Efficient long-video understanding with vision-language models (VLMs) is often framed as selecting informative frames or visual tokens at a fixed native resolution. We show that per-frame resolution can instead be traded for denser temporal coverage, while front-end decoding latency depends on the size of the candidate pool rather than the final token budget. An empirical study across multiple VLMs and long-video benchmarks yields three findings: dense low-resolution sampling outperforms sparse native-resolution sampling at matched token budgets; resolution-sensitive tasks benefit from selected high-resolution frames; and front-end decoding dominates wall time for hour-long videos. Motivated by these findings, we introduce LoHi, a training-free, single-pass framework that combines a dense low-resolution video stream with sparse high-resolution image frames through the VLM's native video and image pathways. LoHi-Anchor selects high-resolution frames using codec I-frame metadata, while LoHi-SemDiv uses query relevance and visual diversity over CLIP features. Across three long-video benchmarks, LoHi improves average accuracy by 10.6 percentage points over the native-resolution baseline at a matched token budget and by 5.2 percentage points over the strongest prior efficiency method. It also reduces front-end decoding latency by up to 7x on hour-long videos. Project page: https://sixundong.com/projects/lohi
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three practical lessons on long-video understanding. (a) At matched token budgets, dense low-resolution sampling substantially outperforms the default baseline. (b) Resolution-sensitive tasks (OCR, Attribute Perception) significantly drop under aggressive down-scaling. Resolution-insensitive tasks (Action Recognition, Temporal Reasoning) remain robust. (c) Decode-then-select(D) scale linearly with video length; while uniform fixed-budget(U) keeps front-end latency constant.
Token-efficiency at fixed resolution
Resolution-aware
Frames-Res
Axis
FastV [ 3 ]
VisionZip [ 38 ]
VideoLLaMA3 [ 41 ]
AKS [ 29 ]
BOLT [ 17 ]
MMTok [ 6 ]
VisionThink [ 39 ]
LoHi (ours)
Stage
Post-encoder
Post-encoder
Post-encoder
Post-decode
Post-decode
Post-encoder
Multi-turn
Pre-decode
Selection signal
Attn.
Sim.
Training.
Sim
Sim.
Coverage
LLM judgment
Uniform
Per-frame cost
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
Front-end latency
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
∙
Modality
Video
Video
Video
Video
Video
Image
Image
V+I
Table 1: Positioning LoHi in long-video efficiency. Per-frame cost and Front-end latency are graded as low ( ∙ ), medium ( ∙ ), or high ( ∙ ).
Figure 2: Three lessons across frames, resolution, and front-end latency. (a) At fixed low resolution ( r=0.25 ), accuracy on VideoMME rises monotonically with frame count N grows from 16 to 256 for all four task categories ( Sec. 3.1 ). (b) Under a matched token budget, resolution-sensitive tasks (R-Sens.) favor higher resolution over more frames, while resolution-insensitive tasks (R-Non-Sens.) prefer denser low-resolution sampling ( Sec. 3.2 ). (c) Video decoder requires group-of-pictures (GoP) seeking, so constructing a dense candidate pool costs far more than uniform sampling( Sec. 3.3 ).
Setting
Qwen3-VL-4B
Qwen3-VL-8B
VideoLLaMA3-7B
VideoMME
MLVU
LVBench
VideoMME
MLVU
LVBench
VideoMME
MLVU †
LVBench
16F @1.0
57.78
58.89
38.61
60.04
58.95
38.22
46.81
35.88
32.09
64F @0.5
62.30
65.40
40.93
65.96
66.41
41.83
64.37
38.97
33.83
256F @0.25
64.44
69.36
43.71
67.04
71.29
44.80
50.04
40.30
36.99
Table 2: Comparison of diverse frontier VLMs on different long-video benchmarks.
Figure 3: Overview of LoHi framework. Compared with previous work (a) which prunes or selects within a native resolution pathway, LoHi (b) decomposes one decoded video into two complementary streams: dense low-resolution Lo-V via the video pathway and sparse high-resolution Hi-I via the image pathway. (c) shows the LoHi-SemDiv selector, which picks Hi-I indices via greedy MAP.
Method
#Frames
Setting
Tokens
VideoMME (%)
MLVU
LVBench
Avg.
(Decoded)
( N F @r )
(Budget)
Short
Med.
Long
All
(%)
(%)
(%)
Qwen3-VL-4B
16
16 F @1.0
5,760
68.44
55.67
49.22
57.78
58.89
38.61
51.76
The new recipe: dense low-resolution video
Low-Res-Base
256
256 F @0.25
5,760
75.78
62.33
55.22
64.44
69.36
43.71
59.17
Pre-encoder keyframe selection
CLIP-TopK
256 → 16
16 F @1.0
5,760
65.67
56.33
49.56
57.19
69.36
44.74
57.10
Table 3: Performance Comparison on Qwen3-VL-4B. Avg. is the mean over three benchmarks.
Table 7
Method
Setting
VideoMME
LVBench
MLVU
Avg.
Qwen3-VL-4B
16F @1.0
57.78
38.61
58.89
51.76
25% default budget ( ∼ 1,440 tokens)
VisionZip [ 38 ]
16F @1.0
55.56
34.47
53.75
47.93
MMTok [ 6 ]
16F @1.0
55.19
34.80
54.82
48.27
FlashVid [ 8 ]
16F @1.0
55.11
35.44
54.54
48.36
Resize
16F @0.5
56.26
35.51
57.95
49.91
Table 6: Token pruning vs Resize.
Table 9
Figure 4: Visualization of selected high-resolution images by our proposed Hi-I Selector.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Selector
K
Short
Medium
Long
All
LoHi-SemDiv
2
75.67
65.78
55.33
65.59
LoHi-SemDiv-Anchor
2
75.67
65.67
55.22
65.52
LoHi-SemDiv
4
76.22
65.22
57.22
66.22
LoHi-SemDiv-Anchor
4
76.22
66.00
57.00
66.41
LoHi-SemDiv
8
77.11
65.78
57.56
66.81
LoHi-SemDiv-Anchor
8
77.11
66.00
57.56
66.89
Appendix
Table 9: LoHi-SemDiv-Anchor on VideoMME (Qwen3-VL-4B, 128 F Lo-V, interleaved cue).
VideoMME
Variant
Short
Medium
Long
All
MLVU
LVBench
LoHi-SemDiv (reference)
77.11
65.78
57.56
66.81
74.38
45.90
LoHi-SemDiv++ (frame-PCA)
77.22
66.22
57.33
66.93
75.02
45.77
Δ
+ 0.11
+ 0.44
− 0.23
+ 0.12
+0.64
− 0.13
Appendix
Table 10: LoHi-SemDiv++ on Qwen3-VL-4B ( 128 F @0.25 , K=8 ).
Frames
NCPU
CPU mean (s)
NGPU
GPU mean (s)
GPU / CPU
16
900
0.60
900
1.04
1.73×
64
900
1.47
45†
3.38†
-
128
900
2.45
—
—
—
256
900
3.94
—
—
—
Appendix
Table 11: Decode wall time on VideoMME with uniform sampling. CPU decord is profiled on the full 900-clip set at every frame count; NVDEC is profiled at N=16 on the same set and at N=64 on a 45-clip subsample ( † ).
Method
#Frames
Setting
Tokens
VideoMME (%)
MLVU
LVBench
Avg.
(Decoded)
N F @r
(Budget)
Short
Med.
Long
All
(%)
(%)
(%)
Qwen3-VL-8B
Vanilla
16
16 F @1.0
5,760
69.89
57.56
52.67
60.04
58.95
38.22
52.40
CLIP-TopK
256 → 16
16 F @1.0
5,760
68.44
58.44
53.33
60.07
69.73
44.09
57.97
AKS [ 29 ]
256 → 16
16 F @1.0
5,760
68.56
58.22
53.33
60.04
69.88
44.09
58.00
BOLT [ 17 ]
256 → 16
16 F @1.0
5,760
72.89
59.67
54.00
62.19
69.34
43.83
58.45
Appendix
Table 12: Cross-backbone transfer of LoHi . All LoHi rows use a 128 F Lo-V at rℓ=0.25 paired with K=4 Hi-I frames at rh=1.0 . Avg. is the mean over VideoMME-All, MLVU, and LVBench.
Setting
VideoMME
MLVU
LVBench
Qwen3.5-4B
16 F @1.0
60.74
60.48
38.54
256 F @0.25
67.41
69.87
41.45
Δ
+6.67
+9.39
+2.91
Appendix
Table 13: Frame–resolution trade-off on Qwen3.5-4B at the same token budget.
Configuration
VideoMME
MLVU
LVBench
Qwen3.5-4B
128 F @0.25
64.93
66.80
39.51
256 F @0.25
67.41
69.87
41.45
LoHi-Uniform
67.52
67.48
44.61
LoHi-Anchor
67.70
66.70
44.74
LoHi-SemDiv
68.15
70.42
46.68
Appendix
Table 14: LoHi selectors on Qwen3.5-4B ( 128 F Lo-V at rℓ=0.25 , K=8 Hi-I).
Table 15: Generalization to additional VLM backbones. Both LoHi variants use 128 Lo-V frames at rℓ=0.25 and Hi-I frames at rh=1.0 . † For VideoLLaMA3, MLVU scores use the output normalization described in Sec. C.7 .
Configuration
Lo-V
Hi-I
Short
Medium
Long
All
Qwen3-VL-4B
256 F @0.25
256 F
—
75.78
62.33
55.22
64.44
LoHi-Uniform
128 F
K=8
75.67
66.44
55.22
65.78
LoHi-SemDiv
128 F
K=8
77.11
65.78
57.56
66.81
LoHi-Uniform
256 F
K=4
77.67
65.33
56.78
66.59
LoHi-Anchor
256 F
K=4
77.00
65.89
57.78
66.89
Appendix
Table 16: Pushing the Lo-V to N=256 on VideoMME (Qwen3-VL-4B). All rows use rℓ=0.25 for Lo-V and rh=1.0 for Hi-I.
Table 17: Evaluation under larger visual-token budgets on EgoLongQA with Qwen3.5-27B. All configurations use 512 sampled frames.
Trigger
2nd-pass rate
Acc. (%)
Δ vs. Lo
Lo-V only
0%
63.00
0.00
Entropy ( θ tuned)
37%
65.71
+2.71
Always-Hi
100%
65.78
+2.78
Appendix
Table 18: Two-pass triggers on VideoMME (Qwen3-VL-4B, 128 F Lo-V).
Configuration
Raw (%)
Normalized (%)
No-paren rate
16 F @1.0
35.88
52.38
38.5%
64 F @0.5
38.97
55.27
30.9%
256 F @0.25
40.30
57.73
30.8%
Δ ( 256 F −16 F)
+4.42
+5.35
—
Appendix
Table 19: VideoLLaMA3-7B on the MLVU dev split, with and without output normalization. “No-paren rate” is the fraction of outputs lacking a closing parenthesis.
Benchmark
Mean (range)
Std (max)
Min (per video)
LVBench
0.990 – 0.998
0.032
0.806
MLVU
0.977 – 0.999
0.069
0.639
VideoMME
0.959 – 0.991
0.064
0.674
Appendix
Table 20: Keep ratio of DiffFP in VideoLLaMA3-7B, 45 configurations, 60 videos each. The lowest mean is 0.959 (VideoMME, 256 F @1.0 ).
Selector
K=4 (%)
K=8 (%)
Appended
Interleaved
Appended
Interleaved
LoHi-Uniform
64.78
65.52 (+0.74)
65.30
65.78 (+0.48)
LoHi-SemDiv
65.70
66.22 (+0.52)
66.37
66.81 (+0.44)
LoHi-Anchor
65.96
65.85 (−0.11)
65.85
65.89 (+0.04)
Appendix
Table 21: Prompt template ablation on VideoMME (Qwen3-VL-4B, 128 F Lo-V at r=0.25 ).
SemDiv − Uniform
Δ (%)
95% CI
McNemar p
W/L
VideoMME
+1.04
[−0.15,+2.22]
0.094
144/116
MLVU
+6.76
[+5.17,+8.41]
<10−16
233/86
LVBench
+1.81
[−0.13,+3.76]
0.063
120/92
Appendix
Table 22: Paired comparison of LoHi-SemDiv and LoHi-Uniform. Confidence intervals are computed using video-level paired bootstrap. W/L denotes questions answered correctly only by SemDiv/Uniform, respectively.
Table 23: Accuracy gains of query-aware selection over the corresponding uniform baselines at matched budgets.
MLVU action-count
Lo-V only
LoHi-Uniform
LoHi-SemDiv
Accuracy (%)
41.75
29.13
53.40
Appendix
Table 24: Effect of Hi-I selection on MLVU action counting with Qwen3-VL-4B ( n=206 ).
Query type
n
Base
Uniform
SemDiv
Static location ( where was X )
111
68.47
70.27
73.87
Transient action ( put in )
48
64.58
66.67
83.33
Action destination
45
71.11
75.56
77.78
Yes/no ( did I … )
43
58.14
48.84
65.12
Static entity count
27
18.52
37.04
37.04
Appendix
Table 25: Accuracy (%) by question template within MLVU’s ego category, using Qwen3-VL-4B. Base denotes Low-Res-Base; Uniform and SemDiv use K=8 Hi-I frames.
Table 26: Accuracy (%) of visual-only and text-only inputs on VideoMME using Qwen3-VL-4B. Subsets are defined by subtitle availability. Visual inputs exclude subtitles; text-only inputs contain the transcript and question.
Subtitle length
Tokens
% of visual budget
Median
1,539
27%
Mean
3,018
52%
P90
7,799
135%
Appendix
Table 27: VideoMME subtitle lengths measured with the Qwen3-VL tokenizer, relative to the visual-token budget of 5,760 tokens.
Table 28: Accuracy (%) with and without subtitles on the 2,232 subtitle-available questions in VideoMME, using Qwen3-VL-4B. Reported p -values compare LoHi-SemDiv with Low-Res-Base in each setting.
The fundamental challenge in scaling Video Large Language Models (Video LLMs) to long-form video lies in managing the explosion of visual-token context length. Existing strategies predominantly focus on "post-hoc" token reduction -- reducing visual tokens after feature extraction to alleviate the LLM's computational overhead. While these methods effectively reduce the number of visual tokens, we observe that the primary latency bottleneck then shifts from the LLM to the expensive per-frame processing of the vision encoder. To address this, we introduce LiteFrame, a strong, yet highly efficient video encoder backbone for Video LLMs. To train LiteFrame, we propose Compressed Token Distillation (CTD), a novel training framework that teaches a compact student vision encoder to directly predict information-dense, spatio-temporally compressed representations produced by a large teacher vision model, effectively bypassing redundant computation. When coupled with further Language Model Adaptation (LMA), this approach results in a new latency-accuracy Pareto frontier -- compared with InternVL3-8B, LiteFrame provides a 35% reduction in end-to-end latency while processing 8× more frames and improves average video understanding accuracy across multiple benchmarks. Our results demonstrate a new potential path to unlocking longer-form video understanding under fixed compute budgets.
Long video understanding is inherently challenging for vision-language models (VLMs) because of the extensive number of frames. With each video frame typically expanding into tens or hundreds of tokens, the limited context length of large language models (LLMs) forces the VLMs to perceive the frames sparsely and lose temporal information. To address this, we explore extreme video token compression towards one token per frame at the final LLM layer. Our key insight is that heuristic-based compression, widely adopted by previous methods, is prone to information loss, and this necessitates supervising LLM layers into learnable and progressive modules for token-level compression (LP-Comp). Such compression enables our VLM to digest 2x-4x more frames with improved performance. To further increase the token efficiency, we investigate frame-level compression, which selects the frames most relevant to the queries via the internal attention scores of the LLM layers, named question-conditioned compression (QC-Comp). As a notable distinction from previous studies, we mitigate the position bias of LLM attention in long contexts, i.e., the over-concentration on the beginning and end of a sequence, by splitting long videos into short segments and employing local attention. Collectively, our combined token-level and frame-level leads to an extreme compression model for long video understanding, named XComp, achieving a significantly larger compression ratio and enabling denser frame sampling. Our XComp is finetuned from VideoChat-Flash with a data-efficient supervised compression tuning stage that only requires 2.5% of the supervised fine-tuning data, yet boosts the accuracy from 42.9% to 46.2% on LVBench and enhances multiple other long video benchmarks.
Zheyu Zhang, Ziqi Pang, Shixing Chen +3
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Amazon Prime Video
Adapting Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) for hour-long videos is bottlenecked by context limits. Dense visual streams saturate token budgets and exacerbate the lost-in-the-middle phenomenon. Existing heuristics, like sparse sampling or uniform pooling, blindly sacrifice fidelity by discarding decisive moments and wasting bandwidth on irrelevant backgrounds. We propose Tempo, an efficient query-aware framework compressing long videos for downstream understanding. Tempo leverages a Small Vision-Language Model (SVLM) as a local temporal compressor, casting token reduction as an early cross-modal distillation process to generate compact, intent-aligned representations in a single forward pass. To enforce strict budgets without breaking causality, we introduce Adaptive Token Allocation (ATA). Exploiting the SVLM's zero-shot relevance prior and semantic front-loading, ATA acts as a training-free O(1) dynamic router. It allocates dense bandwidth to query-critical segments while compressing redundancies into minimal temporal anchors to maintain the global storyline. Extensive experiments show our 6B architecture achieves state-of-the-art performance with aggressive dynamic compression (0.5-16 tokens/frame). On the extreme-long LVBench (4101s), Tempo scores 52.3 under a strict 8K visual budget, outperforming GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro. Scaling to 2048 frames reaches 53.7. Crucially, Tempo compresses hour-long videos substantially below theoretical limits, proving true long-form video understanding relies on intent-driven efficiency rather than greedily padded context windows.
Junjie Fei, Jun Chen, Zechun Liu +13
Meta AI · King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)