IA-RED$^2$: Interpretability-Aware Redundancy Reduction for Vision Transformers
Open accessAbstract
The self-attention-based model, transformer, is recently becoming the leading backbone in the field of computer vision. In spite of the impressive success made by transformers in a variety of vision tasks, it still suffers from heavy computation and intensive memory costs. To address this limitation, this paper presents an Interpretability-Aware REDundancy REDuction framework (IA-RED$^2$). We start by observing a large amount of redundant computation, mainly spent on uncorrelated input patches, and then introduce an interpretable module to dynamically and gracefully drop these redundant patches. This novel framework is then extended to a hierarchical structure, where uncorrelated tokens at different stages are gradually removed, resulting in a considerable shrinkage of computational cost. We include extensive experiments on both image and video tasks, where our method could deliver up to 1.4x speed-up for state-of-the-art models like DeiT and TimeSformer, by only sacrificing less than 0.7% accuracy. More importantly, contrary to other acceleration approaches, our method is inherently interpretable with substantial visual evidence, making vision transformer closer to a more human-understandable architecture while being lighter. We demonstrate that the interpretability that naturally emerged in our framework can outperform the raw attention learned by the original visual transformer, as well as those generated by off-the-shelf interpretation methods, with both qualitative and quantitative results. Project Page: http://people.csail.mit.edu/bpan/ia-red/.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Image-adaptive token pruning methods can achieve a higher overall model compression ratio than static token pruning methods.
“Therefore, the latter method can achieve a higher overall model compression ratio than the former method.”
From A Survey of Techniques for Optimizing Transformer Inference (2023) · cites this paper as [109]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 64 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Pan, B., Panda, R., Jiang, Y., Wang, Z., Feris, R., & Oliva, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 34
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2106.12620
- OpenAlex
- W3174402370
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- vision transformer, redundancy reduction, interpretability, self-attention, computational efficiency, memory reduction, DeiT, TimeSformer, video transformer, attention visualization
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