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%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance vs. retention ratio curves for several state-of-the-art token compression methods. Average performance is computed over four video understanding benchmarks and three base models: LLaVA-OneVision ( Li et al., 2024a ) , LLaVA-Video ( Zhang et al., 2024b ) , and Qwen3-VL ( Bai et al., 2025a ) .
Figure 2: Overall model architecture of KiToke.
Figure 3: Illustration of kernel-based diversity estimation and token selection strategy.
Figure 4: Comparison of temporal interval construction.
Method
Retention Ratio γ
MVBench
LongVideo Bench
MLVU
VideoMME
Average
Overall
Short
Medium
Long
Score
%
Duration
16s
1 ∼ 60min
3 ∼ 120min
1 ∼ 60min
1 ∼ 3min
3 ∼ 30min
30 ∼ 60min
LLaVA-OV-7B
100%
58.3
56.6
63.1
58.4
70.3
56.3
48.6
59.1
100%
FastV ( Chen et al., 2024 )
100%/25%
57.2
55.0
60.8
57.3
70.0
54.0
47.9
57.6
97.5%
DyCoke ( Tao et al., 2025 )
25%
57.4
53.8
58.4
53.9
64.1
52.7
44.8
55.9
94.6%
VidCom2 ( Liu et al., 2025 )
25%
57.0
55.3
62.4
58.4
69.1
57.0
49.2
58.3
98.6%
Table 1: Performance comparison with state-of-the-art methods across video understanding benchmarks on LLaVA-OneVision . Best results under each retention ratio are highlighted in bold. The “A%/B%” retention ratio denotes that A% of the original LLM input tokens are preserved, and then further compressed to B% during the LLM forward pass.
Method
Retention Ratio γ
MVBench
LongVideo Bench
MLVU
VideoMME
Average
Overall
Short
Medium
Long
Score
%
Duration
16s
1 ∼ 60min
3 ∼ 120min
1 ∼ 60min
1 ∼ 3min
3 ∼ 30min
30 ∼ 60min
LLaVA-Video-7B
100%
60.4
58.7
67.4
64.2
77.2
62.2
53.1
62.7
100%
FastV ( Chen et al., 2024 )
100%/25%
57.8
57.4
65.5
62.5
73.2
61.7
52.7
60.8
97.0%
DyCoke ( Tao et al., 2025 )
25%
56.6
56.2
56.8
59.4
72.3
56.0
49.8
57.2
91.2%
VidCom2 ( Liu et al., 2025 )
25%
57.0
56.5
58.6
61.4
73.2
60.7
50.2
58.4
93.1%
Table 2: Performance comparison with state-of-the-art methods across video understanding benchmarks on LLaVA-Video . Best results under each retention ratio are highlighted in bold.
Method
Retention Ratio γ
MVBench
LongVideo Bench
MLVU
VideoMME
Average
Overall
Short
Medium
Long
Score
%
Duration
16s
1 ∼ 60min
3 ∼ 120min
1 ∼ 60min
1 ∼ 3min
3 ∼ 30min
30 ∼ 60min
Qwen3-VL-8B
100%
68.5
62.5
71.4
68.7
79.9
67.0
59.1
67.8
100%
DyCoke ( Tao et al., 2025 )
25%
59.1
57.3
62.9
64.0
75.4
62.3
54.2
60.8
89.7%
VidCom2 ( Liu et al., 2025 )
25%
64.1
60.3
66.3
66.3
76.2
65.0
57.8
64.3
94.8%
PruneVID ( Huang et al., 2025 )
25%
58.4
59.2
65.5
62.5
72.9
60.3
54.3
61.4
90.6%
Table 3: Performance comparison with state-of-the-art methods across video understanding benchmarks on Qwen3-VL . Best results under each retention ratio are highlighted in bold.
Method
# Token
TFLOPs
Prefill Time (ms)
Compression
LLM Forward
Total
Avg. Acc.
Vanilla
6272
48.82
-
448.0
448.0 (1.0x)
59.1 (100%)
VidCom2
627.0
4.17
70.7
53.1
123.8 (3.6x)
53.6 (90.7%)
PruneVID
628.8
4.18
81.2
53.9
135.1 (3.3x)
56.8 (96.1%)
VisionZip
640.0
4.26
76.4
56.5
132.9 (3.4x)
55.8 (94.4%)
FastVID
639.8
4.26
15.3
56.1
71.4 (6.4x)
57.7 (97.6%)
Table 4: Efficiency comparison on LLaVA-OneVision. Token counts are evaluated at retention ratios of 10% and 1%. Prefill time, defined as the latency to the first generated token, is measured on the VideoMME benchmark using an NVIDIA A100 GPU.
Method
MVBench
LongVB
MLVU
VideoMME
Average
Top-K
51.6
49.4
56.0
49.6
51.7
Multinomial Sampling
52.5 (±0.26)
49.7 (±0.51)
56.6 (±0.38)
50.2 (±0.31)
52.3 (±0.23)
Pivotal Sampling
52.6 (±0.25)
51.1 (±0.25)
57.0 (±0.29)
50.3 (±0.29)
52.7 (±0.16)
Table 5: Ablation study of diversity-based token selection methods. Values for stochastic methods are averaged over 10 random seeds; parentheses show 95% confidence intervals across seeds.
Row
Interval
Token Merge
MVBench
LongVB
MLVU
VideoMME
Average
1
✗
✗
51.9
47.3
53.6
48.6
50.3
2
✗
Uniform
51.6
49.1
55.6
49.5
51.4
3
✗
Weighted
51.9
49.4
56.0
49.9
51.8
4
Cluster
Weighted
51.8
49.7
56.3
49.7
51.9
5
Frame Sim.
Weighted
51.9
50.7
56.6
50.0
52.3
6
Ours
Uniform
52.3
49.8
55.8
50.1
52.0
Table 6: Ablation study of interval-based token merging. “Cluster” denotes the cluster-based interval segmentation method from PruneVID ( Huang et al., 2025 ) , and “Frame Sim.” denotes global frame-similarity-based segmentation from FastVID ( Shen et al., 2025 ) . “Uniform” and “Weighted” refer to uniform and diversity-weighted token merging strategies, respectively.
Figure 5: Ablation study of α in Gaussian kernel.
Figure 6: Ablation results across different model sizes of LLaVA-OneVision. Average performance is measured on four benchmarks and reported as relative performance with respect to the uncompressed result. The y-axis is truncated for clarity.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Ablation study of thresholds for difft , Δt , and Δt% in temporal interval construction.
Method
# Frames
Retention Ratio γ
# Tokens
VideoMME
Overall
Short
Medium
Long
Vanilla
32
100%
6272
58.4
70.3
56.3
48.6
KiToke (Ours)
64
50%
6272
59.6
71.9
57.7
49.3
KiToke (Ours)
128
25%
6272
60.5
71.9
58.4
51.1
KiToke (Ours)
320
10%
6272
61.6
72.5
59.9
52.3
Appendix
Table 7: Improved video-length extrapolation with KiToke under a fixed visual-token budget.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of temporal interval construction. We visualize 12 frames per video for clarity. Compared with FastVID, our method produces interval boundaries that better align with content-dependent transitions and identifies abrupt deviations relative to local temporal dynamics.
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of token selection (case 1). We visualize five frames per video for clarity. The output probability distribution indicates the model’s confidence over the four choices (A–D). The retention ratio is set to γ=1% . Removed tokens are masked with a white filter to distinguish them from retained tokens. The ground truth choice is marked in green.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of token selection (case 2). We visualize five frames per video for clarity. The output probability distribution indicates the model’s confidence over the four choices (A–D). The retention ratio is set to γ=1% . Removed tokens are masked with a white filter to distinguish them from retained tokens. The ground truth choice is marked in green.
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of token selection (case 3). We visualize five frames per video for clarity. The output probability distribution indicates the model’s confidence over the four choices (A–D). The retention ratio is set to γ=1% . Removed tokens are masked with a white filter to distinguish them from retained tokens. The ground truth choice is marked in green.
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of token selection (case 4). We visualize five frames per video for clarity. The output probability distribution indicates the model’s confidence over the four choices (A–D). The retention ratio is set to γ=1% . Removed tokens are masked with a white filter to distinguish them from retained tokens. The ground truth choice is marked in green.
Figure 13: Qualitative comparison of token selection (case 5). We visualize five frames per video for clarity. The output probability distribution indicates the model’s confidence over the four choices (A–D). The retention ratio is set to γ=1% . Removed tokens are masked with a white filter to distinguish them from retained tokens. The ground truth choice is marked in green.
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
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
Video large language models (VLLMs) rely on long visual token sequences to understand complex temporal content, which makes visual token compression important for efficient inference. Existing training-free compression methods mainly reduce the number of tokens sent to the language model, but the compression process itself can still require many visual feature comparisons, especially for intra-frame token protection and inter-frame temporal token merging. This paper proposes a video codec-guided training-free token compression method for VLLMs that uses coding information already available in compressed video as a low-cost search prior. The method aligns reference-frame dependencies, motion vectors, and residuals with the visual token grid. Residual information forms compact candidate pools for token protection, while motion information is propagated along reference-frame chains to construct localized candidates for temporal token merging between sparsely sampled frames. Local visual feature similarity comparison is then used within these candidates to make the final compression decisions, without modifying the base VLLM. Experiments on three representative VLLMs and four video-understanding benchmarks show that the proposed method achieves performance comparable to the state-of-the-art training-free baseline FlashVID, and in some settings surpasses it, while substantially reducing the feature comparisons required by token protection and temporal matching. These results demonstrate that codec information can effectively improve the accuracy-complexity tradeoff of video token compression.
Xihua Sheng, Ruijie Liu, Chang Wen Chen
Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China