VISion On Request: Enhanced VLLM efficiency with sparse, dynamically selected, vision-language interactions
Organizations: Samsung AI Cambridge · Technical University of Iasi · Queen Mary University of London
Abstract
Existing approaches for improving the efficiency of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are largely based on the concept of visual token reduction. This approach, however, creates an information bottleneck that impairs performance, especially on challenging tasks that require fine-grained understanding and reasoning. In this work, we challenge this paradigm by introducing VISion On Request (VISOR), a method that reduces inference cost without discarding visual information. Instead of compressing the image, VISOR improves efficiency by sparsifying the interaction between image and text tokens. Specifically, the language model attends to the full set of high-resolution visual tokens through a small, strategically placed set of attention layers: general visual context is provided by efficient cross-attention between text-image, while a few well-placed and dynamically selected self-attention layers refine the visual representations themselves, enabling complex, high-resolution reasoning when needed. Based on this principle, we first train a single universal network on a range of computational budgets by varying the number of self-attention layers, and then introduce a lightweight policy mechanism that dynamically allocates visual computation based on per-sample complexity. Extensive experiments show that VISOR drastically reduces computational cost while matching or exceeding state-of-the-art results across a diverse suite of benchmarks, and excels in challenging tasks that require detailed visual understanding.
Figures & tables
| Method | Easy | Hard | Avg. FLOPs Savings | ||||||||||||
| RWorldQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MSTAR | POPE | TextVQA | AI2D | Avg. (Easy) | ChartQA | OCRBench | InfoVQA | DocVQA | Avg. (Hard) | ||
| LLaVA-OV [ 22 ] | 54.0 | 67.2 | 58.3 | 60.6 | 40.6 | 88.4 | 66.0 | 56.7 | 61.5 | 60.9 | 58.8 | 40.0 | 68.7 | 57.1 | |
| Downsample [ 24 ] | 52.8 | 67.4 | 57.4 | 62.4 | 40.0 | 86.1 | 58.4 | 56.7 | 60.2 | 49.3 | 47.9 | 27.3 | 49.5 | 43.5 | |
| VisionZip [ 50 ] | 51.9 | 67.0 | 53.0 | 62.1 | 38.9 | 85.5 | 46.5 | 53.2 | 57.3 | 44.0 | 27.0 | 23.9 | 36.7 | 32.9 | |
| VisionZip † [ 50 ] | 54.7 | 65.8 | 55.7 | 61.9 | 39.3 | 86.9 | 55.7 | 54.8 | 59.3 | 51.2 | 45.0 | 27.2 | 48.8 | 43.1 | |
| VisPruner [ 53 ] | 53.3 | 65.7 | 53.2 | 60.1 | 38.1 | 85.9 | 47.8 | 53.7 | 57.2 | 44.0 | 28.3 | 25.4 | 42.7 | 35.1 | |
| Method | FLOPs sav. | Easy | Hard |
|---|---|---|---|
| VISOR | 63.6 | 58.4 | |
| VISOR-TR [2x] | 63.3 | 57.8 | |
| approx. 4x token reduction | |||
| VISOR-TR [4x] | 63.1 | 56.2 | |
| VISOR+ VisionZip | 63.3 | 55.3 | |
| VISOR+ VisPruner | 63.5 | 55.9 | |
| SA | CA | Easy | Hard | SA | CA | Easy | Hard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 6 | 63.3 | 51.8 | 2 | 8 | 63.2 | 55.1 |
| 0 | 8 | 63.4 | 52.0 | 4 | 8 | 63.3 | 56.9 |
| 0 | 10 | 63.5 | 52.1 | 7 | 8 | 63.9 | 58.3 |
| SA | CA | Universal | Easy | Hard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 8 | 63.1 | 55.1 | |
| ✓ | 63.8 | 56.3 | ||
| 7 | 8 | 63.6 | 58.3 | |
| ✓ | 64.2 | 59.1 |
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | RWQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MMSTAR | POPE | TxtVQA | AI2D | CQA | OCRB | InfoVQA | DocVQA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VISOR | 54.6 | 75.3 | 61.8 | 60.5 | 40.1 | 87.6 | 67.8 | 61.5 | 65.2 | 61.8 | 37.6 | 68.9 |
| VISOR-TR | 55.4 | 75.4 | 60.7 | 59.5 | 38.5 | 87.7 | 67.4 | 61.9 | 65.3 | 60.7 | 37.4 | 67.7 |
| Method | Easy | Hard | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RealWorldQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MSTAR | POPE | TextVQA | AI2D | Avg. (Easy) | ChartQA | OCRBench | InfoVQA | DocVQA | Avg. (Hard) | |
| Qwen2-VL-2B | 61.1 | 78.1 | 60.2 | 75.3 | 43.6 | 87.7 | 79.3 | 70.4 | 69.5 | 75.0 | 77.5 | 64.1 | 89.5 | 76.5 |
| VISOR | 60.0 | 82.1 | 60.8 | 75.1 | 49.2 | 88.9 | 76.1 | 75.0 | 70.9 | 78.1 | 76.0 | 55.9 | 87.3 | 74.3 |
| Method | Easy | Hard | Avg. FLOPs Savings | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RealWorldQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MSTAR | POPE | TextVQA | AI2D | Avg. (Easy) | ChartQA | OCRBench | InfoVQA | DocVQA | Avg. (Hard) | ||
| LLaVA-OV [ 22 ] | 54.0 | 67.2 | 58.3 | 60.6 | 40.6 | 88.4 | 66.0 | 56.7 | 61.5 | 60.9 | 58.8 | 40.0 | 68.7 | 57.1 | |
| + | 53.6 | 75.1 | 59.1 | 63.6 | 41.5 | 88.1 | 65.5 | 62.2 | 63.6 | 62.9 | 54.0 | 34.7 | 58.0 | 52.4 | |
| + VisPruner train. | 53.1 | 69.2 | 56.7 | 60.9 | 36.9 | 86.7 | 55.4 | 56.3 | 59.4 | 52.4 | 44.2 | 28.2 | 52.9 | 44.4 | |
| VISOR-TR (Ours) | 55.4 | 75.4 | 60.7 | 59.5 | 38.5 | 87.7 | 67.4 | 61.9 | 63.3 | 65.3 | 60.7 | 37.4 | 67.7 | 57.8 | |
| Method | RWQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MMSTAR | POPE | TxtVQA | AI2D | CQA | OCRB | InfoVQA | DocVQA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VISOR-TR | 55.4 | 75.4 | 60.7 | 59.5 | 38.5 | 87.7 | 67.4 | 61.9 | 65.3 | 60.7 | 37.4 | 67.7 |
| VISOR-TR-excl | 55.5 | 75.6 | 61.6 | 59.2 | 38.3 | 88.3 | 66.9 | 62.0 | 65.0 | 61.1 | 37.2 | 67.6 |
| Method | Easy | Hard | Avg. FLOPs Savings | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RealWorldQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MMSTAR | POPE | TextVQA | AI2D | Avg. (Easy) | ChartQA | OCRBench | InfoVQA | DocVQA | Avg. (Hard) | ||
| LLaVA-OV [ 22 ] | 57.3 | 75.6 | 58.6 | 63.7 | 40.5 | 88.1 | 69.9 | 60.3 | 64.3 | 64.2 | 60.3 | 46.7 | 76.6 | 62.0 | |
| Downsample [ 24 ] | 53.6 | 76.9 | 58.4 | 62.5 | 39.2 | 86.1 | 59.5 | 60.0 | 62.0 | 46.7 | 48.0 | 29.1 | 52.6 | 44.1 | |
| VisionZip [ 50 ] | 52.7 | 74.8 | 54.2 | 64.5 | 38.3 | 86.2 | 54.9 | 57.2 | 60.4 | 37.8 | 33.8 | 26.3 | 44.7 | 35.7 | |
| VisionZip † [ 50 ] | 54.6 | 76.2 | 57.2 | 63.9 | 38.1 | 87.0 | 62.0 | 58.2 | 62.2 | 50.0 | 44.3 | 30.8 | 55.1 | 45.1 | |
| SparseVLM [ 56 ] | 52.0 | 74.8 | 50.3 | 58.4 | 34.5 | 82.3 | 60.6 | 57.1 | 58.7 | 51.3 | 38.9 | 34.9 | 57.9 | 45.7 | |
| Method | Training data % | RWQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MMSTAR | POPE | TxtVQA | AI2D | CQA | OCRB | InfoVQA | DocVQA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VISOR | 100% | 54.6 | 75.3 | 61.8 | 60.5 | 40.1 | 87.6 | 67.8 | 61.5 | 65.2 | 61.8 | 37.6 | 68.9 |
| VISOR | 50% | 56.9 | 72.3 | 60.1 | 60.2 | 38.6 | 88.3 | 65.1 | 57.3 | 62.2 | 58.3 | 33.8 | 62.7 |
| Method | Vision Encoder | Easy | Hard | Avg. FLOPs Savings | ||||||||||||
| RealWorldQA | SQA | GQA | MME | MSTAR | POPE | TextVQA | AI2D | Avg. (Easy) | ChartQA | OCRBench | InfoVQA | DocVQA | Avg. (Hard) | |||
| LLaVA-OV | SigLIP-400M | 54.0 | 67.2 | 58.3 | 60.6 | 40.6 | 88.4 | 66.0 | 56.7 | 61.5 | 60.9 | 58.8 | 40.0 | 68.7 | 57.1 | |
| LLaVA-OV | FastVLM | 52.5 | 67.4 | 56.3 | 58.4 | 35.8 | 87.7 | 61.3 | 51.5 | 58.9 | 57.9 | 47.6 | 32.5 | 51.1 | 47.3 | |
| VISOR | FastVLM | 52.3 | 73.7 | 56.3 | 58.8 | 37.7 | 86.7 | 61.9 | 55.8 | 60.4 | 63.0 | 49.0 | 33.4 | 53.1 | 49.6 | |
| Method | MUIR | Blink | MMIU |
|---|---|---|---|
| LLaVA | 26.8 | 40.4 | 34.2 |
| VISOR | 28.1 | 39.0 | 34.5 |
Efficient VLM Inference
Efficient vision-language model inference reduces the compute, memory, latency, and energy needed to process images, video, and text.
See all 485 papers