Training-Free Inference Acceleration for Video Large Language Models: Methods, Trade-offs, and Evaluation
Authors: Yuqi Li, Chuanyue Yan, Neil Rodrigues, Xianglong Wang, Xiaoqin Feng, Junming Liu, Xi Xiao, Zhongwei Cheng, Wei Li, Lin Chen, Yingli Tian
Organizations: Wyze Labs, Inc. · The City University of New York · Wuhan Institute of Technology · University of Melbourne · University of Alabama at Birmingham
Video Large Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in video understanding and reasoning, but processing long visual sequences incurs substantial computational, latency, and memory overhead. This survey examines training-free inference acceleration, focusing on reducing inference costs while preserving task-relevant spatiotemporal evidence. We organize existing methods by their intervention stages in the inference pipeline, covering input, visual encoding, projector, prefill, and decoding. Post-training quantization (PTQ) is discussed separately as a cross-stage extension with varying calibration requirements. We analyze how intervention position affects evidence preservation and computational savings, and why local efficiency improvements may not translate into end-to-end acceleration. We complement this analysis with quantitative evidence from prior studies and our own experiments under a shared evaluation setting to assess accuracy-latency trade-offs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: General architecture and inference pipeline of a VLM, comprising a vision encoder, a projector connecting visual and language representations, and an LLM with prefill and decoding stages.
Figure 2: Stage-wise taxonomy of training-free VLM inference acceleration with representative methods. PTQ is included as a related cross-stage extension.
Method
Stage
Video-MME
EgoSchema
LongVideoBench
MVBench
QLB TTFT↑
Acc. ↑
TTFT ↓
Acc. ↑
TTFT ↓
Acc. ↑
TTFT ↓
Acc. ↑
TTFT ↓
Full input
–
58.48
294
64.20
298
55.20
301
58.39
294
100.0
Curv. merge
Proj.
57.89
236
64.60
239
54.76
240
58.03
236
110.6
PriorTR
Pref.
57.70
294
63.00
296
54.27
291
57.89
255
100.7
EarlyTom
Enc.+Proj.
57.85
160
62.80
163
54.00
160
56.08
161
126.6
FrameFusion
Pref.
57.85
342
63.40
386
54.93
337
58.39
275
93.3
Table 1: Quality–latency comparison. Stage denotes the compression location: Enc. (Encoding), Proj. (Projector), and Pref. (Prefill). Accuracy is in % and TTFT in ms. Higher accuracy and QLB are better; lower TTFT is better.
Method
Ret.
Quality ↑
TPOT ↓
QLB TPOT↑
EgoSchema: Qwen2.5-VL-3B, Acc. (%)
Full KV
100%
57.20
59.37
100.0
VisCache
40%
52.00
56.82
92.9
VisCache
28%
55.00
49.50
104.9
VisCache
19%
54.60
47.70
105.9
VideoDC: LLaVA-OneVision-7B, VDCscore
Table 2: Quality–latency trade-offs during decoding. Reported hardware includes 4 × A100 (80 GB) for VisCache and A6000 (48 GB) for DyCoke. Ret. denotes KV-cache or visual-token retention (%); Quality reports EgoSchema accuracy (%) or VideoDC captioning score, and TPOT is in ms/token.
Method
Bits
Avg. (Q/FP16)
Q-ret. ↑
LLaVA-OneVision-7B, 8 benchmarks
MBQ
W3A16
64.4/71.4
90.2%
VLMQ
W3A16
65.7/71.4
92.0%
VLM-PTQ
W3A16
69.5/71.4
97.3%
LLaVA-OneVision-7B, 5 benchmarks
MBQ
W3A16
70.44/73.37
96.0%
Table 3: PTQ quality retention under the reported model, bit-width, and benchmark settings. Q/FP16 denotes the average scores of quantized and FP16 models; Q-ret. denotes their ratio (%).
Method
Acc. ↑
Prefill ↓
Gen. ↓
E2E ↓
Peak Mem. ↓
Qwen3-VL-8B
64.5
243.6
280.9
1440.4
22478.0
VisionZip
60.1
155.6
190.5
1276.8
19974.7
VidCom 2
62.4
119.0
150.2
1271.0
19547.5
HoliTom
59.7
134.3
160.8
1261.8
19974.7
FlashVID
62.3
146.6
175.0
1308.7
41363.6
V-CAST
63.5
118.8
149.9
1245.1
19547.5
Table 4: System-level quality and efficiency on Video-MME using Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct with up to 32 frames and 25% token retention for compressed methods. Experiments use NVIDIA H100 (80 GB) GPUs. Prefill and Gen. denote the reported pre-generation and autoregressive generation times, respectively. Accuracy is in %, aggregate latency in seconds, and peak GPU memory in MB.
Metric
Formulation
Scope
Definition
Task Quality and Compression
Accuracy
NtotalNcorrect×100%
Quality
Percentage of correctly answered questions under the corresponding benchmark protocol.
VDCscore
Benchmark-reported score
Quality
Video captioning quality measured using the VideoDC evaluation protocol.
Ret.
NoriginalNretained×100%
Compression
Percentage of retained visual tokens or KV states relative to the source-defined budget.
Q-ret.
QFP16Qquant×100%
PTQ
Quantized-model quality relative to the matched FP16 baseline.
Bits
WbwAba
PTQ
Numerical precision of weights and activations; KV-cache precision is specified separately when applicable.
Table 5: Core metrics for evaluating task quality, compression, and realized inference efficiency. QLB measures the relative quality–latency balance under matched evaluation settings.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Venue
Year
Video Length
Scale
Primary Focus
Benchmarks used in quantitative comparisons
Video-MME
CVPR
2025
11 s–1 h
900 videos, 2.7K QA
General video understanding across durations
EgoSchema
NeurIPS
2023
Avg. 180 s
5.0K videos, 5.0K QA
Long-horizon egocentric reasoning
LongVideoBench
NeurIPS
2024
Up to 1 h
3.8K videos, 6.7K QA
Long-context referring and temporal reasoning
MVBench
CVPR
2024
Avg. 16 s
3.6K videos, 4.0K QA
Multi-task temporal understanding
VideoDC (VDC)
ICLR
2025
–
∼ 1.0K clips, captions
Detailed video captioning and VDCscore
Appendix
Table 6: Representative benchmarks for video understanding. The first group includes datasets used in the main-text quantitative comparisons; the second provides broader task coverage. Dataset sizes are approximate and may vary across evaluation subsets.
Method
Host VLM
Ret. / Budget
NExT
MVB
V-MME
ES
LVB
MLVU
Input Stage
AKS
LLaVA-Video-7B
64f
–
–
65.3
–
62.7
–
BOLT
LLaVA-OneVision-7B
1fps → 8f
77.4
–
56.1
59.23
54.5
63.6
MDP 3
LLaVA-OneVision-7B
128 → 8f
–
–
59.6
–
59.0
69.8
VideoTree
GPT-4
Adaptive
75.6
–
–
61.1
–
–
Q-Frame
Qwen2-VL-7B
4H+8M+32L
–
–
58.3
–
58.4
65.4
Appendix
Table 7: Reported performance of representative VLM acceleration methods, grouped by their primary intervention stage. NExT, MVB, V-MME, ES, LVB, and MLVU denote NExT-QA, MVBench, Video-MME, EgoSchema, LongVideoBench, and MLVU, respectively. Ret./Budget follows the source-defined input, token, cache, or KV budget and is not directly comparable across methods. “–” denotes an unreported result; † identifies a stage-specific component or configuration of a multi-stage method; C denotes a cross-stage method. Results from different hosts or protocols should not be interpreted as direct rankings.
Backbone / Setting
Offline Video Understanding
Streaming Video Understanding
MVBench ↑
EgoSchema ↑
V-MME Avg. ↑
SBench ↑
OVO Avg. ↑
LLaVA-OneVision-7B
Base
57.02
59.93
57.67
71.34
53.35
+ HERMES (4K)
56.92
60.29
58.85
73.23
58.27
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Base
65.00
58.47
64.52
73.31
52.28
Appendix
Table 8: Offline and streaming video understanding performance reported by HERMES (%). SBench denotes the real-time visual understanding evaluation of StreamingBench. OVO Avg. averages the real-time visual perception and backward tracing categories of OVO-Bench. HERMES (4K) specifies a 4K-token KV-cache budget. Offline and streaming benchmarks use different evaluation protocols; scores are compared only within the same benchmark.
Model
METEOR
GPT4-Score
Single ↑
Multi ↑
Δctx
Single ↑
Multi ↑
Δctx
InternVL2
26.85
32.74
+5.89
32.26
42.25
+9.99
VILA
28.44
33.57
+5.13
34.63
45.41
+10.78
InternLM-XComposer2.5
23.32
31.02
+7.70
37.11
49.69
+12.58
MiniCPM-V 2.6
27.36
33.90
+6.54
36.73
48.57
+11.84
GPT-4V
28.66
36.47
+7.81
44.94
60.11
+15.17
Appendix
Table 9: Single-instance (Single) and multi-turn (Multi) video QA performance on SVBench. METEOR measures reference-based text similarity, including synonym and stemming matches; GPT4-Score evaluates answer correctness using GPT-4 as a judge. Both metrics are shown on the reported 0–100 score scale. Δctx is the derived difference between Multi and Single, in score points. It does not measure inference acceleration or isolate the causal effect of dialogue history.
Target / Draft Setting
Method
M↑
Speedup ↑
ΔM↑
ΔS↑
Fidelity
Five-benchmark matched evaluation in ParallelVLM
LLaVA-OV 72B / 7B
SpecVLM
4.42
2.74 ×
–
–
Exact
LLaVA-OV 72B / 7B
ParallelVLM
6.83
3.36 ×
+54.4%
+22.6%
Exact
Qwen2.5-VL 32B / 7B
SpecVLM
4.19
2.11 ×
–
–
Exact
Qwen2.5-VL 32B / 7B
ParallelVLM
4.28
2.42 ×
+2.2%
+14.7%
Exact
Video Detail Caption evaluation in LVSpec
Appendix
Table 10: Matched-protocol speculative decoding results. Target/Draft identifies the verifier and drafter model sizes, respectively. M is the mean number of tokens accepted per speculative iteration. Speedup is the source-reported decoding acceleration relative to autoregressive generation ( 1.00× ). ΔM and ΔS are percentage improvements over SpecVLM within each matched block; the five-benchmark ΔM values are calculated from unrounded averages. The first block covers Video Detail Caption, Video-MME, MVBench, MLVU, and LongVideoBench; the second uses Video Detail Caption (VDC). “Exact” indicates strict target-distribution preservation, whereas percentages indicate task-performance retention under relaxed verification, not exact output agreement. Results are comparable only within matched blocks.
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.
Processing long videos with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) is bottlenecked by the quadratic cost of visual tokens, making long-form inference prohibitively expensive. While single-axis compression methods mitigate this, they hit a hard efficiency floor because they treat spatial and temporal redundancy independently. We present VETO (Video Efficient Token Optimization for Vision-Language Models), a training-optional plug-in that eliminates this bottleneck through dual-axis compression: (i) an intra-frame compressor that merges semantically similar tokens within each frame via optimal-transport inspired matching, and (ii) an inter-frame compressor that identifies and merges temporally redundant frames. The key design insight is hierarchical ordering: by first compressing spatial dimensions, VETO drastically reduces the cost of subsequent global temporal matching, bypassing the efficiency wall of single-axis approaches, with an advantage that grows with modern fully-fused attention infrastructure. Empirically, VETO achieves up to 45% faster inference (e.g., on LLaVA-OneVision-7B) while preserving or improving accuracy. Under extreme token starvation (10% budget), VETO outperforms VFlowOpt (54.9%), VisionZip (52.6%), and FastV (47.9%) with 55.7% accuracy. We demonstrate universal applicability across LLaVA-OneVision, InternVL-2.5, and LongVA, with zero-shot accuracy preserved or improved in all cases.
Although Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive multimodal reasoning capabilities, their scalability and deployment are constrained by massive computational requirements. In particular, the massive amount of visual tokens from high-resolution input data aggravates the situation due to the quadratic complexity of attention mechanisms. To address these issues, the research community has developed several optimization frameworks. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the current state-of-the-art techniques for accelerating LVLM inference. We introduce a systematic taxonomy that categorizes existing optimization frameworks into four primary dimensions: visual token compression, memory management and serving, efficient architectural design, and advanced decoding strategies. Furthermore, we critically examine the limitations of these current methodologies and identify critical open problems to inspire future research directions in efficient multimodal systems.
Surendra Pathak, Bo Han
Computer Science Department, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA - 22030, USA