Visual Sufficiency Landscapes: Understanding Query-Conditioned Reliability in Visual Token Pruning
Organizations: School of Software, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710129, China
Abstract
Different visual token pruning strategies retain different subsets while maintaining similar task performance. This motivates a combinatorial question: how many visual subsets can preserve model behavior, and how does their abundance depend on the query? We introduce visual sufficiency landscapes to characterize this abundance. At a fixed layer and budget, visual sufficiency probability is the fraction of uniformly sampled subsets that jointly preserve the dense model's answer, reference-answer likelihood, and output distribution. Independent sampling replicates separate input variation from estimation noise. Across Qwen2.5-VL-7B, InternVL2-8B, and LLaVA-v1.5-7B, differences between inputs on GQA and TextVQA exceed replication error, and different questions about the same GQA image produce distinct landscapes. Sufficiency probability also improves failure prediction for full pruning methods. On LLaVA, adding this probability increases AUC by 0.1151 for FastV, 0.0683 for VisionZip, and 0.1401 for SparseVLM, while reducing log loss and Brier score. Several architecture-adapted configurations on the other two models reproduce these gains. Under controlled selection rules, predictors trained on the original images reduce log loss on new images by 9.0%, 13.0%, and 14.1%, respectively. These results establish successful-subset abundance as a measurable dimension of local prunability and connect it to the identification of high-risk pruning conditions.
Figures & tables
| Model | Task | ||
| Qwen2.5-VL | GQA | ||
| Qwen2.5-VL | TextVQA | ||
| InternVL2 | GQA | ||
| InternVL2 | TextVQA | ||
| LLaVA | GQA | ||
| LLaVA | TextVQA |
| Model | ||
| Qwen2.5-VL | ||
| InternVL2 | ||
| LLaVA |
| Model | Ratio 0.125 | Ratio 0.25 | Ratio 0.50 |
| Qwen2.5-VL | |||
| InternVL2 | |||
| LLaVA |
| Model | Method | Log loss B0/B1 | AUC B0/B1 | log loss 95% CI |
| LLaVA | FastV | 0.7578 / 0.6703 | 0.5317 / 0.6468 | |
| VisionZip | 0.7005 / 0.6649 | 0.5952 / 0.6635 | ||
| SparseVLM | 0.6775 / 0.6096 | 0.5938 / 0.7339 | ||
| Qwen2.5-VL | FastV | 0.6240 / 0.5408 | 0.7308 / 0.8047 | |
| VisionZip | 0.5269 / 0.4837 | 0.7652 / 0.8088 | ||
| SparseVLM | 0.6209 / 0.4941 | 0.6974 / 0.8185 |
| Model | Method | Brier B0/B1 | AP B0/B1 | Relative reduction | Nominal |
| LLaVA | FastV | 0.2695 / 0.2313 | 0.5135 / 0.5821 | 11.5% | 0.026 |
| VisionZip | 0.2514 / 0.2344 | 0.6323 / 0.6518 | 5.1% | 0.105 | |
| SparseVLM | 0.2373 / 0.2052 | 0.6093 / 0.6652 | 10.0% | 0.042 | |
| Qwen2.5-VL | FastV | 0.2138 / 0.1830 | 0.8282 / 0.8744 | 13.3% | 0.031 |
| VisionZip | 0.1744 / 0.1587 | 0.8902 / 0.9151 | 8.2% | 0.030 | |
| SparseVLM | 0.2225 / 0.1717 | 0.8131 / 0.8910 | 20.4% | 0.010 |
| Model | Cohort | Macro RD | 95% CI |
| LLaVA | Transfer | 17.19 | [3.65, 30.21] |
| Qwen2.5-VL | Main | 41.67 | [29.69, 51.56] |
| Transfer | 38.54 | [27.60, 48.44] | |
| InternVL2 | Main | 23.44 | [13.54, 34.38] |
| Transfer | 23.44 | [9.90, 33.85] |
| Model | Without | With | [95% CI] | Relative reduction |
| Original cohort: image-grouped out-of-fold evaluation | ||||
| Qwen2.5-VL | 0.4288 | 0.4116 | 4.0% | |
| InternVL2 | 0.4185 | 0.3513 | 16.1% | |
| LLaVA | 0.4811 | 0.4014 | 16.6% | |
| New images: direct evaluation of fixed predictors | ||||
| Qwen2.5-VL | 0.4092 | 0.3724 | 9.0% | |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Features | Log loss | Brier |
| Qwen2.5-VL | 0.50161 | 0.16507 | |
| 0.47349 | 0.15330 | ||
| 0.47855 | 0.15499 | ||
| 0.44545 | 0.14388 | ||
| InternVL2 | 0.47407 | 0.15377 | |
| 0.45001 | 0.14825 |
| Setting | log loss [95% CI] | Brier [95% CI] | Directional support |
| Qwen2.5-VL | |||
| Fixed logistic | 98.16% / 96.82% | ||
| Layer-aware | 96.26% / 95.00% | ||
| InternVL2 | |||
| Fixed logistic | 100% / 100% | ||
| Layer-aware | 100% / 100% | ||
| Model | Without | With | log loss [95% CI] | Relative reduction |
| Qwen2.5-VL | 0.3906 | 0.3379 | 13.5% | |
| InternVL2 | 0.3922 | 0.3507 | 10.6% | |
| LLaVA | 0.4604 | 0.4035 | 12.4% |
| Model | Direct evaluation of fixed predictors | Nested refitting within the new cohort |
| Qwen2.5-VL | ||
| InternVL2 | ||
| LLaVA |
| Method | Joint failure | Task failure | NLL exceeded | KL exceeded | Task pass, joint fail |
| FastV | 41 | 22 | 24 | 13 | 19 |
| VisionZip | 50 | 24 | 12 | 45 | 26 |
| SparseVLM | 40 | 16 | 14 | 31 | 24 |
| Model | GQA | TextVQA | Total | Mean |
| Qwen2.5-VL | 28 | 6 | 34 | |
| InternVL2 | 26 | 26 | 52 | |
| LLaVA | 31 | 30 | 61 |
Visual Token Pruning
Visual token pruning reduces the image and video patches processed by transformers to lower inference cost while preserving task-relevant information.
See all 276 papers