bound, 2880 Tokens (100%)
Vanilla CVPR24
65.4
70.0
1858
86.2
73.5
81.8
64.3
36.2
71.9
64.0
100%
Retain 640 Tokens ( ↓ 77.8%)
PruneSID
62.4
67.0
1817
85.6
70.1
79.1
60.2
36.2
68.5
60.2
96.7%
Retain 320 Tokens ( ↓ 88.9%)
PruneSID
61.5
65.4
1810
82.7
70.3
76.9
58.5
36.8
66.8
58.5
95.2%
Appendix
Table 10: Performance of PruneSID on LLaVA-NeXT 13B.
Method
GQA
MMB
MME
POPE
SQA
VQA v2
MMMU
SEED I
VizWiz
Avg.
Upper Bound (100%)
baseline
62.3
79.1
2318
87.9
84.7
81.2
51.1
76.5
68.2
100%
Token retention ratio 33.3% ( ↓ 66.7%)
PACT CVPR25
59.1
75.8
2068
85.6
80.5
78.2
48.2
74.0
67.9
95.3%
PruneSID
60.5
72.1
2146
87.0
81.8
79.8
48.3
75.5
66.1
96.1%
Token retention ratio 22.2% ( ↓ 77.8%)
Appendix
Table 11: Performance of PruneSID on Qwen2-VL 7B. baseline refers to the uncompressed model using all the visual tokens, serving as the upper performance bound.
Method
GQA
MMB
MME
POPE
SQA
VQA v2
HRB 8k
XLRS macro
Avg.
Upper Bound (100%)
baseline
60.9
83.9
2310
86.3
88.9
82.9
68.1
47.1
100%
Token retention ratio 33.3% ( ↓ 66.7%)
VisionZip CVPR25
56.6
78.9
2317
85.8
80.5
80.7
61.8
46.0
95.4%
PruneSID
59.8
80.9
2218
85.9
87.6
80.4
62.4
46.3
97.0%
Token retention ratio 22.2% ( ↓ 77.8%)
Appendix
Table 12: Performance of PruneSID on Qwen2.5-VL 7B. baseline refers to the uncompressed model using all the visual tokens, serving as the upper performance bound.
Condition
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
MMMU
SEED
MMB
Vizwiz
Avg.
Upper Bound, 576 Tokens (100%)
Vanilla CVPR24
61.9
1862
85.9
69.5
36.3
60.5
64.7
54.3
100%
Retain 192 Tokens ( ↓ 66.7%)
w/o PSCA
58.8
1743
84.9
68.2
35.7
58.8
62.7
54.1
97.2%
w/o NMS
59.1
1755
85.8
68.1
35.2
58.6
62.3
54.9
97.3%
Ours
60.2
1797
87.1
69.1
36.8
59.0
63.8
55.5
99.3%
Appendix
Table 13: Performance comparison of ablation variants on LLaVA-1.5 7B (relative to vanilla baseline, 100%).
Condition
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
MMMU
SEED
MMB
Vizwiz
Avg (%)
Upper Bound, 576 Tokens (100%)
Vanilla CVPR24
61.9
1862
85.9
69.5
36.3
60.5
64.7
54.3
100%
Retain 192 Tokens ( ↓ 66.7%)
Descend
57.3
1667
83.9
66.8
35.8
56.4
58.8
54.8
96.1%
Ascend
59.1
1763
85.8
68.1
36.2
58.6
63.3
54.9
97.9%
Ours
60.1
1791
86.9
68.5
36.1
59.0
63.7
55.4
98.8%
Appendix
Table 14: Performance comparison of importance and diversity preservation ablation variants on LLaVA-1.5 7B (relative to vanilla baseline, 100%).
α
Retain 64
Retain 128
Retain 192
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
Avg.
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
Avg.
GQA
MME
POPE
SQA
Avg.
24
56.7
1726
83.4
68.0
94.8%
58.4
1718
85.5
68.3
96.1%
59.7
1770
86.3
68.4
97.6%
28
57.0
1718
84.1
67.8
94.9%
58.8
1723
86.4
68.2
96.6%
59.9
1783
86.8
68.4
98.0%
32
57.1
1733
83.8
67.8
95.1%
58.8
1749
86.5
68.3
97.0%
60.1
1791
86.9
68.5
98.3%
36
57.3
1705
84.7
67.9
95.1%
58.7
1733
85.9
68.3
96.5%
59.7
1789
86.6
68.5
98.0%
40
57.3
1675
84.7
67.9
94.7%
58.6
1711
85.7
68.1
96.2%
59.6
1772
86.3
68.4
97.6%
Appendix
Table 15: Performance sensitivity to NMS threshold scaling factor λ on LLaVA-1.5 7B (relative to vanilla baseline, 100%).
Table 16: Token distribution across PSCA groups (Group 0–15) for different λ (retain 64 tokens, MME benchmark).
Figure 8: Visualization of PSCA-based semantic token grouping and final retained tokens under an extreme compression ratio (retaining 32 tokens, 5.6%). Semantically Coherent Groups show partial grouping results from our PSCA stage, and Retained compares the selected tokens from our method and VisionZip. Our approach preserves representative tokens from semantically redundant groups, enabling broader information coverage than attention-only methods like VisionZip.
Figure 9: Visualization of PSCA-based token grouping and final retained tokens when retaining 64 tokens (11.1%). Similar to Fig. 8 , our method effectively selects representative tokens across diverse groups while filtering redundancy. This helps maintain semantic diversity under tight token budgets, outperforming redundancy-prone baselines like VisionZip.
Vision-language models (VLMs) rely on long visual token sequences for visual understanding, making the prefill stage expensive in both computation and memory. Most existing pruning methods follow an absolute-ranking paradigm, assigning importance scores to visual tokens and retaining a fixed top-K subset. In this work, we argue that this paradigm is fundamentally brittle: attention sinks distort token importance rankings, while image redundancy and query-dependent visual evidence make fixed token budgets unreliable across inputs. We propose OccamToken, a training-free framework that replaces absolute token ranking with register-anchored relative evidence testing. Instead of asking which tokens are globally important, OccamToken evaluates whether a visual token provides information beyond a register-based reference. Our key insight is that register tokens naturally absorb low-information attention patterns, making them a stable reference for identifying genuinely informative visual evidence. Based on this principle, OccamToken performs both image-adaptive redundancy pruning and query-adaptive relevance pruning through dynamic thresholds derived from register attention. Across LLaVA-NeXT, LLaVA-v1.5, and Qwen3-VL, OccamToken consistently improves the accuracy-efficiency trade-off without additional training. Notably, on LLaVA-NeXT, it reduces 2,880 visual tokens to approximately 40 while preserving over 93% of the original accuracy, enabling stable visual token compression even in the extreme 1.4% retention regime.
Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) achieve strong multimodal understanding capabilities by leveraging high-resolution visual inputs, but the resulting large number of visual tokens creates a major computational bottleneck. Recent work mitigates this issue through visual token compression, typically compressing tokens based on saliency, diversity, or a fixed combination of both. We observe that the distribution of semantic prominence varies substantially across samples, leading to different optimal trade-offs between local saliency preservation and global coverage. This observation suggests that applying a static compression strategy across all samples can be suboptimal. Motivated by this insight, we propose PromPrune, a sample-adaptive visual token selection framework composed of semantic prominence-aware budget allocation and a two-stage selection pipeline. Our method adaptively balances local saliency preservation and global coverage according to the semantic prominence distribution of each sample. By allocating token budgets between locally salient regions and globally diverse regions, our method maintains strong performance even under high compression ratios. On LLaVA-NeXT-7B, our approach reduces FLOPs by 88% and prefill latency by 22% while preserving 97.5% of the original accuracy.
Jaehoon Lee, Mingi Jung, Soohyuk Jang +3
Interdisciplinary Program in AI, Seoul National University · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University · Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University
Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable multimodal understanding and reasoning capabilities, yet remain computationally expensive due to dense visual tokenization. Existing efficiency approaches either merge redundant visual tokens or drop them progressively in language backbone, often trading accuracy for speed. In this work, we propose DUET-VLM, a versatile plug-and-play dual compression framework that consists of (a) vision-only redundancy aware compression of vision encoder's output into information-preserving tokens, followed by (b) layer-wise, salient text-guided dropping of visual tokens within the language backbone to progressively prune less informative tokens. This coordinated token management enables aggressive compression while retaining critical semantics. On LLaVA-1.5-7B, our approach maintains over 99% of baseline accuracy with 67% fewer tokens, and still retains >97% even at 89% reduction. With this dual-stage compression during training, it achieves 99.7% accuracy at 67% and 97.6% at 89%, surpassing prior SoTA visual token reduction methods across multiple benchmarks. When integrated into Video-LLaVA-7B, it even surpasses the baseline -- achieving >100% accuracy with a substantial 53.1% token reduction and retaining 97.6% accuracy under an extreme 93.4% setting. These results highlight end-to-end training with DUET-VLM, enabling robust adaptation to reduced visual (image/video) input without sacrificing accuracy, producing compact yet semantically rich representations within the same computational budget. Our code is available at https://github.com/AMD-AGI/DUET-VLM.