For multimodal large language models (MLLMs), visual information is relatively sparse compared with text. As a result, research on visual pruning emerges for efficient inference. Current approaches typically measure token importance based on the attention scores in the visual encoder or in the LLM decoder, then select visual tokens with high attention scores while pruning others. In this paper, we pursue a different and more surgical approach. Instead of relying on mechanism-specific signals, we directly compute Mutual Information (MI) between visual and textual features themselves, prior to their interaction. This allows us to explicitly measure crossmodal dependency at the feature levels. Our MI-Pruner is simple, efficient and non-intrusive, requiring no access to internal attention maps or architectural modifications. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms previous attention-based pruning methods with minimal latency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Pruning visualization on LLaVA1.5-7B with different budgets. Our MI-Pruner consistently identifies and preserves the queried regions, whereas other methods partially miss relevant information. Tokens from top to bottom: 64, 128, 256.
Figure 2: Overview. Previous methods prune tokens by attention scores from vision encoder or LLM decoder. Our MI-Pruner calculates Mutual Information between visual and textual embeddings in the projection space, achieving optimal performance with minimal latency.
Figure 3: A toy model of MI-based pruning. We construct similarity matrices to get conditional probability and marginal probability, then calculate crossmodal PMI (top) and internal PMI (bottom). All [ vis ] tokens are flattened for illustration.
Methods
GQA
SQA
TextVQA
MMVet
MME P
POPE
P F1
P Yes
LLaVA1.5-7B
61.97
66.80
59.09
30.46±7.58
1509.13
85.18
0.86
0.56
keep 64
FastV ( Chen et al., 2024a )
50.80
51.10
47.80
24.99 ±7.01
1019.60
48.50
0.48
0.35
SparseVLM ( Zhang et al., 2025e )
52.70
62.20
51.80
23.04 ±7.88
1221.10
75.45
0.75
0.37
VisionZip ( Yang et al., 2025a )
55.10
69.00
55.50
31.04 ±7.08
1365.60
77.34
0.76
0.37
VisPruner ( Zhang et al., 2025b )
55.40
69.10
55.80
32.09 ±7.11
1369.90
82.61
0.80
0.38
Table 1: Performance comparison of different pruning methods on LLaVA1.5-7B. Methods before - - - are attention-based. We use color to distinguish best and second best .
Methods
GQA
MME P
POPE
P F1
P Yes
Methods
GQA
MME P
POPE
P F1
P Yes
Qwen3VL-2B
59.55
1494.98
89.89
0.90
0.47
Qwen3VL-8B
61.53
1730.47
88.84
0.88
0.44
keep 50%
Random
49.96
1438.19
88.76
0.88
0.46
Random
53.02
1422.31
88.25
0.87
0.43
Similarity
50.87
1454.34
89.26
0.89
0.48
Similarity
53.17
1461.25
88.95
0.88
0.45
Attention
50.09
1462.74
89.54
0.89
0.47
Attention
52.93
1462.84
88.85
0.88
0.44
MI-Pruner
51.30
1478.26
89.78
0.90
0.48
MI-Pruner
53.48
1493.04
89.22
0.89
0.45
Table 2: Performance comparison of different pruning methods on Qwen3VL-2B and -8B. ”Attention” refers to the sum of attention scores from other image tokens. MI-Pruner and MI-Attention achieve SOTA performance for both scales.
Figure 4: Performance on Qwen2VL series (GQA).
Figure 5: Pruning visualization on Qwen3VL series. Our method retains the semantic-relative patches regarding prompts adaptively.
Methods
Mem (GB)
Latency (ms)
Mem (GB)
Latency (ms)
keep 128
keep 64
SparseVLM
18.08
96.36 ±0.35
18.11
93.67 ±0.31
VisPruner
14.35
92.04 ±0.44
14.35
89.48 ±0.32
CDPruner
14.73
111.12 ±0.65
14.65
91.41 ±0.41
DART
14.05
92.62 ±0.39
13.96
88.41 ±0.37
MI-Pruner λ=1
14.01
82.08 ±0.32
13.93
77.06 ±0.36
Table 3: Efficiency comparison on POPE (LLaVA1.5-7B).
Methods
TGIF
MSVD
MSRVTT
Acc
Score
Acc
Score
Acc
Score
Video-LLaVA
18.90
2.54
72.00
3.95
57.50
3.50
keep 227
FastV
14.30
2.42
68.90
3.90
53.00
3.40
VisPruner
15.90
2.41
69.30
3.92
55.60
3.45
MI-Pruner
15.70
2.44
70.60
3.94
56.40
3.46
Table 4: Video-QA performance on Video-LLaVA-7B.
Figure 6: Ablation study on scoring functions (LLaVA1.5-7B).
τ
GQA 64
GQA 32
SQA 64
SQA 32
0.01
55.26
55.39
69.06
69.02
0.1
56.88
55.78
69.81
69.26
0.5
54.32
52.23
68.56
68.99
Table 5: Ablation study on temperature (LLaVA1.5-7B).
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
GQA 64
GQA 32
SQA 64
SQA 32
MinMax
55.37
52.95
67.56
67.01
Softmax
56.88
55.78
69.81
69.26
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study on Normalization (LLaVA1.5-7B).
Methods
GQA
SQA
TextVQA
MME P
LLaVA1.5-13B
61.97
72.73
61.24
1524.19
keep 64
Random
53.45
70.85
50.74
1257.35
Similarity
53.63
71.64
51.58
1338.78
FastV
53.70
56.80
47.10
1275.41
SparseVLM
50.60
69.00
22.70
1289.92
Appendix
Table 7: Results on large-scale models, LLaVA1.5-13B and Qwen3VL-30B.
Methods
Instruct+Sampl.
Thinking+Sampl.
keep 50%
Random
52.79
32.93
Similarity
53.11
34.13
MI-Pruner
53.20
34.97
Appendix
Table 8: GQA results on hybrid sampling (Qwen3VL-8B).
Methods
Mem (GB)
Latency (ms)
keep 32
SparseVLM
18.12
93.33 ±0.44
VisPruner
14.35
89.98 ±0.39
DART
13.94
87.56 ±0.47
CDPruner
14.61
83.22 ±0.38
MI-Attention
14.35
77.36 ±0.40
Appendix
Table 9: Efficiency comparison on POPE (LLaVA1.5-7B).
Figure 7: Dialogue examples on Qwen2.5VL-7B (GQA).
Methods
Random
Popular
Adversarial
Average
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
LLaVA1.5-7B
89.60
0.90
0.51
86.20
0.87
0.55
79.73
0.82
0.61
85.18
0.86
0.56
keep 128
Random
85.23
0.83
0.37
84.07
0.82
0.38
80.80
0.79
0.41
83.37
0.81
0.39
Similarity
87.43
0.86
0.42
86.30
0.85
0.43
82.60
0.82
0.46
85.44
0.84
0.44
MI-Attention
88.31
0.87
0.41
86.63
0.86
0.42
84.11
0.83
0.44
86.35
0.85
0.42
Appendix
Table 10: POPE performance comparison under 3 settings on LLaVA1.5-7B. We report accuracy (Acc), F1 scores and Yes-rate.
Methods
Random
Popular
Adversarial
Average
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
Yes
Qwen3VL-2B
92.37
0.92
0.44
89.53
0.89
0.47
87.77
0.88
0.49
89.89
0.90
0.47
keep 50%
Random
91.67
0.91
0.44
88.47
0.88
0.46
86.13
0.86
0.48
88.76
0.88
0.46
Attention
92.33
0.92
0.44
89.40
0.89
0.47
86.90
0.87
0.50
89.54
0.89
0.47
Similarity
92.63
0.92
0.45
88.77
0.89
0.49
86.37
0.87
0.51
89.26
0.89
0.48
Appendix
Table 11: POPE performance comparison under 3 settings on Qwen3VL. We report accuracy (Acc), F1 scores and Yes-rate.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in multimodal understanding, but processing large numbers of visual tokens results in high computational costs. While many methods have been proposed to reduce the number of visual tokens, most of them rely on heuristics and are prone to discarding substantial visual information during pruning, leading to degradation in model performance. In this work, by using a semantic erasure model, we derive a general mutual information coverage objective from task log-loss and propose MiCo, a training-free two-stage pruning method. MiCo first uses visual signals to select a representative candidate pool before visual tokens enter the language model, then performs task-aware subset selection within it. At each stage, suitable observable proxies instantiate the derived objective as a monotone submodular coverage function, which MiCo greedily optimizes under the token budget. MiCo is evaluated on diverse MLLMs ranging from 7B to 13B parameters across a broad range of image and video benchmarks spanning general visual reasoning, fine-grained OCR and grounding, hallucination detection, and long-video understanding. MiCo consistently achieves the best performance across nearly all evaluated models under all pruning ratios. On LLaVA-NEXT-13B, MiCo uses only 5.6% visual tokens, retains 97.5% of baseline performance, and achieves a 3.8-fold inference speedup. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of MiCo and our mutual information coverage objective for visual token pruning. Our code is available at https://github.com/MAX-7237/MiCo.
Tinghao Wang, Yichen Guo, Qizhe Zhang +11
State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · Nanyang Technological University +2
Despite their strong multimodal understanding ability, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) incur substantial computational overhead when processing long visual token sequences. To reduce inference costs, recent studies have explored visual token pruning through vision-centric or text-guided strategies. However, these methods often overlook high-norm outlier tokens, i.e., tokens with abnormally large feature norms, leading to suboptimal pruning decisions. In this work, we show that such high-norm outlier tokens are highly redundant in both feature and spatial dimensions, yet are often mistakenly preserved as informative cues by existing methods. Motivated by this observation, we propose SinkPruner, a training-free visual token pruning framework for efficient MLLM inference. SinkPruner follows a coarse-to-fine design with two key modules: a visual sanitizer that filters high-norm redundancies and alleviates attention sink and attention dispersion, and a text-guided pruner that further retains tokens semantically aligned with the text query. Extensive experiments on twelve image-language and four video-language benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness, efficiency, and generalizability of our framework. Notably, SinkPruner preserves 96.5% (91.8%) of the original performance of LLaVA-1.5 (Qwen2.5-VL) under an 89% token reduction. Experiments further indicate that our visual sanitizer exhibits promising transferability in enhancing the performance of existing pruning methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/LaVi-Lab/SinkPruner.
Shiyu Li, Zi-Yuan Hu, Shijia Huang +3
1The Chinese University of Hong Kong · 2Weitu AI · 3Peking University
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved strong multimodal reasoning capabilities, but their efficiency is limited by the large number of visual tokens, which introduces substantial computational overhead. Visual token pruning offers a natural solution, yet existing methods are imperfect: attention-based criteria tend to retain redundant tokens, while diversity-based criteria are often agnostic to user instructions. Even methods that combine multiple criteria still lack a principled formulation of the intrinsic objective of token pruning. In this paper, we revisit visual token pruning from a first-principles perspective and formulate it as constructing Token Optimal Preservation Sets. Through a top-down information-theoretic analysis, we identify three fundamental principles for effective token selection: Task Relevance, Information Coverage, and Semantic Diversity. Based on these principles, we propose TOPS, a training-free and model-agnostic pruning module that can be applied to various MLLMs. Extensive experiments on 7 MLLM backbones and 14 benchmarks demonstrate that TOPS outperforms prior methods under diverse pruning settings. Notably, on LLaVA-NeXT, TOPS removes 77.8% of visual tokens while preserving 100.0% and 100.6% performance on its 7B and 13B models, respectively, suggesting that pruning redundant visual tokens can sometimes mitigate hallucination and inspire future lightweight MLLM design. Our code is available at https://github.com/MAX-7237/TOPS.
Tinghao Wang, Yichen Guo, Rui Huang +9
State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · Nanyang Technological University +1