Cited by 171Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

SPViT: Enabling Faster Vision Transformers via Latency-Aware Soft Token Pruning

Kong, Zhenglun, Dong, Peiyan, Ma, Xiaolong, Meng, Xin, Niu, Wei, Sun, Mengshu, Shen, Xuan, Yuan, Geng +4 more·2022·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-031-20083-0_37

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dynamic token pruning increases accuracy but is generally impractical because it prevents batched inference or training without padding tokens.

    “Some pruning methods dynamically vary the number of tokens (e.g., Kong et al. (2022)). This increases accuracy but is generally impractical, as it prevents batched inference or training without padding tokens.”

    From Token Merging: Your ViT But Faster (2022) · cites this paper as Kong et al. (2022)

  • The authors are not able to reproduce the baseline accuracy in SPViT (Kong et al., 2022).

    “We omit DeiT-Ti results from the main paper because we are not able to reproduce the baseline accuracy in SPViT (Kong et al., 2022).”

    From Token Merging: Your ViT But Faster (2022) · cites this paper as Kong et al., 2022

  • Pruning methods require token padding during training, and thus don't improve training speed.

    “Pruning methods require token padding during training, and thus don't improve training speed, while ToMe at r = 13 trains 1.5 × faster than the baseline DeiT-S.”

    From Token Merging: Your ViT But Faster (2022) · cites this paper as Kong et al., 2022

  • Most token pruning works are forced to use padding tokens or attention masking during training, negating the benefits of pruning in the first place.

    “Moreover, most token pruning works are forced to use padding tokens or attention masking during training, negating the benefits of pruning in the first place.”

    From Token Merging: Your ViT But Faster (2022) · cites this paper as Kong et al., 2022

  • In vision transformers, token reduction has primarily been used to reduce computational cost by removing visually redundant tokens.

    “In vision transformers, it has primarily been used to reduce computational cost by removing visually redundant tokens [12, 13, 31, 49, 73, 76, 85, 111].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kong, Z., Dong, P., Ma, X., Meng, X., Niu, W., Sun, M., Shen, X., Yuan, G., Ren, B., Tang, H., Qin, M., & Wang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Clemson University (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • William & Mary (US)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Wang, Yanzhi
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2022
Pages
620-640
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W4312910119
Cited by
169
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 3
FWCI
13.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
vision transformer, token selection, multi-head attention, edge deployment, mobile devices, FPGA, real-time inference, DeiT, Swin Transformer, computation cost reduction, accuracy-latency trade-off

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review