MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409346467 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i2.32229

Recoverable Compression: A Multimodal Vision Token Recovery Mechanism Guided by Text Information

2025· article· en· W4409346467 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Chen, Jian Xu, Xu-Yao Zhang, Wen-Zhuo Liu, Yang-Yang Liu, Cheng‐Lin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsSecurity tokenComputer scienceMechanism (biology)Compression (physics)Computer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advancement of large-scale language modeling techniques, large multimodal models combining visual encoders with large language models have demonstrated exceptional performance in various visual tasks. Most of the current large multimodal models achieve this by mapping visual features obtained from the visual encoder into a large language model and using them as inputs alongside text for downstream tasks. Therefore, the number of visual tokens directly affects the training and inference speed of the model. There has been significant work on token pruning for visual transformers, but for large multimodal models, only relying on visual information for token pruning or compression may lead to significant loss of important information. On the other hand, the textual input in the form of a question may contain valuable information that can aid in answering the question, providing additional knowledge to the model. To address the potential oversimplification and excessive pruning that can occur with most purely visual token pruning methods, we propose a text information-guided dynamic visual token recovery mechanism that does not require training. This mechanism leverages the similarity between the question text and visual tokens to recover visually meaningful tokens with important text information while merging other less important tokens, to achieve efficient computation for large multimodal models. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method achieves comparable performance to the original approach while compressing the visual tokens to an average of 10\% of the original quantity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207