FOCUS: Closed-Loop Attention Feedback for Efficient Vision-Language Understanding
Organizations: NVIDIA
Abstract
Processing every video frame through Vision-Language Models (VLMs) adds significant inference cost and limits their ability to comprehend real-time video. Existing approaches either sub-sample frames uniformly, ignoring content and missing important events, or prune visual tokens inside the VLM to cut per-call cost while still invoking the model on every sampled frame. We introduce FOCUS, a training-free three-layer framework that reduces the number of invocations and steers each one towards what matters. Temporal gating measures inter-frame dissimilarity in the patch-embedding space of a smaller VLM from the same family, triggering burst captures only when the scene changes in a semantically meaningful way. Patch-level dissimilarity is then accumulated across the burst and fused with a top-down attention prior into a spatial focus map that encodes where motion and semantic relevance coincide. That map calibrates the VLM's value cache during generation, progressively amplifying vision tokens in task-relevant regions and attenuating off-target ones, without removing any token from the context. The loop closes after each response: text-to-vision cross-attention is extracted from the decoder and fed back as the prior for the next burst, letting the system converge on semantically important regions over successive observations. We evaluate FOCUS on the 500-video EgoSchema subset in streaming mode, with a single Qwen3-VL-8B backbone shared by every method. It reaches 74.8% accuracy using 25.4 VLM calls per clip, against 74.6% with 55 calls for uniform sampling and 74.2% with 55 calls for BOLT. On egocentric video captioning across four domains, it matches the best baseline's quality while issuing 57% fewer VLM invocations than uniform sampling.
Figures & tables
| Method (streaming, matched cadence) | Accuracy | VLM Calls |
| Uniform (streaming) | 74.6% | 55 |
| BOLT ( Liu et al., 2025 ) (streaming) | 74.2% | 55 |
| DyCoke ( Tao et al., 2025 ) (streaming) | 71.4% | 12 |
| FOCUS (gating only) | 73.6% | 25.4 |
| FOCUS (w/ Feedback) | 74.8% | 25.4 |
| Method | Actor | Activity | Object | No Halluc. | Overall | VLM Calls | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniform Sampling | 4.96 | 4.12 | 4.00 | 2.16 | 3.81 | 4.14 | 516 |
| DyCoke | 4.80 | 3.88 | 4.04 | 2.52 | 3.81 | 3.07 | 263 |
| BOLT | 4.76 | 4.12 | 4.08 | 2.68 | 3.91 | 0.87 | 263 |
| FOCUS (gating only) | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.12 | 2.44 | 3.89 | 0.57 | 222 |
| FOCUS (w/ Feedback) | 5.00 | 3.96 | 4.12 | 2.60 | 3.92 | 0.59 | 222 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Symbol | Meaning |
|---|---|
| index of a frame in the arriving stream | |
| the reference frame for dissimilarity: the previously processed frame, updated every step | |
| vision encoder used for gating (Qwen2-VL-2B ViT) | |
| index of a spatial patch within a frame, | |
| number of patches after merging, and the patch-grid height and width, | |
| patch-embedding width |
| Symbol | Default | Swept | Role and sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|
| yes | Gating threshold; trades compute against quality, flat over a wide band | ||
| yes | Burst size; quality within across – , minimised at | ||
| no | Forced-capture timeout; liveness guard, inactive on all evaluated clips | ||
| partly | Amplification strength; ablated on/off in Table 6 | ||
| partly | Suppression strength; ablated on/off in Table 6 | ||
| no | Focus range; what fraction of tokens is amplified vs. suppressed |
| Domain | Best | @0.40 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooking & food prep | 14 | 79% | 86% | 79% | 86% | 86% |
| Crafts, art & textiles | 11 | 64% | 64% | 55% | 73% | 64% |
| Construction & workshop | 9 | 89% | 89% | 89% | 100% | 89% |
| Housework & cleaning | 6 | 83% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 100% |
| Leisure, games & social | 10 | 60% | 60% | 50% | 70% | 60% |
| All (pooled) | 50 | 74% | 78% | 70% | 82% | 78% |
| Actor | Activity | Object | No Halluc. | Overall | Avg Calls | Capture | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.2 | 4.76 | 3.68 | 4.04 | 2.56 | 3.76 | 2.31 | 20.4 | 95% |
| 0.3 | 4.80 | 3.92 | 4.40 | 2.60 | 3.93 | 2.11 | 17.0 | 65% |
| 0.4 | 5.00 | 3.96 | 4.12 | 2.60 | 3.92 | 0.59 | 8.9 | 27% |
| 0.5 | 4.76 | 3.80 | 4.04 | 2.52 | 3.78 | 0.63 | 5.2 | 12% |
| 0.6 | 4.84 | 3.88 | 4.08 | 2.56 | 3.84 | 0.81 | 5.2 | 12% |
| Actor | Activity | Object | No Halluc. | Overall | Avg Calls | Capture | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 4.96 | 3.88 | 4.12 | 2.52 | 3.87 | 2.26 | 17.6 | 15% |
| 16 | 4.96 | 4.00 | 4.04 | 2.64 | 3.91 | 1.64 | 12.3 | 20% |
| 32 | 5.00 | 3.96 | 4.12 | 2.60 | 3.92 | 0.59 | 8.9 | 27% |
| 64 | 5.00 | 3.92 | 4.12 | 2.72 | 3.94 | 1.18 | 7.2 | 36% |
| A | B | C | D | E | Overall | |
| GT count | 101 | 108 | 91 | 83 | 117 | 500 |
| Predicted | 99 | 108 | 94 | 93 | 106 | 500 |
| Correct | 72 | 79 | 70 | 67 | 78 | 366 |
| Accuracy | 71.3% | 73.1% | 76.9% | 80.7% | 66.7% | 73.2% |
Efficient VLM Inference
Efficient vision-language model inference reduces the compute, memory, latency, and energy needed to process images, video, and text.
See all 500 papers