Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

FlowCut: Rethinking Redundancy via Information Flow for Efficient Vision-Language Models

About

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) excel at multimodal understanding but suffer from high computational costs due to redundant vision tokens. Existing pruning methods typically rely on single-layer attention scores to rank and prune redundant visual tokens to solve this inefficiency. However, as the interaction between tokens and layers is complicated, this raises a basic question: Is such a simple single-layer criterion sufficient to identify redundancy? To answer this question, we rethink the emergence of redundant visual tokens from a fundamental perspective: information flow, which models the interaction between tokens and layers by capturing how information moves between tokens across layers. We find (1) the CLS token acts as an information relay, which can simplify the complicated flow analysis; (2) the redundancy emerges progressively and dynamically via layer-wise attention concentration; and (3) relying solely on attention scores from single layers can lead to contradictory redundancy identification. Based on this, we propose FlowCut, an information-flow-aware pruning framework, mitigating the insufficiency of the current criterion for identifying redundant tokens and better aligning with the model's inherent behaviors. Extensive experiments show that FlowCut achieves superior results, outperforming SoTA by 1.6% on LLaVA-1.5-7B with 88.9% token reduction, and by 4.3% on LLaVA-NeXT-7B with 94.4% reduction, delivering 3.2x speed-up in the prefilling stage. Our code is available at https://github.com/TungChintao/FlowCut

Jintao Tong, Wenwei Jin, Pengda Qin, Anqi Li, Yixiong Zou, Yuhong Li, Yuhua Li, Ruixuan Li• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Object Hallucination EvaluationPOPE
Accuracy86.1
2056
Visual Question AnsweringVizWiz
Accuracy53.2
1863
Visual Question AnsweringTextVQA
Accuracy57.5
1455
Visual Question AnsweringGQA
Accuracy59.8
1445
Visual Question AnsweringVQA v2
Accuracy72.8
1429
Text-based Visual Question AnsweringTextVQA
Accuracy55.6
984
Multimodal EvaluationMME
Score2.04e+3
902
Visual Question AnsweringGQA
Accuracy55.6
524
Multimodal UnderstandingMMBench CN
Accuracy55.4
302
Object Hallucination EvaluationPOPE
Accuracy80.4
259
Showing 10 of 29 rows

Other info

Follow for update