Organizations: State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China · State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence Beijing, China
Visual token compression has emerged as a critical technique for reducing the inference cost of Vision-Language Models. Existing methods select tokens based on text relevance, visual diversity, or a fixed combination of both---treating the relevance-diversity balance as a universal constant independent of the input. We conduct a systematic analysis to challenge this assumption. At the dataset level, grid-searching the optimal relevance-diversity weight per benchmark reveals substantial cross-task variation. More critically, we further maximize per-sample answer likelihood to recover sample-level oracle weights, finding that their distributions not only differ markedly across benchmarks but also exhibit high within-benchmark variance. Based on these observations, we propose SAVER, a framework for Sample-Aware relevance-diversity balanced Visual tokEn Reduction. We first derive a Geometric Intent Prior (GIP) from the spatial concentration of text-relevant tokens to infer a sample-specific relevance-diversity weight, and then apply this weight to jointly select tokens via a Weighted Text Centroid (WTC) for relevance scoring and a Visual Marginal Coverage Gain (VMCG) for diversity. SAVER requires no additional training and achieves sample-aware balancing entirely at inference time. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SAVER consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across diverse benchmarks, retaining 96.5% of full-model performance on LLaVA-1.5-7B with only 11.1% of the original visual tokens, and further generalizing to LLaVA-NeXT and Mini-Gemini.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Dataset-level performance vs. θ (dashed line) and instance-level oracle weight distributions θi∗ (solid curve and histogram) for POPE, GQA, and MMBench. POPE favors high θ (diversity-dominant); MMBench favors low θ (relevance-dominant); GQA peaks at intermediate values. Per-sample distributions closely correspond to dataset-level optima.
Figure 2. Overview of the SAVER framework. Given a multimodal input, we compute the Geometric Intent Prior (GIP) from the spatial distribution of high-relevance visual tokens, which dynamically weights text relevance (via WTC) and visual diversity (via VMCG) in a unified greedy selection process.
Method
GQA
MMBench
MME
POPE
ScienceQA
TextVQA
OCRBench
Avg.
No compression (576 tokens)
LLaVA-1.5-7B
61.9
64.3
1862
85.9
69.5
58.2
297
100%
192 tokens (66.7% reduction)
FastV (ECCV’24) ( Chen et al., 2025 )
52.7
61.2
1612
64.8
67.3
52.5
291
89.6%
SparseVLM (ICML’25) ( Zhang et al., 2025b )
57.6
62.5
1721
83.6
69.1
56.1
292
96.3%
PyramidDrop (CVPR’25) ( Xing et al., 2024 )
57.1
63.2
1766
82.3
68.8
56.1
290
96.3%
Table 1. Comparison with state-of-the-art token reduction methods on LLaVA-1.5-7B across three compression budgets.
Method
#Tokens
GQA
MMBench
POPE
MME
ScienceQA
SEEDBench
Avg.
LLaVA-NeXT (Full)
2880
64.2
67.9
86.4
1842
70.2
70.2
100%
VisionZip (CVPR’25) ( Yang et al., 2025 )
640
61.3
66.3
86.3
1787
68.1
66.7
97.0%
PruneSID (ICLR’26) ( Fang et al., 2026 )
640
61.6
64.2
86.3
1795
68.3
67.3
96.8%
SAVER (Ours)
640
63.6
65.8
86.4
1802
69.8
68.5
98.5%
VisionZip (CVPR’25) ( Yang et al., 2025 )
320
59.3
63.1
82.1
1702
67.3
63.4
93.2%
PruneSID (ICLR’26) ( Fang et al., 2026 )
320
60.5
63.0
83.1
1754
67.3
65.0
94.5%
Table 2. Generalization results on LLaVA-NeXT.
Method
#Tokens
GQA
MMBench
POPE
MME
ScienceQA
SEEDBench
Avg.
Mini-Gemini (Full)
576
62.4
69.3
85.8
1841
70.7
69.7
100%
VisionZip (CVPR’25) ( Yang et al., 2025 )
128
58.7
68.1
78.5
1841
70.0
65.6
96.2%
PruneSID (ICLR’26) ( Fang et al., 2026 )
128
60.1
66.6
82.4
1821
70.7
66.5
97.1%
SAVER (Ours)
128
60.6
67.2
84.1
1831
71.0
67.2
98.1%
VisionZip (CVPR’25) ( Yang et al., 2025 )
64
55.8
65.9
69.6
1737
70.7
61.7
91.4%
PruneSID (ICLR’26) ( Fang et al., 2026 )
64
58.3
63.1
76.0
1735
70.6
63.6
93.1%
Table 3. Generalization results on Mini-Gemini.
Method
#Tok.
Peak GPU ↓
Throughput ↑
POPE ↑
LLaVA-1.5-7B (Full)
576
14.69
11.21
85.9
SparseVLM ( Zhang et al., 2025b )
64
18.84
12.09
75.1
DART ( Wen et al., 2025 )
64
14.33
17.17
73.9
SAVER (Ours)
64
14.33
17.11
83.8
Table 4. Efficiency comparison on LLaVA-1.5-7B.
Method
POPE
GQA
MMBench
Avg.
WTC relevance
73.7
56.3
61.9
91.0%
VMCG diversity
83.4
58.7
59.9
95.0%
WTC + VMCG(static)
84.0
59.5
60.4
95.9%
SAVER (Ours)
83.8
60.0
61.8
96.9%
Table 5. Ablation study on LLaVA-1.5-7B.
Figure 3. Ablation on γ across different token budgets on LLaVA-NeXT-7B (POPE F1). The effect is amplified under higher compression ratios.