Why and When Visual Token Pruning Fails? A Study on Relevant Visual Information Shift in MLLMs Decoding
Organizations: Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) · NVIDIA
Abstract
Recently, visual token pruning has been studied to handle the vast number of visual tokens in Multimodal Large Language Models. However, we observe that while existing pruning methods perform reliably on simple visual understanding, they struggle to effectively generalize to complex visual reasoning tasks, a critical gap underexplored in previous studies. Through a systematic analysis, we identify Relevant Visual Information Shift (RVIS) during decoding as the primary failure driver. To address this, we propose Decoding-stage Shift-aware Token Pruning (DSTP), a training-free add-on framework that enables existing pruning methods to align visual tokens with shifting reasoning requirements during the decoding stage. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DSTP significantly mitigates performance degradation of pruning methods in complex reasoning tasks, while consistently yielding performance gains even across visual understanding benchmarks. Furthermore, DSTP demonstrates effectiveness across diverse state-of-the-art architectures, highlighting its generalizability and efficiency with minimal computational overhead.
Figures & tables
| Qwen3-VL-4B [ 4 ] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | MathVerse | WeMath | DynaMath | LogicVista | MMMU-Pro | Acc. (%) |
| Vanilla (Full Tokens) | 61.29 | 48.29 | 66.48 | 49.22 | 37.63 | 100% |
| Retain 33.3% Tokens ( 66.7%) | ||||||
| FastV (ECCV’24) | 32.23 (52.6%) | 25.90 (53.6%) | 38.76 (58.3%) | 30.64 (62.3%) | 19.41 (51.6%) | 55.68% |
| w/ DSTP | 52.54 (85.7%) | 42.19 (87.4%) | 51.00 (76.7%) | 41.16 (83.6%) | 30.52 (81.1%) | 82.90% |
| DivPrune (CVPR’25) | 33.90 (55.3%) | 29.32 (60.7%) | 41.94 (63.1%) | 30.64 (62.3%) | 13.08 (34.8%) | 55.24% |
| Method | SQA | GQA | Acc. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vanilla | 93.42 | 81.57 | 61.82 | 100% |
| FastV | 87.98 | 74.82 | 60.04 | 94.3% |
| w/ DSTP | 91.84 | 77.95 | 60.93 | 97.5% |
| DivPrune | 86.12 | 71.36 | 58.07 | 91.2% |
| w/ DSTP | 91.36 | 74.11 | 60.42 | 95.5% |
| VisionZip | 90.41 | 77.10 | 60.68 | 96.5% |
| Row | Detect | Swap | Qwen3 VL | InternVL3.5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy | Ratio | MV | MP | MV | MP | ||
| (a) | Full visual tokens | 61.29 | 37.63 | 42.00 | 39.42 | ||
| (b) | FastV (33.3%) | 32.23 | 19.41 | 21.57 | 18.96 | ||
| (c) | Random | CPTS | 38.1% | 37.69 | 22.36 | 31.09 | 22.18 |
| (d) | Avg | CPTS | 38.1% | 51.51 | 27.68 | 39.08 | 32.77 |
| (e) | RISD | Full | 100% | 53.04 | 29.55 | 40.96 | 34.16 |
| Method | Total Latency | GPU Mem. | Accuracy | Lat./Ex. | TPS | Avg Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3-VL-4B | ||||||
| Vanilla | 27:51:28 | 18.6G | 61.29 | 127.27s | 19.30 | 2419.4 |
| FastV | 26:07:27 | 14.6G | 32.23 | 119.35s | 24.99 | 2931.7 |
| FastV + DSTP | 22:26:49 | 15.1G | 52.54 | 102.55s | 24.11 | 2412.7 |
| InternVL-3.5-8B | ||||||
| Vanilla | 2:34:53 | 28.9G | 42.00 | 11.79s | 31.55 | 377.3 |
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Qwen3-VL | |
|---|---|---|
| MathVerse | MMMU-Pro | |
| Vanilla | 61.29 | 37.63 |
| FastV (33.3%) | 32.23 | 19.41 |
| DSTP w/o Reversion | 44.04 | 22.03 |
| DSTP | 52.54 | 30.52 |
| Thinking MLLMs | Large-scale MLLMs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | MathVerse | MMMU-Pro | Method | MathVerse | MMMU-Pro |
| Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking | Qwen3-VL-8B | ||||
| Vanilla (Full Tokens) | 73.01 | 40.51 | Vanilla (Full Tokens) | 62.81 | 42.31 |
| FastV (33.3%) | 40.28 | 29.77 | FastV (33.3%) | 37.64 | 18.64 |
| w/ DSTP | 58.49 | 36.52 | w/ DSTP | 51.16 | 33.31 |
| InternVL3.5-8B-Thinking | InternVL3.5-14B | ||||
| Method | Qwen3-VL-4B | InternVL3.5-8B | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G1 | G2 | |
| FastV | 60.13 | 42.94 | 83.61 | 52.87 |
| DivPrune | 81.26 | 41.14 | 54.80 | 35.53 |
| VisionZip | 52.68 | 26.04 | 60.16 | 41.73 |
| Total Avg. | 64.69 | 36.71 | 66.19 | 43.38 |
| Model | Qwen3-VL-4B [ 4 ] | InternVL3.5-8B [ 42 ] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | ScienceQA | TextVQA | GQA | Acc. (%) | ScienceQA | TextVQA | GQA | Acc. (%) |
| Upper Bound, Full Visual Tokens (100%) | ||||||||
| Vanilla | 93.42 | 81.57 | 61.82 | 100% | 96.70 | 77.59 | 61.24 | 100% |
| Retain 33.3% Tokens ( 66.7%) | ||||||||
| FastV (ECCV’24) | 87.98 (94.2%) | 74.82 (91.7%) | 60.04 (97.1%) | 94.3% | 81.60 (84.4%) | 64.92 (83.7%) | 57.08 (93.2%) | 87.1% |
| w/ DSTP | 91.84 (98.3%) | 77.95 (95.6%) | 60.93 (98.6%) | 97.5% | 87.65 (90.6%) | 67.74 (87.3%) | 58.71 (95.9%) | 91.3% |
| Ratio | Method | Prefill | Decoding | Total |
| (TFLOPs) | (TFLOPs) | (TFLOPs) | ||
| 100% | Vanilla | 1.637 | 2.158 | 3.795 |
| 33.3% | FastV | 0.546 | 2.130 | 2.676 |
| w/ DSTP | 0.546 | 2.137 | 2.683 | |
| 22.2% | FastV | 0.363 | 2.126 | 2.489 |
| w/ DSTP | 0.363 | 2.133 | 2.496 |
Visual Token Pruning
Visual token pruning reduces the image and video patches processed by transformers to lower inference cost while preserving task-relevant information.
See all 276 papers