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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Previous method remove redundant tokens via separate spatial and temporal stages. (b) Our method maintains a global retention pool for unified spatiotemporal redundancy removal. (c) Response of LLaVA-OneVision-7B to video content understanding. (d) At 5% token retention, HoliTom retains redundant tokens and misses critical ones, leading to misunderstanding ( red ). (e) Our method effectively mitigates these issues and yields the correct response ( green ).
Figure 2: Overview of our method. 1) The Unified Spatiotemporal Compression module filters tokens with high contribution and low semantic redundancy, incorporating them into the retention pool. At the same time, it performs clustering and merging on tokens in the recycle pool to preserve the integrity of visual semantic information. 2) The Text-Aware Merging mechanism further enhances answer accuracy by guiding the LLM to focus on visual tokens that are most relevant to the input query.
Figure 3: The Text-Aware Merging mechanism further enhances answer accuracy by guiding the LLM to focus on visual tokens that are most relevant to the input query.
Method
FLOPs (T) ↓
FLOPs Ratio ↓
Retention Ratio
MVBench ↑
EgoSchema ↑
MLVU ↑
LongVideo Bench ↑
VideoMME ↑
Avg. ↑
Score
%
LLaVA-OV-7B [ 11 ]
41.4
100%
100%
58.3
60.4
47.7
56.4
58.6
56.3
100
FsatV [ 4 ]
7.9
19.1%
100%/10%
53.2
55.9
41.6
52.1
52.7
51.1
90.8
VisionZip [ 38 ]
4.0
9.6%
10%
53.5
58.0
42.5
49.3
53.4
51.3
91.2
LLaVA-Scissor [ 27 ]
4.0
9.6%
10%
-
57.5
-
-
55.8
-
-
FastVID [ 24 ]
4.0
9.6%
10%
55.9
58.7
42.6
56.3
57.3
54.2
96.2
Table 1: Comparison of State-of-The-Art Methods on LLaVA-OneVision-7B. The A%/B% retention ratio indicates that A% of the LLM input tokens are retained, and subsequently compressed to B% during the LLM forward pass. Best results are in bold, second best underlined. “(w/o M)” means our method without inner-LLM merging.
Method
FLOPs (T) ↓
FLOPs Ratio ↓
Retention Ratio
MVBench ↑
EgoSchema ↑
MLVU ↑
LongVideo Bench ↑
VideoMME ↑
Avg. ↑
Score
%
LLaVA-Video-7B [ 47 ]
80.9
100%
100%
60.4
57.2
53.3
58.9
64.3
58.8
100
FsatV [ 4 ]
10.2
12.6%
100%/2%
42.9
41.0
34.3
45.6
48.1
42.4
72.1
VisionZip [ 38 ]
1.5
1.9%
2%
43.8
39.3
33.5
45.8
48.4
42.2
71.8
FastVid [ 24 ]
1.5
1.9%
2%
48.3
45.7
37.3
49.3
53.6
46.8
79.6
HoliTom [ 23 ]
1.4
1.7%
2%/1%
50.2
46.5
39.9
50.7
55.3
48.5
82.5
Table 2: Cross-backbone Method Comparison. Performance comparison of our method against state-of-the-art methods across different backbones, demonstrating consistent effectiveness.
Figure 4: Comparative Analysis of Attention Distribution and Semantic Similarity Distribution. Compared to the HoliTom, our approach more effectively preserves visual tokens with high attention scores but low semantic relevance, thereby eliminating semantic redundancy while retaining visually informative tokens.
Method
Frames
FLOPs (T)
VideoMME
Short
Medium
Long
Total
Vanilla [ 11 ]
16
19.0
68.2
53.8
48.2
56.7
HoliTom [ 23 ]
64
1.7
63.0
53.9
46.3
54.4
Ours
64
1.7
62.4
53.3
47.6
54.5
HoliTom [ 23 ]
96
2.2
64.1
52.4
45.9
54.1
Ours
96
2.2
65.8
55.0
46.8
55.9
Table 3: Performance of LLaVA-OneVision-7B under different frame sampling rates at 2% token retention.
Method
Retention Ratio
MVBench
LongVideo Bench
Avg. Score (%)
Vanilla [ 11 ]
100%
58.3
56.4
57.4 (100.0%)
FastVid [ 24 ]
25%
56.5
56.3
56.4 (98.3%)
VisionZip [ 38 ]
25%
57.9
56.5
57.2 (99.7%)
HoliTom [ 23 ]
15%
58.1
56.4
57.3 (99.8%)
Ours
15%
58.3
57.5
57.9 (100.9%)
Table 4: Performance comparison of LLaVA-OneVision-7B with different methods at high token retention ratios.
Attn
Sim
Cluster
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg. ↑
Score
%
✓
41.4
46.6
30.8
44.7
45.3
41.8
74.2
✓
51.4
55.1
38.8
50.0
50.9
49.2
87.5
✓
52.2
55.0
36.3
48.4
51.3
48.6
86.4
✓
✓
52.1
56.8
38.4
49.9
51.2
49.7
88.2
✓
✓
48.3
51.4
33.2
46.4
49.5
45.8
81.3
Table 5: Module Ablations for Unified Spatiotemporal Token Compression.
Figure 5: Ablation Experiment Results for Each Parameter.
Method
Process
Prefill
TTFT
Throughput
Score
Vanilla [ 11 ]
-
701.2 (1×)
1104.7
27.6
56.3
VisionZip [ 38 ]
35.8
42.1 (17×)
451.6
35.4
45.8
FastVid [ 24 ]
8.6
43.1 (16×)
446.2
33.8
46.9
HoliTom [ 23 ]
88.7
40.5 (17×)
497.4
34.3
49.4
Ours
74.0
31.3 (22×)
473.8
35.7
50.7
Table 6: Comparison of Efficiency and Performance. Process, Prefill, and Time to First Token (TTFT) are measured in milliseconds; throughput is reported in tokens per second (token/s).
Figure 6: Distributions of Selected Token Indices for Text-Aware and Last Token Strategies on the MVBench.
Method
Retention Ratio
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg. ↑
Score
%
Qwen2.5-VL [ 2 ]
100%
63.0
52.8
38.5
55.0
57.5
53.4
100.0
VisionZip [ 38 ]
2%
50.3
45.3
29.7
43.4
44.1
42.6
79.8
FastVID [ 24 ]
2%
51.8
46.2
30.6
45.0
46.4
44.0
82.5
Ours(w/o M)
2%
54.1
47.8
32.7
45.4
48.1
45.6
85.5
Ours
2%
53.7
48.4
31.8
45.6
48.1
45.5
85.3
Table S1 : Comparison results based on the Qwen2.5-VL-7B model.
Method
Retention Ratio
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg. ↑
Score
%
LLaVA-OV-7B [ 11 ]
100%
58.3
60.4
47.7
56.4
58.6
56.3
100
VisionZip [ 38 ]
15%
56.5
59.8
43.3
54.4
56.1
54.0
95.9
DyToK [ 16 ]
15%
56.1
59.5
44.6
53.7
56.1
54.0
95.9
FastVID [ 24 ]
15%
56.0
58.8
43.3
56.2
57.7
54.4
96.6
HoliTom [ 23 ]
15%/7.5%
58.1
61.2
46.7
56.4
57.3
56.0
99.5
Table S2 : Additional Comparison with DyToK under Higher Retention Ratios
Method
Retain Ratio
ActivityNet-QA
Accuracy ↑
Score ↑
LLaVA-OV-7B
100%
54.5
3.55
+ VisionZip [ 38 ]
2%
41.7
3.13
+ FastVid [ 24 ]
2%
49.6
3.35
+ HoliTom [ 23 ]
2%
49.9
3.31
+ Ours
2%
50.2
3.37
Table S3 : Comparison on ActivityNet-QA. The two metrics ( Accuracy and Score ) are sub-scores under the ActivityNet-QA benchmark.
Method
Frames
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg. Score
Vanilla [ 11 ]
16
58.1
59.5
41.8
55.7
56.7
54.4
HoliTom [ 23 ]
64
54.8
59.5
38.6
51.0
54.4
51.7
Ours
64
54.1
59.1
41.3
52.5
54.5
52.3
HoliTom [ 23 ]
96
55.9
60.4
41.0
51.4
54.1
52.6
Ours
96
55.7
59.5
42.9
54.2
55.9
53.6
HoliTom [ 23 ]
128
55.9
60.9
41.3
53.8
55.4
53.5
Table S4 : Comparison across different frame settings at 2% token retention.
Method
K
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg.
Score
%
Vanilla [ 11 ]
-
58.3
60.4
47.7
56.4
58.6
56.3
100
Ours
2
48.7
52.7
36.7
47.8
49.4
47.1
83.6
Ours
7
50.3
54.0
36.6
47.8
49.5
47.6
84.6
Ours
14
52.9
55.7
39.7
51.1
51.4
50.2
89.1
Ours
18
52.8
57.6
40.3
50.8
51.8
50.7
90.1
Table S5 : Performance comparison of different pruning layer K.
Method
τ
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg.
Score
%
Vanilla [ 11 ]
-
58.3
60.4
47.7
56.4
58.6
56.3
100
Ours
0.5
49.6
52.9
39.4
49.1
52.3
48.7
86.4
Ours
0.6
51.7
55.9
40.0
50.7
52.7
50.3
89.4
Ours
0.7
52.9
57.2
39.5
51.0
51.3
50.4
89.5
Ours
0.8
53.1
56.4
38.2
49.4
51.3
49.7
88.2
Table S6 : Comparison of τ .
Method
Ratio
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg.
Score
%
Vanilla
-
58.3
60.4
47.7
56.4
58.6
56.3
100
Ours
0.1
51.1
56.5
39.0
50.7
51.6
49.7
88.4
Ours
0.2
51.6
56.8
38.6
49.9
51.3
49.6
88.2
Ours
0.3
52.9
57.2
39.5
51.0
51.3
50.4
89.5
Ours
0.4
52.2
56.5
38.4
49.4
52.0
49.7
88.3
Table S7 : Comparison of Cluster Ratio at 2% Tokens.
Method
λ
MVBench
EgoSchema
MLVU
LongVideo Bench
VideoMME
Avg.
Score
%
Vanilla [ 11 ]
-
58.3
60.4
47.7
56.4
58.6
56.3
100
Ours
0
52.6
57.5
40.4
50.6
51.5
50.5
89.7
Ours
0.25
52.6
57.5
40.1
50.7
51.5
50.5
89.7
Ours
0.5
52.8
57.6
40.3
50.8
51.8
50.7
90.1
Ours
0.75
52.5
57.5
39.9
50.5
51.5
50.4
89.5
Table S8 : Comparison of λ .
Figure S1 : Performance of different pruning ratios across different layers
Figure S2 : Tokens selected by our text-aware module within the LLM.
Figure S3 : Token reductions outside the LLM. Green boxes mark retained tokens, Red boxes mark tokens discarded by similarity filtering, and Purple boxes mark tokens merged via clustering.
Figure S4 : Qualitative generation comparison between our method and other approaches.
Video Large Language Models (Video LLMs) achieve strong performance on video understanding tasks but suffer from high inference costs due to the large number of visual tokens. We propose KiToke, a training-free, query-agnostic token compression approach that reduces spatiotemporal redundancy while preserving critical visual information. Our method estimates token diversity globally using a kernel-based redundancy measure, enabling content-adaptive selection that remains effective under extreme token budgets, and further introduces a lightweight temporal interval construction with interval-aware token merging to maintain temporal coherence. Unlike prior methods that rely on local or segment-level heuristics, KiToke explicitly captures global redundancy across an entire video, leading to more efficient token utilization. Extensive experiments on multiple video understanding benchmarks and Video LLM backbones demonstrate that KiToke consistently outperforms existing training-free compression methods, with particularly large gains at aggressive retention ratios down to 1%.
Haifeng Huang, Yang Li
Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University.
Video Large Language Models (Video-LLMs) achieve strong performance in video understanding, but their excessive visual tokens bring substantial computational overhead. Existing training-free compression methods improve inference efficiency by reducing visual tokens, yet they often rely on local adjacent-frame similarity for temporal redundancy estimation or allocate token budgets mainly according to segment length. Such designs are sensitive to frame-level noise and fail to capture the non-uniform information distribution of real-world videos. To address these challenges, we propose InfoMerge, a training-free visual token compression method that improves token utilization through robust redundancy estimation and content-aware budget allocation. Specifically, we propose the Temporal Fingerprint Difference: a segment-level second-order temporal redundancy estimation strategy, which models the temporal similarity structure of tokens at the same spatial positions within each segment. We further introduce Content-Aware Budget Allocation (CABA), which dynamically allocates segment-level token budgets based on segment uniqueness and spectral-entropy-based representational richness. By reducing repeated preservation of redundant static regions and allocating more tokens to informative segments, InfoMerge makes better use of the limited token budget while maintaining strong performance. Extensive experiments show that InfoMerge achieves strong efficiency--accuracy trade-offs across multiple benchmarks and backbones, with more pronounced advantages under aggressive compression. On LLaVA-OneVision-7B, InfoMerge retains 98.8% of the original average performance while reducing 85% of visual tokens and achieving a 4.24-fold speedup in the prefill stage.
Xinxin Liu, Shiwei Gan, Xiao Liu +3
State Key Laboratory of Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University Nanjing 210023, China
Recent advances in Video Large Language Models (Video-LLMs) have greatly expanded multimodal reasoning capabilities. However, the massive number of visual tokens extracted from long video sequences incurs prohibitive computational costs, limiting their deployment in real-world scenarios. Existing training-free token compression methods select tokens based on attention magnitude as a proxy for semantic importance, but often overlook positional bias and rely only on short-term temporal locality, leading to redundant spatio-temporal coverage and inefficient token usage. We present DynaTok, a training-free, temporally adaptive and bias-aware token compression framework that allocates token budgets across both temporal and spatial dimensions. Through a lightweight exponential moving average (EMA) memory, the Temporal Budget Allocation (TBA) module dynamically assigns fewer tokens to redundant frames and more to novel frames, capturing long-term temporal variation. The Spatial Budget Allocation (SBA) module complements this by selecting spatially diverse and semantically important features using activation-based attention maps, while leveraging a spatial memory to reduce redundancy from previously selected regions and mitigate positional bias. DynaTok integrates seamlessly with existing Video-LLMs such as LLaVA-OneVision and LLaVA-Video without retraining, and effectively preserves semantic coverage under aggressive compression. Experiments on four representative VideoQA benchmarks-MVBench, LongVideoBench, MLVU, and VideoMME-show that DynaTok retains over 95% of baseline accuracy even with a 90% token reduction, surpassing recent training-free approaches. These results demonstrate that DynaTok provides a principled foundation for efficient and robust video reasoning, paving the way toward real-time streaming video understanding with future Video-LLMs.