ForensicZip: More Tokens are Better but Not Necessary in Forensic Vision-Language Models
Organizations: Great Bay University · Shenzhen University · Harbin Institute of Technology · School of Cyber Science and Technology, Sun Yat-sen University
Abstract
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) enable interpretable multimedia forensics by generating textual rationales for forgery detection. However, processing dense visual sequences incurs high computational costs, particularly for high-resolution images and videos. Visual token pruning is a practical acceleration strategy, yet existing methods are largely semantic-driven, retaining salient objects while discarding background regions where manipulation traces such as high-frequency anomalies and temporal jitters often reside. To address this issue, we introduce ForensicZip, a training-free framework that reformulates token compression from a forgery-driven perspective. ForensicZip models temporal token evolution as a Birth-Death Optimal Transport problem with a slack dummy node, quantifying physical discontinuities indicating transient generative artifacts. The forensic scoring further integrates transport-based novelty with high-frequency priors to separate forensic evidence from semantic content under large-ratio compression. Experiments on deepfake and AIGC benchmarks show that at 10% token retention, ForensicZip achieves speedup and over 90% FLOPs reduction while maintaining state-of-the-art detection performance.
Figures & tables
| Method | Backbone: FakeVLM | Backbone: FakeShield | Avg. FLOPs(T) | Avg. Lat.(ms) | GPU Mem.(GB) | Speedup | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FakeClue | LOKI | DD-VQA | DMimage | PhotoShop | DeepFake | AIGC | DFFD | |||||
| Upper Bound (100% Tokens) | ||||||||||||
| Vanilla | 98.60 | 84.30 | 93.20 | 94.00 | 94.43 | 98.00 | 93.00 | 98.00 | 3.102 | 4520.2 | 26.7 | 1.00 |
| Retain 50% Tokens ( 50% visual tokens) | ||||||||||||
| FastV (ECCV’24) | 95.23 | 78.15 | 89.52 | 88.24 | 90.15 | 93.42 | 88.54 | 93.22 | 2.150 | 3228.6 | 26.6 | 1.40 |
| SparseVLM (ICML’25) | 96.14 | 79.53 | 90.45 | 89.66 | 91.24 | 94.15 | 89.23 | 94.44 | 2.155 | 3180.4 | 26.5 | 1.42 |
| Methods | LLM Generation | Model Generation | Total | GPU Peak | Throughput | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latency (s) | Latency (s) | Latency (min:sec) | Memory (GB) | (samples/s) | Acc (%) | |
| FakeVLM-7B (Vanilla) | 1472.5 | 1478.6 | 67:59 | 26.7 | 1.23 | 98.60 |
| Retention Ratio = 25% | ||||||
| FastV [ECCV’24] | 885.2 ( 39.9%) | 892.4 ( 39.6%) | 41:30 ( 38.9%) | 26.5 ( 0.7%) | 2.00 ( 1.63 ) | 82.34 ( 16.2) |
| SparseVLM [ICML’25] | 870.5 ( 40.9%) | 878.2 ( 40.6%) | 40:55 ( 39.8%) | 26.6 ( 0.4%) | 2.03 ( 1.65 ) | 85.63 ( 12.9) |
| LLaVA-Scissor [NeurIPS’25] | 852.1 ( 42.1%) | 860.5 ( 41.8%) | 40:10 ( 40.9%) | 26.5 ( 0.7%) | 2.07 ( 1.68 ) | 91.45 ( 7.1) |
| Backbone | Method | #Tokens | LLM Gen. Lat. (s) | Total Lat. (min:sec) | Peak Mem. (GB) | Throughput (samples/s) | FLOPs (T) | Acc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLaVA-1.5-7B | Vanilla | 576 | 618.0 | 21:43 (1.00 ) | 18.5 | 0.64 | 3.8 | 85.9 |
| + SparseVLM (ICML’25) | 64 | 512.4 | 18:24 (1.18 ) | 20.2 | 0.76 | 1.3 | 75.1 | |
| + VisionTrim (ICLR’26) | 64 | 448.5 | 16:10 (1.34 ) | 19.1 | 0.86 | 1.0 | 84.5 | |
| + ForensicZip (Ours) | 64 | 412.0 | 14:52 (1.46 ) | 16.8 | 0.94 | 0.8 | 86.1 | |
| LLaVA-NeXT-7B | Vanilla | 2880 | 1008.4 | 38:04 (1.00 ) | 46.2 | 0.35 | 12.6 | 86.3 |
| + SparseVLM (ICML’25) | 320 | 846.2 | 31:43 (1.20 ) | 48.5 | 0.42 | 2.5 | 78.5 |
Visual Token Pruning
Visual token pruning reduces the image and video patches processed by transformers to lower inference cost while preserving task-relevant information.
See all 276 papers