Cut-ViT: Task-Specific Model Pruning via Gram Anchoring Subspace Consistency
Authors: Jianjian Yin, Liulei Li, Tao Chen, Yi Chen, Yazhou Yao, Wenguan Wang
Organizations: Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China · State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Manufacturing of Advanced Construction Machinery, Nanjing, China · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. · Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China
Pruning visual foundation models has attracted considerable attention. However, existing methods focus on rigid point-to-point token alignment on a single dataset for pruning, suffering from two limitations: i) robustness degradation, and ii) task-specificity deficiency. To address these limitations, we propose a task-specific pruning pipeline, named Cut-ViT. Specifically, we first construct gram anchoring matrices from both spatial and semantic perspectives, and perform the subspace decomposition to extract the corresponding subspace bases. Basis-agnostic and residual constraints are then adopted to align the gram subspaces between the native and pruned DINOv3 models along spatial and channel dimensions, enabling subnetworks to inherit robust feature representations of native DINOv3. Furthermore, we design spectral entropy adaptation, which quantifies the information density of feature manifolds along spatial and channel dimensions, thereby adapting the pruning objective to specific downstream tasks. Experiments show that Cut-ViT requires approximately one minute on a single A100 GPU to obtain subnetworks at various sparsity levels, using only 20.9% of the time and 45.5% of the GPU memory compared with previous methods, while achieving SOTA performance on six tasks across nine datasets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison with prior work. (a) To ensure feature consistency, existing methods enforce rigid alignment between CLS tokens; (b) Cut-ViT aligns the subspace induced by the inherent gram anchoring within DINOv3, thereby enabling the subnetworks to inherit the robust feature representations of the original network.
Figure 2: The pipeline of our Cut-ViT . Pairs of images are input into the native and pruning-guided DINOv3 to obtain feature embeddings. Lba denotes the dense feature matching loss. Subspace decomposition ( \lx@sectionsign\refGSC ) is applied to the spatial and channel gram matrices ( St , Sp , Ct , Cp ) to derive subspace bases ( Ut , Up ). Subspace consistency is enforced with basis-agnostic and residual constraints ( \lx@sectionsign\refSAR ), yielding spatial and channel gram losses, Lbasisspatial and Lbasischannel . During pruning, backpropagation computes the gradients of each parameter, which are then ranked in descending order of magnitude to select parameters and generate subnetworks with varying sparsity levels.
Figure 3: The process of spatial and channel gram anchoring subspace consistency.
Different Sparsity Levels of DINOv3
Method
Dataset
30%
20%
10%
Training-based (0% : 69.7 / 67.00 / 72.5)
HydraViT [NeurIPS24] [ 16 ]
DAVIS
58.6 / 58.1 / 59.1
64.5 / 63.1 / 65.9
68.4 / 66.1 / 70.7
EA-ViT [ICCV25] [ 77 ]
DAVIS
60.3 / 59.4 / 61.2
65.4 / 63.9 / 66.9
69.3 / 66.8 / 71.8
Training-free (0% : 69.7 / 67.0 / 72.5)
LAMP [ICLR21] [ 25 ]
ImageNet
35.0 / 32.9 / 37.0
40.4 / 38.1 / 42.8
60.2 / 58.4 / 62.1
Table 1: Quantitative results ( \lx@sectionsign\refcompare ) on DAVIS-2017 [ 39 ] video object segmentation using (J&F)m / Jm / Fm .
Different Sparsity Levels of DINOv3
Method
Dataset
30%
20%
10%
Training-based (0% : 92.0 / 77.1 / 59.7)
HydraViT [NeurIPS24] [ 16 ]
FJS
69.9 / 55.7 / 37.6
90.7 / 72.5 / 51.9
91.2 / 76.3 / 59.1
EA-ViT [ICCV25] [ 77 ]
FJS
72.0 / 57.9 / 38.5
91.4 / 74.2 / 54.6
92.0 / 77.0 / 59.5
Training-free (0% : 92.0 / 77.1 / 59.7)
LAMP [ICLR21] [ 25 ]
ImageNet
55.2 / 38.8 / 29.9
79.5 / 56.9 / 38.9
84.2 / 59.2 / 50.4
Table 2: Quantitative results ( \lx@sectionsign\refcompare ) of semantic matching on the FG3DCar / JODS / SBD (FJS) dataset [ 33 , 44 , 17 ] .
Table 6Table 7Table 8Table 9Table 10
Video Object Segmentation
Depth Estimation
Semantic Matching
Method
Dataset
(J&F)m / Jm / Fm
ARel ↓ / δ1↑
FG3DCar / JODS / SBD
ImageNet
52.9 / 50.7 / 55.1
8.3 / 97.6
64.8 / 44.2 / 32.1
SNOWS [ICLR25] [ 35 ]
Target
53.4 / 50.9 / 56.0
8.0 / 97.6
65.4 / 44.6 / 32.6
ImageNet
56.0 / 54.3 / 57.7
7.7 / 97.6
65.7 / 43.3 /32.4
SnapViT [NeurIPS25] [ 50 ]
Target
56.4 / 54.6 / 58.1
7.3 / 97.7
66.4 / 43.5 / 32.8
Cut-ViT (Ours)
Target
59.4 / 58.0 / 60.8 ↑ 3.0 / ↑ 3.4 / ↑ 2.7
4.6 / 98.7 ↑ 2.7 / ↑ 1.0
70.8 / 56.3 / 37.9 ↑ 4.4 / ↑ 11.7 / ↑ 5.1
Table 13: Ablation analysis ( \lx@sectionsign\refablationstudy ) on different pruning datasets at 30% sparsity.
Table 12
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison ( \lx@sectionsign\refablationstudy ) of different subspace alignment strategies.
Figure 5: The parameter retention and overlap analysis ( \lx@sectionsign\refablationstudy ) for each block in DINOv3 [ 49 ] . ( Left ) shows the parameter retention rate for each block in both training-free OSP and our task-specific methods. ( Right ) illustrates the overlap ratio of the retained parameters in the MLP and MHA layers of each block for the two types of methods.
Vision foundation models (VFMs) provide transferable visual representations, but their inference cost limits deployment in many settings. Fine-tuning specializes a VFM without shrinking it; distillation shrinks it, but through expensive teacher-guided training. Structured pruning offers a more direct route by extracting a compact subnetwork from the VFM. However, as compression gets aggressive, existing methods fail because they treat subnetwork selection and recovery as separate axes. Across layers, capacity must follow task sensitivity rather than spread uniformly. Within a layer, a removal cannot be judged by importance alone; its impact also depends on how well the lost contribution can be recovered from what remains. Selection and recovery must therefore be decided jointly. We introduce Carve VFM, which resolves this interdependence. Given a VFM, a calibration set, and a parameter budget, it (i) searches for task-specific capacity allocations across layers; (ii) guides the search via an adaptive recovery-aware fitness criterion; and (iii) reconstructs removed behavior through iterative closed-form low-rank corrections merged into the surviving weights. The result is a dense encoder produced in minutes on a single GPU without backbone retraining. Across twelve benchmarks and four models from DINOv3 and MetaCLIP-2, Carve VFM achieves the highest reported mean accuracy in seven of eight backbone-budget configurations among the evaluated dense structured-pruning methods. Further fine-tuning surpasses the strongest evaluated edge model (88.1% vs. 85.8%), and carved models cut compute and memory while delivering 1.3-2.0x higher GPU throughput than the uncompressed one. These results show that the compact model you need is inside the VFM; it only has to be carved out.
Lotfi Abdelkrim Mecharbat, Abdelrahman Elsayed, Ibrahim Almakky +2
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence
Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable generalization across diverse multimodal tasks through large-scale pre-training, yet their rapidly increasing computational and memory requirements pose significant challenges for deployment in constrained environments. Existing pruning strategies often depend on task-specific criteria or LLM-oriented importance measures, making them unsuitable for task-agnostic pruning, where no task-specific samples are available at pruning time and the pruned model remains broadly applicable. We introduce a retraining-free VLM pruning framework called PORTA that derives a task- and modality-agnostic importance formulation based on activation variation, estimated from generic calibration data, which reliably captures feature-level representation utility across modalities. PORTA further incorporates an adaptive sparsity allocation mechanism that assigns layer-wise pruning ratios based on output feature variability, avoiding the limitations of uniform sparsity and reducing performance degradation at high compression levels. Extensive experiments across VLM architectures, such as CLIP, BLIP, and Qwen2-VL, demonstrate that PORTA achieves competitive downstream performance under high sparsity without requiring any retraining, supporting efficient VLM compression. Code is available at https://github.com/cau-hai-lab/PORTA.git.
Minseok Kang, Hyunwoo Kim, Chanyoung Kim +3
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea · Department of Computer Science, Kookmin University, Seoul, Korea
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable multimodal capabilities but suffer from prohibitive computational overhead due to the massive number of visual tokens. While token pruning is a promising solution, existing methods still suffer from two major drawbacks: 1) unreliable pruning criteria that fail to accurately localize task-specific regions due to inherent attention biases or query-agnostic designs, and 2) suboptimal pruning strategies that employ rigid, non-adaptive schedules, overlooking the dynamic evolution of token redundancy across different model depths. To address these challenges, we propose LearnPrunerV2, which extends the previous two-stage heuristic framework (LearnPruner) into a fully learnable architecture. Specifically, we integrate lightweight learnable modules into every layer of the VLM backbone, which estimate token importance by fusing intrinsic visual saliency with extrinsic query relevance captured via a shadow token. By uncovering a consistent staircase redundancy pattern across VLM layers, we further introduce Budget-Deterministic Pruning (BDP) to establish a hardware-friendly schedule with fixed per-layer budgets. Extensive experimental results across various benchmarks and VLMs demonstrate that LearnPrunerV2 consistently outperform previous state-of-the-art methods. Notably, LearnPrunerV2 preserves 99.8% of the original performance when pruning 77.8% of visual tokens on LLaVA-v1.5, achieving a superior accuracy-efficiency trade-off.
Rinyoichi Takezoe, Yaqian Li, Weiren Wang +6
Li Auto Inc. Beijing, China · Li Auto Inc. Shanghai, China · Li Auto Inc. Hangzhou, China