LapMerge: Differentiable Exact-Budget Token Merging in Linear Time

Magdalena Trędowicz; Aleksandra Nowak; Tomasz Steifer; Łukasz Struski; Szymon Płotka; Jacek Tabor

cs.CVOct 9, 2026

LapMerge: Differentiable Exact-Budget Token Merging in Linear Time

Authors: Magdalena Trędowicz, Aleksandra Nowak, Tomasz Steifer, Łukasz Struski, Szymon Płotka, Jacek Tabor

Organizations: Jagiellonian University in Kraków · Institute of Fundamental Technological Research, Polish Academy of Sciences · Centre for Credible AI, Warsaw University of Technology

Abstract

Modern vision and language models process ever longer token sequences, and reducing them is the main lever on downstream cost. Token compression, however, faces a fundamental trade-off: selecting tokens discards information, while existing merging methods preserve it only through pairwise token-to-token matching or $MN$ token-to-output interactions. We introduce LapMerge, a differentiable merging operator that resolves this trade-off for ordered sequences: a learned mass distribution partitions the sequence into exactly $N$ equal-mass segments under a Laplace-kernel density, and prefix/suffix scans aggregate each segment, so both the forward and the backward pass run in $O(M+N)$ time. This combination (an exact output budget, end-to-end differentiability, and linear cost) is precisely what previous reducers trade off against one another. The budget can be changed without changing operator parameters, and the learned mass doubles as a token-level map of where the budget is allocated. Across vision and vision-language tasks, LapMerge matches or improves on strong token reducers while being up to two orders of magnitude faster at large sequence lengths; it is particularly effective when token order reflects spatial or temporal locality, and works both as a drop-in reduction module and as a trainable architectural component.

Figures & tables

Panel of Figure 2 — Figure 2: The same six tokens cut into $N=3$ pieces two ways – by token count they are 3-1-2, but by mass all three pieces are comparable. Top : the hard partition from the running sum – barriers can only fall between tokens, so each piece’s mass is merely close to $1/N$ . Bottom : treating positions as noisy turns each token into a smooth bump; the shaded area under the resulting mixture density (bold) is exactly $1/N$ per piece (Proposition 1 ). These intervals partition probability mass, not tokens: one token’s bump can span several intervals. The kernel shown is Gaussian, purely for illustration.

Panel of Figure 3 — Figure 3: Why the Laplace kernel is fast : the tick at each kernel’s peak splits it into a left half and a right half, and Equation 6 aggregates every left half with one prefix sum and every right half with one suffix sum – never a per-pair computation. Five tokens shown: three peaks fall inside $[b_{\ell-1},b_{\ell})$ ( $x_{i},x_{j},x_{k}$ ) and two fall outside ( $x_{h},x_{l}$ ); only the shaded, interval-clipped part of each counts toward $t_{\ell}$ (Definition 1 ).

Panel of Figure 4 — Figure 4: Reducer forward–backward latency on GH200 ( $B=1$ , $d=512$ , FP32; five warm-ups, 30 repeats). Dashed: $N=1024$ ; solid: $N=M/16$ . LapMerge scales similarly in both regimes; the SDPA poolers retain $MN$ interactions. Open circles precede a 600-s timeout, the filled OOM, the filled square an execution failure. Timing covers the reducer core (LapMerge gets precomputed masses; the poolers project inside the timed region); scorer/routing overheads: Appendix B.4 .

method	CRC	STAD
ABMIL	$88.97{\pm}2.91$	$92.68{\pm}3.24$
CLAM-SB	$89.92{\pm}4.40$	$93.75{\pm}2.90$
CLAM-MB	$90.66{\pm}1.43$	$91.62{\pm}2.74$
DS-MIL	$90.33{\pm}7.60$	$87.11{\pm}3.35$
DTFD-MIL	$90.86{\pm}1.58$	$93.22{\pm}4.46$
TransMIL	$81.07{\pm}3.90$	$89.24{\pm}4.52$

Table 1: Test AUROC (mean

\pm

std, 6 seeds). External anchors are literature numbers, not reproduced here: Kather et al. 2019 is a CNN tile-classifier, not MIL; Wagner et al. 2023 is AttentionMIL over CTransPath features.

Method	$10\%$	$30\%$
FastV ( Chen et al., 2024a )	$65.99$	$80.47$
DART ( Wen et al., 2025 )	$71.91$	$83.43$
HoloV ( Zou et al., 2026 )	$75.84$	$83.27$
PruMerge+ ( Shang et al., 2025 )	$76.52$	$83.69$
VisionZip ( Yang et al., 2025 )	$78.46$	$84.73$
DivPrune ( Alvar et al., 2025 )	$79.27$	$84.68$

Table 2: Drop-in token reduction on POPE (F1, frozen Qwen2.5-VL-7B, no retraining) at matched

10\%

and

30\%

visual-token budgets. Baseline rows quote the published evaluation of Zhu et al. (2025) (their Table 1); our rerun of the released selection reproduces its F1 to

0.06

(Appendix D.3 ). LapMerge reuses the VisionSelector scorer at default widths

(\alpha_{r},\alpha_{a}){=}(1,1)

; the POPE-tuned variant is a reference ceiling (see Ablation ).

Method	ListOps	Text	Retrieval	Image	Pathfinder
Unreduced	$38.10\pm 1.21$	$65.03\pm 0.66$	83.02 $\pm$ 0.20	$35.94\pm 0.58$	$49.9\pm 0.1$
Performer	$38.57\pm 0.37$	$65.93\pm 0.29$	$82.2\pm 0.15$	$43.85\pm 0.13$	$50.21\pm 0.13$
Uniform pooling	$29.65\pm 0.25$	$75.05\pm 0.35$	$88.12\pm 0.33$	$42.29\pm 0.65$	$49.67\pm 0.21$
ToMe	$35.47\pm 2.36$	$60.97\pm 0.15$	$78.85\pm 0.34$	$36.16\pm 0.19$	$49.84\pm 0.06$
Top- $N$ selection	$24.92\pm 9.24$	$55.68\pm 2.55$	$74.93\pm 9.13$	$36.89\pm 0.18$	$50.78\pm 1.42$
TokenLearner	$38.78\pm 0.71$	$65.47\pm 0.26$	$83.51\pm 0.34$	$37.34\pm 0.28$	$49.98\pm 0.19$

Table 3: Long Range Arena, end-to-end training, budget 10%. Test accuracy (%), mean

\pm

std over 3 seeds. Unreduced and Performer are full-sequence references. Best result per task in bold ; Pathfinder is at chance level for all methods, so no entry is bolded there.

Appendix figures & tables22 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Context	Weight $w$	Summation domain	Query point	Cell $i$ source
§ A.1 , $\mathrm{node}_{i}$	$r$	tokens $j$	$p_{i}$	index $i$
§ A.1 , solve/density	$r$	tokens $j$	$b_{\ell}$	Safeguard A search
§ A.2 , Forward	$\dot{r}$	tokens $j$	$b_{\ell}$	reused from solve
§ A.2 , Reverse	$c$ (below)	barriers $\ell$	$p_{j}$	complement of swapped scan
§ A.3	$r\odot x$	tokens $j$	$b_{\ell}$	reused from solve

Appendix

Table 4: Five applications of the recentered prefix/suffix scans. The reverse row takes the complement of

\Phi_{c}(p_{j})

to obtain the required CDF orientation. Cell indices are determined by a monotone merge search.

experiment	scorer (input $\to$ arch)	budget $N$	merge width $\alpha$	trained modules	backend
histopathology	feats $+$ xy $\to$ MLP(1536+2,128,1)	$1024$	learned scalar, init $1/N$	scorer, width, head	native
LRA	token $\to$ linear(dim,1)	$10\%$ of $M$	fixed $1$ (rank units)	scorer, backbone, head	native
Cars	token $\to$ MLP(384,128,2) $\to(r,a)$	$20$	learned per-coord. $+$ frame $U$	scorer, $U$ , width, head	native
arXiv	token $\to$ MLP(768, $\cdot$ ,2) $\to(r,a)$	$8$ – $64$	learned per-coord. $+$ frame $U$	scorer, $U$ , width, head	native
POPE	frozen VisionSelector scorer	$\lceil bM\rceil$	fixed $(\alpha_{r},\alpha_{a}){=}(1,1)$ , index units	none (eval-only)	native

Appendix

Table 5: Configuration recipe per experiment. Routing is LapSum soft top-

k

at temperature

1

in every row (POPE standardizes the frozen scores per image first); the runtime benchmark instead uses softmax routing, as stated in Appendix B . “Native” is the pure PyTorch implementation; the CUDA-fused backend appears only in the runtime study. Backbones are frozen except on LRA, where the reducer and the backbone are trained jointly from scratch; the row shows the configuration shared by all five LRA tasks (only the input dimensionality varies).

	moderate masses		near-hard masses
backend (vs dense-FP64)	small	large	small	large
scan-FP64	$4\times 10^{-12}$	$3\times 10^{-11}$	$3\times 10^{-10}$	$5\times 10^{-8}$
dense-FP32	$2\times 10^{-3}$	$2\times 10^{-2}$	$0.16$	$30$
scan-FP32 (eager)	$3\times 10^{-3}$	$3\times 10^{-2}$	$0.37$	$56$
auto-FP32 / compile-FP32	$2\times 10^{-3}$	$3\times 10^{-2}$	$0.16$	$56$
fused-FP64	$3\times 10^{-13}$	$0.57$	$2\times 10^{-12}$	$3\times 10^{14}$

Appendix

Table 6: Measured backend agreement : maximum relative forward deviation from a dense-FP64 reference on identical inputs. “Small” covers

M\leq 4096

with

N\leq 512

(plus

N{=}M

N{>}M

cases); “large” covers

M\geq 65{,}536

N\geq 1024

M\geq 4096

. Gradient deviations follow the same pattern. FP32 rows degrade together with the problem’s conditioning (shared input-precision sensitivity); the fused rows mark that backend’s genuine limits, which the accuracy experiments avoid by using the native implementation.

	real slides ( $98$ )	tiled $\sim\!10^{6}$ , $N{=}1024$	tiled $\sim\!10^{6}$ , $N{=}M/16$
scan-FP32	$8.2\times 10^{-4}$	$2.2\times 10^{-3}$	$8.3\times 10^{-2}$
fused-FP32	$4.6\times 10^{-4}$	$5.6\times 10^{-2}$	$4.0\times 10^{-1}$
fused-FP64	$1.9\times 10^{-12}$	$5.6\times 10^{-2}$	$4.0\times 10^{-1}$

Appendix

Table 7: Backend agreement on real trained-scorer masses : maximum relative forward deviation from the scan-FP64 reference (which agrees with dense-FP64 to

\leq 5\times 10^{-8}

, Table 6 ), over the trained histopathology models’ own (mass, position, width) inputs on all test slides, and over million-token probes tiled from the same profiles. Gradient deviations follow the same pattern. Identical fused-FP32/FP64 values on the tiled probes mark the algorithmic-path limit already documented above.

Panel of Figure 5 — Figure 5: Matched GH200 forward–backward times for the same LapMerge operator at $B=1$ , $d=512$ , FP32. Coordinates are already ordered. Each point is the median of 30 synchronized repeats after five warm-ups. The dense path was only attempted to $M=2^{20}$ . A filled endpoint marks the last success before OOM; a cross marks the last success before a compiler failure. Lines are measured points, not extrapolations.

Panel of Figure 6 — Figure 6: Incremental peak CUDA allocation for the same matched sweeps. Allocation is measured above the already live input tensors, not as total device occupancy. At fixed $N$ , the dense path also grows linearly with $M$ but has a much larger constant; $N=M/16$ exposes the different dependence on both sequence dimensions. Endpoint symbols have the meaning of Figure 5 .

	$N=1024$		$N=M/16$
Implementation	time [ms]	peak [GiB]	time [ms]	peak [GiB]
Explicit dense	128.52	35.03	—	—
Native PyTorch	274.30	22.05	289.54	23.16
torch.compile	214.76	24.05	230.13	25.16
CUDA fused	111.04	2.53	136.09	3.64

Appendix

Table 8: Matched GH200 measurements at

M=2^{20}

B=1

d=512

, FP32. Time is steady-state forward plus backward. Peak is incremental CUDA allocation above live inputs. The explicit dense reference was not swept at

N=M/16

; its omission is a scope limit, not an OOM result.

	$N=1024$		$N=M/16$
Reducer	time [ms]	peak [GiB]	time [ms]	peak [GiB]
LapMerge (fused)	111.04	2.53	136.09	3.64
TokenLearner (SDPA)	336.16	4.29	7158.16	4.29
PatchMerger (SDPA)	453.95	4.02	14750.05	4.38

Appendix

Table 9: Matched reducer measurements at

M=2^{20}

on one GH200,

B=1

d=512

, FP32. Times include forward, mean-square loss, and backward; peaks are incremental CUDA allocations above live inputs. Each cell is a median of 30 synchronized repeats after five warm-ups.

$M$	$N$	scorer	routing	merge (eager)	merge (fused)	total (fused)
$2^{14}$	$1024$	$0.8$	$5.7$	$6.2$	$6.1$	$10.4$
$2^{17}$	$1024$	$1.3$	$5.6$	$33.3$	$18.5$	$24.7$
$2^{17}$	$8192$	$1.3$	$5.6$	$35.8$	$22.8$	$26.0$
$2^{20}$	$1024$	$7.8$	$5.3$	$274.2$	$111.0$	$122.5$
$2^{20}$	$65536$	$7.8$	$5.2$	$291.3$	$135.6$	$147.1$
$2^{23}$	$1024$	$60.8$	$7.2$	–	$898.3$	$979.8$

Appendix

Table 10: End-to-end decomposition of the full LapMerge module (median ms, forward+backward, GH200,

B{=}1

d{=}512

, FP32). Components are timed separately; total runs the whole scorer

\to

routing

\to

merge chain with one backward. Dashes: the eager merge at

M{=}2^{23}

exceeds memory in this control harness, which keeps extra per-component buffers; the main benchmark covers that point.

		PatchMerger		TokenLearner		LapMerge
$M$	$N$	published	SDPA	published	SDPA	fused hybrid
$65{,}536$	$1{,}024$	120.22	28.01	118.52	20.64	10.86
$65{,}536$	$2{,}048$	123.81	37.45	123.38	22.55	15.10
$262{,}144$	$1{,}024$	475.24	110.60	473.75	80.46	29.51
$262{,}144$	$2{,}048$	493.98	151.90	490.19	89.33	29.64
$1{,}048{,}576$	$1{,}024$	1932.20	456.79	1918.33	322.97	112.61

Appendix

Table 11: Historical published-versus-SDPA control on one GH200 (ms). All methods use

B=1

d=512

, and FP32. Published PatchMerger and TokenLearner materialize their

M\times N

assignment maps. Their SDPA variants are mathematically equivalent memory-efficient implementations that do not materialize these maps. LapMerge uses its shape-aware dense/fused-CUDA dispatcher. Entries are warmed medians over 20 iterations for the competitors and 100 iterations for LapMerge.

$M$	$d=512$	$d=1024$	$d=2048$	step ratio ( $d=512$ )
$10^{3}$	$4.8$	$4.7$	$7.1$	—
$10^{4}$	$5.9$	$6.7$	$10.7$	$1.2\times$
$10^{5}$	$22.0$	$40.4$	$75.7$	$3.7\times$
$10^{6}$	$222.5$	$433.5$	oom	$\mathbf{10.1\times}$
$3\cdot 10^{6}$	$688.3$	$\cdot$	$\cdot$	$3.1\times$
$10^{7}$	oom	$\cdot$	$\cdot$	—

Appendix

Table 12: Independent H100 (

80

GB) dimensional stress test of the complete reducer, forward plus backward, at

N=0.1M

. Times are warmed medians in milliseconds from a torch.compile run. This is not the matched GH200 protocol; the final column shows the step ratio at

d=512

Regime	$M$	$N$	Forward [ms]	Forward + backward [ms]	Peak [GiB]
$N=1024$	$2^{22}$	$2^{10}$	169.09	439.28	10.07
$N=1024$	$2^{23}$	$2^{10}$	360.85	899.09	20.13
$N=1024$	$2^{24}$	$2^{10}$	807.38	1878.61	40.24
$N=M/16$	$2^{22}$	$2^{18}$	150.64	531.17	14.57
$N=M/16$	$2^{23}$	$2^{19}$	299.83	1067.26	29.14
$N=M/16$	$2^{24}$	$2^{20}$	—	OOM	—

Appendix

Table 13: Large-shape GH200 probes for the CUDA-fused LapMerge dispatcher, with ordered inputs,

B=1

d=512

, and FP32. The failed ratio cell has no reported latency or allocation; no forward-only measurement is inferred. Peak allocation is incremental above live inputs.

	LapMerge one sweep (soft)	operator-free (hard)	Top- $N$ selection
$N{=}10$	$\mathbf{74.91{\pm}0.60}$	$59.51{\pm}0.66$	$71.47{\pm}0.31$
$N{=}20^{\dagger}$	$\mathbf{75.10{\pm}0.28}$	$67.53{\pm}0.26$	$74.20{\pm}0.44$
$N{=}40$	$76.52{\pm}0.40$	$73.25{\pm}0.27$	$\mathbf{77.28{\pm}0.13}$

Appendix

Table 14: Budget dose-response on Stanford Cars (top-1, mean

\pm

sd over three shared seeds, original protocol). † The

N{=}20

row is the capacity-matched frozen-frame configuration of Table 15 ; the full one-sweep single run reaches

75.46

there.

Panel of Figure 7 — Figure 7: Learned routing mass on Stanford Cars. Each pair shows the input image (left) and the per-token routing mass $r_{i}$ of the trained reducer as a heatmap (right; normalized per image). Mass concentrates on discriminative car parts – grille, badge, and headlight region – while background patches receive near-zero mass. Left pair: the standard $196$ -token single-crop configuration of Table 15 ; right pair: a $2\times 2$ multi-crop variant ( $784$ tokens) showing the same behaviour on a finer grid.

Reducer	Tokens	Params	Reducer cost	Soft	Hard
	to head			(%)	(%)
Dense transformer, no reduction	$196$	—	none	$76.71$	—
Top- $N$ selection	$20$	$52$ k	$\mathcal{O}(Md)$ + top- $N$	$74.10$	$\mathbf{74.10}^{\dagger}$
TokenLearner	$20$	$53$ k	$\mathcal{O}(MNd)$	$73.60$	n/a
PatchMerger	$20$	$8$ k	$\mathcal{O}(MNd)$	$71.83$	n/a
ToMe post-encoder merge	$20$	$0$	$\mathcal{O}(M^{2}d)$	$69.87$	n/a

Appendix

Table 15: Matched pre-head reducers on Stanford Cars. “Reducer params” excludes the

2.44

M shared by every row; “reducer cost” is analytic. Soft runs the reducer as trained; hard keeps the

N

highest-scoring raw tokens and removes it entirely (a head-dependence test, not a hard-trained model). † Selection coincides on both by construction; “n/a” marks poolers, which expose no operator-free path. The ToMe row reaches

20

tokens by iterating bipartite matching roughly four times with no transformer layer in between, well outside its published schedule; read it as training-free similarity merging pushed out of its design regime. The last block is the capacity-matched control (mean

\pm

sd over three shared seeds): the read-out frame

U

is frozen at identity, so the reducer matches selection’s

\approx 52

k parameters while sharing its scorer – the merge advantage survives equalized capacity. Protocol in Appendix C.1 .

Reducer (arXiv, frozen Longformer)	Reducer	Output budget $N$ for $M=1024$
every arm trained at its own budget	params	$8$	$16$	$32$	$64$
Dense (no reduction)	—	$87.6$
TokenLearner ( Ryoo et al., 2021 )	$102$ k	$\mathbf{88.28}$	$87.88$	$\mathbf{88.12}$	$\mathbf{87.68}$
PatchMerger ( Renggli et al., 2022 )	$14$ k	$88.00$	$\mathbf{88.28}$	$87.08$	$87.48$
Top- $N$ selection	$100$ k	$81.48$	$81.44$	$82.12$	$81.80$
LapMerge (scan coordinate)	$0.75$ M	$87.28$	$87.68$	$87.72$	$\mathbf{87.68}$

Appendix

Table 16: Budget-matched training on arXiv (single seed, soft deploy): every entry is trained at the budget it is evaluated at, which removes the extrapolation penalty the poolers would otherwise pay and is conservative for us. The scan coordinate is the parameterization of § 3 and is what the text calls LapMerge; the published-coordinate row is an ablation. For scale only: three independent trainings of the published-coordinate arm give

86.24/85.84/86.76

N{=}8

, i.e.

\sigma\approx 0.46

for that one arm; all other entries are single runs. Against LapMerge the poolers lead in five of eight cells, trail in two and tie in one, with a largest gap of

1.0

point.

reducer	raster	col-major	Hilbert	rnd (fixed)	rnd (per img)
LapMerge	$48.01{\pm}1.34$	$45.42{\pm}0.14$	$48.96{\pm}0.26$	$32.48{\pm}0.89$	$35.36{\pm}0.80$
uniform pooling	$45.15{\pm}0.27$	$43.67{\pm}0.45$	$46.71{\pm}1.14$	$29.46{\pm}0.82$	$28.11{\pm}0.28$
ToMe	$37.16{\pm}0.24$	$37.33{\pm}0.45$	$37.67{\pm}0.16$	$37.35{\pm}0.33$	$42.85{\pm}0.31$
TokenLearner	$37.08{\pm}0.34$	—	—	$37.08{\pm}0.34$	—
PatchMerger	$26.94{\pm}0.34$	—	—	$26.94{\pm}0.34$	—
learned top- $N$ selection	$37.20{\pm}0.88$	—	—	$37.20{\pm}0.87$	—

Appendix

Table 17: Permuting the scan, with everything else held fixed. LRA-Image at a

10\%

budget, mean

{\pm}

sd over three seeds, sharp width. Down the top block: a locality-preserving order is a locality-preserving order – raster, its transpose and a Hilbert curve agree to within

3.5

points – while a random permutation costs the merge

15.5

, dropping it into the band of the reducers below it. Across the bottom block: those reducers cannot see the scan coordinate, and they return their own numbers to two decimals in both mean and spread, which rules out the permutation leaking through the data, the positions, or the harness. A per-image permutation is gentler than a fixed one for the merge (

-12.7

against

-15.5

) and actually helps ToMe (

+5.7

): resampling the order every step acts as augmentation, which is why the fixed draw – one the Transformer is free to learn – is the cleaner intervention.

sweep	value	raster	permuted (fixed)	gap
width $\alpha$ (budget $10\%$ )	$0.5$	$48.0{\pm}1.2$	$33.2{\pm}0.7$	$14.8$
	$1$	$48.0{\pm}1.1$	$33.0{\pm}0.9$	$15.0$
	$2$	$47.2{\pm}0.5$	$32.3{\pm}0.9$	$14.9$
	$5$	$44.4{\pm}0.1$	$31.5{\pm}1.0$	$12.9$
	$10=M/N$	$42.6{\pm}0.2$	$31.4{\pm}1.2$	$11.2$
	$30$	$41.5{\pm}0.2$	$31.4{\pm}0.8$	$10.2$

Appendix

Table 18: How the order effect responds to width and to budget. LRA-Image, LapMerge, mean

{\pm}

sd over three seeds; every row is the raster scan against one random permutation of the scan coordinate, fixed for the run, with everything else as in Table 17 ; the gap is the difference of means. Across the width it is not flat: sharp kernels (

\alpha\leq 2

) hold the full gap, which shrinks as

\alpha

grows toward

M

, where the raster arm itself falls to the order-free level (the permuted arm stays between

31

and

33

throughout) – exactly what a positional mechanism should do. The

10\%,\alpha{=}1

configuration appears in both blocks with the same three seeds and returns

48.0{\pm}1.1

and

48.8{\pm}0.8

(permuted

33.0

and

32.8

): the difference is run-to-run nondeterminism of the GPU scatter, about the size of the seed spread, so differences under a point between rows are not to be read.

	per-anchor softmax width $\tau$
budget	$0.05$	$0.3$	$0.7$	$1.5$	$3.0$
$10\%$	$79.67$	$79.75$	$80.70$	$80.58$	$78.61$
$30\%$	$85.11$	$85.32$	$85.26$	$84.41$	$80.92$

Appendix

Table 19: Per-anchor smoothing control (Recipe-B) : POPE F1 in the shared harness.

\tau{=}0.05

recovers hard selection exactly; the best column trails the default score-routed LapMerge of Table 20 at both budgets.

		read-out width $\alpha_{a}$ ( $\alpha_{r}{=}1$ )					routing width $\alpha_{r}$ ( $\alpha_{a}{=}1$ )
budget	select	$0.3$	$0.7$	$1.0^{\star}$	$1.5$	$3.0$	$0.5$	$2.0$
$10\%$	$79.67$	$\mathbf{82.01}$	$81.67$	$81.31$	$80.69$	$79.56$	$80.97$	$80.70$
$30\%$	$85.11$	$\mathbf{85.87}$	$\mathbf{85.87}$	$85.50$	$84.73$	$82.92$	$85.19$	$84.97$

Appendix

Table 20: Width sweep of score-routed LapMerge (POPE F1, frozen Qwen2.5-VL-7B; the same shared harness and metric as Table 2 ). “select” reruns the released selection pipeline under identical conditions and reproduces its published F1 (

79.73

85.05

) to within

0.06

. The starred column is the dataset-agnostic default used in Table 2 . Decoding is greedy, so each cell is deterministic.

Domain	Dataset	#Classes	Train	Test
Histopathology	TCGA-CRC (COAD+READ)	2	365 slides †
Histopathology	TCGA-STAD	2	303 slides †
LRA	ListOps	10	96,000	2,000
	Text	2	25,000	25,000
	Retrieval	2	147,086	17,437
	Image	10	45,000	10,000

Appendix

Table 21: Summary of the datasets used in our experiments.

Figure 8: Per-patch scorer weight of LapMerge for six TCGA-CRC test slides (three MSI-H, three MSS), one column per slide: true-color thumbnail with true label and predicted $p(\text{MSI-H})$ (top) vs. the desaturated scorer-weight overlay (bottom; opacity tied to weight, so only the regions the scorer relies on stand out). The banded columns (TCGA-D5-6540, TCGA-F4-6570) are gaps in patch coverage between several narrow tissue fragments on those slides – confirmed from the raw patch coordinates – not a scorer artefact.

Token Merging

Token merging combines redundant transformer tokens to reduce sequence length, attention costs, and inference time while preserving task-relevant information.

See all 23 papers

Token Merging for Multilingual Speech Recognition: A Systematic Study Across Model Scale and Fine-Tuning
Jul 7, 2026Dylan Luke HolyoakToken Merging Low-Resource Speech Recognition
Geffen Academy at UCLA
AdaMerge: Salience-Aware Adaptive Token Merging for Training-Free Acceleration of Vision Transformers
May 26, 2026Semi Lee, Hyejin Go, Hyesong ChoiToken Merging Self-Attention
Electronic Engineering · Soongsil University · Seoul, South Korea
Distilling Sequential Computation in Transformer Language Models
Sep 23, 2026Zixuan Lan, Jessica Yang, Yanhong Li +2LLM Compression Long-Context Language Model Inference
The University of Chicago · Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago · Independent Researcher +1

Jul 7, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

Token Merging for Multilingual Speech Recognition: A Systematic Study Across Model Scale and Fine-Tuning

Dylan Luke Holyoak

Geffen Academy at UCLA

Token Merging Low-Resource Speech Recognition Multilingual ASR

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Leading multilingual speech recognition models like Whisper transcribe diverse, low-resource languages without language-specific training but are computationally expensive to deploy. Token merging mitigates this inefficiency by dynamically combining redundant features, shortening the sequence length during inference without requiring retraining. In this paper, we systematically evaluate token merging on the Whisper model family across sixteen diverse languages and three different model sizes. We also test how token merging interacts with fine-tuning (DoRA) on low-resource languages. Our findings show that merging tokens increases computational efficiency with almost no loss in transcription accuracy across most low-resource languages and model sizes, and it works even after the model has been fine-tuned. Our results demonstrate that token merging is a highly practical method for making multilingual speech recognition faster and cheaper to deploy.

Abstract

Token Merging

Explore similar work

Token Merging for Multilingual Speech Recognition: A Systematic Study Across Model Scale and Fine-Tuning

AdaMerge: Salience-Aware Adaptive Token Merging for Training-Free Acceleration of Vision Transformers

Distilling Sequential Computation in Transformer Language Models