Token pruning is essential for enhancing the computational efficiency of vision-language models (VLMs), particularly for video-based tasks where temporal redundancy is prevalent. Prior approaches typically prune tokens either (1) within the vision transformer (ViT) exclusively for unimodal perception tasks such as action recognition and object segmentation, without adapting to downstream vision-language tasks; or (2) only within the LLM while leaving the ViT output intact, often requiring complex text-conditioned token selection mechanisms. In this paper, we introduce Spatio-Temporal Token Scoring (STTS), a simple and lightweight module that prunes vision tokens across both the ViT and the LLM without text conditioning or token merging, and is fully compatible with end-to-end training. By learning how to score temporally via an auxiliary loss and spatially via LLM downstream gradients, aided by our efficient packing algorithm, STTS prunes 50% of vision tokens throughout the entire architecture, resulting in a 62% improvement in efficiency during both training and inference with only a 0.7% drop in average performance across 13 short and long video QA tasks. Efficiency gains increase with more sampled frames per video. Applying test-time scaling for long-video QA further yields performance gains of 0.5-1% compared to the baseline. Overall, STTS represents a novel, simple yet effective technique for unified, architecture-wide vision token pruning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (Left) Token pruning with our STTS (purple box) vs. a cosine-similarity-based heuristic. STTS learns that background patches are less important, while the heuristic prunes all tokens equally. (Right) QA performance under increasing vision token pruning ratios ( k% ). STTS (pink squares) consistently demonstrates a flatter, more robust degradation curve compared to the Random baseline (blue circles) across all metrics.
Figure 2: Overall workflow of using STTS within the VLM. Numbered vision tokens here are 3x3 grids. After ViT layer l , STTS prunes vision tokens permanently from the entire architecture. We pad tokens during packing for ViT batch computation.
Figure 3: Architectural and procedural overview of STTS. We use 9x9 tokens per frame for illustration. Vision features after ViT layer l are first downsampled via pooling then scored. The scores are injected as attention bias for layer l+1 before the pruning algorithm is applied to allow for spatial pruning. The scores are also aligned with neighboring-frame per-patch cosine similarity for temporal pruning.
Figure 4: Visualization of the packing algorithm. (a) Before pruning, the scoring mechanism identifies the bottom- k% importance tokens (in dotted squares) to be removed. (b) To reduce tensor sparsity, the remaining tokens from Frame 2 (green) and Frame 4 (red) are consolidated into a single packed batch entry. Because Frame 1 is always untouched and Frame 3 retains high token counts, they remain independent.
Model
NextQA test [ 45 ]
Perception-Test test [ 30 ]
MVBench test [ 19 ]
Tomato test [ 32 ]
MotionBench val [ 13 ]
Temp-Compass test [ 22 ]
VideoMME test [ 11 ]
VideoMME-Sub test [ 11 ]
LongVideo val [ 42 ]
LongVideo-Sub val [ 42 ]
MLVU val MCQ [ 49 ]
LVBench test [ 40 ]
VideoEvalPro test [ 25 ]
Short avg.
Long avg.
Average
Qwen3-VL-4B [ 46 ]
81.4
70.7
68.9
31.8
58.6
70.8
69.3
74.0
62.8
-
58.4
56.2
49.8
63.7
61.8
62.7
PLM-8B [ 6 ]
84.1
82.7
77.1
33.2
61.4
72.7
58.3
65.4
56.9
-
52.6
44.5
47.2
68.5
54.2
61.3
InternVL3.5-8B [ 41 ]
81.7
72.7
72.1
24.6
56.6
70.3
66.0
68.6
62.1
-
53.2
43.4
48.1
63.0
56.9
60.0
Baseline (ours)
83.9
78.7
72.6
36.5
61.0
69.9
62.8
67.6
61.5
60.9
70.3
42.0
47.6
67.0
59.0
63.0
+ STTS 30%
84.1
79.0
72.7
35.6
59.2
69.6
63.4
68.5
61.1
59.2
69.5
42.6
47.7
66.7
58.9
62.8
+ STTS 40%
83.6
77.3
71.8
34.6
59.2
69.3
62.4
67.4
61.4
60.2
67.5
41.1
47.2
66.0
58.2
62.1
Table 1: Effect of pruning strength on video benchmarks. + STTS k% means k% pruning. Values that improve upon or remain within 0.5 points of the baseline are bolded and values within 1.0 point are underlined .
Figure 5: Comparison of efficiency gains during training and inference across different pruning ratios ( k ) . As k increases, speedups greatly increase and become significantly larger when sampling more frames. See Supp. Sec. B for more details.
Figure 7
k%
TTS
# Fr
VideoMME test [ 11 ]
VideoMME-Sub test [ 11 ]
LongVideo val [ 42 ]
LongVideo-Sub val [ 42 ]
MLVU val MCQ [ 49 ]
LVBench test [ 40 ]
VideoEvalPro test [ 25 ]
Long avg.
0%
✗
64
62.8
67.6
61.5
60.9
70.3
42.0
47.6
59.0
30%
✗
64
63.4
68.5
61.1
59.2
69.5
42.6
47.7
58.9
✓
92
62.9
69.1
62.7
60.8
70.5
44.9
49.6
60.1
40%
✗
64
62.4
67.4
61.4
60.2
67.5
41.1
47.2
58.2
✓
107
62.0
68.1
62.7
60.6
68.6
42.5
48.6
59.0
50%
✗
64
62.4
67.2
61.0
60.1
68.4
40.5
46.0
58.4
Table 3: Impact of Test-Time Scaling (TTS) on Long Video Benchmarks. Performance comparison when increasing number of frames sampled (# Fr) only during inference . Significant improvements over the baseline (0%) are bolded .
Figure 7: Visualizations of STTS (purple box) vs. the heuristic. STTS attempts to keep important information despite temporal redundancy, while the heuristic prunes them regardless due to the lack of knowledge.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
k%
AI2D test [ 17 ]
ChartQA test [ 26 ]
DocVQA test [ 28 ]
InfoQA test [ 27 ]
TextVQA val [ 35 ]
VQA v2.0 val [ 12 ]
RWQA [ 44 ]
MMMU val [ 48 ]
MathVista testmini [ 23 ]
CountBench [ 2 ]
PixMoCount test [ 9 ]
MuirBench [ 39 ]
MMIU [ 29 ]
Img avg.
MultiImg avg.
Average
0%
95.0
84.1
91.9
77.2
85.5
86.0
74.6
49.6
57.4
94.3
91.1
61.2
54.2
80.6
57.7
77.1
50%
94.3
83.9
91.3
77.3
85.7
86.2
75.4
50.0
57.4
94.9
89.6
62.0
54.9
80.5
58.4
77.3
Appendix
Table 4: Image benchmark results between a different version of Molmo2 trained with slightly different data and our STTS variant. In this attempt, both models are trained on the exact same full mixture with both video and image data. We can see that even though our model applies pruning on videos, the overall image performance did not degrade.
Method
Short avg.
Long avg.
Average
Heuristic [Inference Only]
63.1
55.1
59.1
ToMe [Inference Only]
62.4
55.9
59.2
ToMe
65.6
56.6
61.1
STTS
66.1
58.4
62.3
Appendix
Table 5: Performance comparison at a 50% pruning rate on video QA tasks. STTS significantly outperforms inference-only baselines (Spatial Heuristic, ToMe) and a fully trained ToMe model.
k%
# Fr
Toks/Inst.
Throughput
Speedup
0%
128
15670
0.1932
1x
30%
12560
0.2478
1.28x
40%
11524
0.2786
1.44x
50%
10486
0.3130
1.62x
0%
256
25307
0.0549
1x
30%
19087
0.0811
1.48x
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of training speed between baseline and different pruning setup k ’s. The number of tokens per instance decreases as k increases, while throughput (batches per second) and speedup increases. Efficiency gains grew larger as we increase max number of frames sampled.
k%
# Fr
Throughput
Speedup
0%
128
1.0186
1x
30%
1.1651
1.14x
40%
1.3270
1.30x
50%
1.6439
1.61x
0%
256
0.2641
1x
30%
0.3836
1.45x
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of inference speed between baseline and different pruning setup k ’s on MLVU. We observe identical trends during training.
k
Method
Short avg.
Long avg.
Average
50
Random
65.3
57.5
61.4
STTS
66.1
58.4
62.3
60
Random
63.9
56.3
60.1
STTS
65.3
57.9
61.6
70
Random
63.2
55.0
59.1
STTS
65.0
56.4
60.7
Appendix
Table 8: Comparing numerical performance values between Random and STTS from k=50 to k=90 . STTS consistently outperforms Random. Text-only baseline k=100 provided as lower bound.
Processing long videos with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) is bottlenecked by the quadratic cost of visual tokens, making long-form inference prohibitively expensive. While single-axis compression methods mitigate this, they hit a hard efficiency floor because they treat spatial and temporal redundancy independently. We present VETO (Video Efficient Token Optimization for Vision-Language Models), a training-optional plug-in that eliminates this bottleneck through dual-axis compression: (i) an intra-frame compressor that merges semantically similar tokens within each frame via optimal-transport inspired matching, and (ii) an inter-frame compressor that identifies and merges temporally redundant frames. The key design insight is hierarchical ordering: by first compressing spatial dimensions, VETO drastically reduces the cost of subsequent global temporal matching, bypassing the efficiency wall of single-axis approaches, with an advantage that grows with modern fully-fused attention infrastructure. Empirically, VETO achieves up to 45% faster inference (e.g., on LLaVA-OneVision-7B) while preserving or improving accuracy. Under extreme token starvation (10% budget), VETO outperforms VFlowOpt (54.9%), VisionZip (52.6%), and FastV (47.9%) with 55.7% accuracy. We demonstrate universal applicability across LLaVA-OneVision, InternVL-2.5, and LongVA, with zero-shot accuracy preserved or improved in all cases.
Video large language models (VideoLLMs) achieve strong video understanding performance, but their inference remains expensive due to the large number of redundant spatio-temporal visual tokens in long videos. Existing token pruning methods alleviate this cost by reducing redundant tokens, yet most of them rely on segment-level local pruning, where videos are partitioned into isolated segments and tokens are selected independently within each segment. Such designs may under-preserve short but semantically dense segments and discard tokens that appear non-salient locally but remain critical from a global perspective. To address this issue, we propose GSTEP (Global Spatio-Temporal Density Pruning), a plug-and-play pruning framework that models video as a continuous spatio-temporal information flow. GSTEP constructs a token-level spatio-temporal density by combining a continuous temporal density, obtained from a smoothed centered frame-level change signal, with intra-frame spatial density, and then performs global token sampling by jointly balancing information density and coverage. Extensive experiments on multiple VideoLLMs and public benchmarks demonstrate that GSTEP consistently achieves strong accuracy-efficiency trade-offs and generalizes well across model architectures and evaluation settings. On LLaVA-OneVision-7B, GSTEP prunes 75% of visual tokens, preserves up to 100.2% of the original average performance across benchmarks, and achieves a 1.17 end-to-end speedup.
Mengjie Zhang, Qihui Zhu, Tao Zhang +10
University of Science and Technology of China He Fei, China · Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Hefei Comprehensive National Science Center He Fei, China
Video large language models (Video-LLMs) face high computational costs due to large volumes of visual tokens. Existing token compression methods typically adopt a two-stage spatiotemporal compression strategy, relying on stage-specific metrics and an implicit assumption of spatiotemporal separability. Under extremely low retention ratios, however, such approaches often result in unbalanced allocation and loss of visual evidence essential for question answering. We reformulate token compression as a spatiotemporal allocation task within a global token retention pool. We propose a unified selection mechanism that integrates attention weights and semantic similarity to globally select tokens with high contribution and low redundancy. Unselected tokens are merged via clustering and refilled, preserving information integrity. Inside the LLM, we further introduce text-aware merging to perform secondary compression based on query relevance. Without requiring retraining, our method serves as a plug-and-play module compatible with existing Video-LLMs. Experiments show that retaining only about 2% of visual tokens preserves 90.1% of baseline performance across multiple benchmarks, while reducing FLOPs to roughly 2.6%. These benefits generalize across diverse backbones, decreasing end-to-end inference latency and memory consumption. Our unified spatiotemporal token compression strategy establishes the state-of-the-art in video understanding under ultra-low token retention.
Junhao Du, Jialong Xue, Anqi Li +2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications