cs.CVOct 2, 2026

From Patching to Pruning Visual Computation in Vision Language Models

Authors: Rahul Chowdhury, Timothy A Rupprecht, Xuan Shen, Shaoyi Huang, Pu Zhao, Yanzhi Wang

Organizations: Northeastern University, USA · EmbodyX Inc., USA · Zhejiang University, China · Stevens Institute of Technology, USA

Abstract

Vision language models (VLMs) incur substantial inference cost because every visual token is processed by the attention and MLP projections of every decoder layer, even when token-specific visual computation is unnecessary at many depths. We introduce Patch-to-Prune (P2P), inspired by Mechanistic Interpretability, a training-free framework that converts activation patching from a diagnostic tool into an inference-time computation bypass. P2P performs validation-guided forward and backward layer sweeps to identify decoder regions whose visual-token projection outputs can be replaced by fixed neutral proxy activation vectors within a user-specified accuracy tolerance. Unlike conventional token-pruning methods, P2P preserves the sequence length, token order, positional information, attention mask, and residual pathways, thereby pruning computation without removing tokens or modifying the pretrained model weights. We evaluate P2P on four VLMs from the Qwen2.5-VL and LLaVA families across seven multi-modal benchmarks using mutually disjoint calibration, validation, and test partitions. P2P at a 3% tolerance retains around 94% of dense accuracy while reducing FLOPs by 55%. Beyond these efficiency gains, our layer-wise analysis suggests that visual processing in VLMs is non-uniformly distributed across decoder depth: early and late layers often require little token-specific visual computation, whereas intermediate layers appear to perform most task-relevant visual integration, enabling later reasoning to rely largely on visual information already embedded in shared residual and textual representations. This makes P2P both an efficient inference framework and a causal lens into visual information processing in VLMs.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables3 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. Not All Attention Heads Contribute to Critical Visual Token Selection: Head-Aware Pruning Matters More

    Aug 26, 2026Chaofang Ma, Lin Jiang, Carol Jingyi Li +4Efficient VLM InferenceVisual Token Pruning

  2. VPRune: Efficient Training-free Pre-LLM Visual Token Pruning

    Sep 21, 2026Guangchuan Lv, Dianxing Shi, Dingjie FuEfficient VLM InferenceLarge Vision-Language Models