Adaptive Context Filtering for Efficient Vision-Language Model Inference
Keywords:
adaptive context filtering; vision-language models; multimodal inference; efficient machine learning; system architecture; robustness; fairness; sustainability; AI governanceAbstract
Vision-language models have become a central infrastructure for multimodal artificial intelligence, supporting applications that range from visual question answering and document understanding to robotics, accessibility tools, and scientific discovery. Despite their capabilities, these models remain expensive to run because they process large numbers of visual tokens alongside linguistic context, often invoking complex cross-modal attention and repeated memory transfers during inference. This paper examines adaptive context filtering as a system-level strategy for improving the efficiency of vision-language model inference without treating efficiency as a purely local optimization problem. Adaptive context filtering dynamically selects, compresses, reorders, or defers visual and textual context according to the query, the deployment environment, and the operational risk of the task. The paper argues that such filtering must be understood through architecture, infrastructure, governance, sustainability, fairness, and robustness rather than only through benchmark accuracy. It analyzes structural trade-offs between latency, memory bandwidth, energy consumption, and evidentiary completeness, and it discusses how filtering can reduce hallucination when guided by attention behavior, yet also introduce new failure modes when relevant evidence is discarded. The paper further considers policy implications for transparency, auditability, procurement, and carbon-aware deployment. Cross-domain case illustrations show that the same filtering mechanism can be beneficial in low-stakes search but dangerous in medical or autonomous settings unless uncertainty, fallback, and human oversight are designed into the system. The conclusion proposes that adaptive context filtering should be governed as a socio-technical capability, with evaluation that includes fairness, robustness, environmental cost, and accountability.
References
1. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 30, pp. 5998-6008). Curran Associates.
2. Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., & Houlsby, N. (2021). An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
3. Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., Krueger, G., & Sutskever, I. (2021). Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 139, pp. 8748-8763). PMLR.
4. Alayrac, J.-B., Donahue, J., Luc, P., Miech, A., Barr, I., Hasson, Y., Lenc, K., Mensch, A., Millican, K., Reynolds, M., Ring, R., Rutherford, E., Cabi, S., Han, T., Gong, Z., Samangooei, S., Monteiro, M., Menick, J., Borgeaud, S., ... Simonyan, K. (2022). Flamingo: A visual language model for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 35, pp. 23716-23736). Curran Associates.
5. Li, J., Li, D., Savarese, S., & Hoi, S. (2023). BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (Vol. 202, pp. 19730-19742). PMLR.
6. Liu, H., Li, C., Wu, Q., & Lee, Y. J. (2023). Visual instruction tuning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 36, pp. 34892-34916). Curran Associates.
7. Dai, W., Li, J., Li, D., Tiong, A. M. H., Zhao, J., Wang, W., Li, B., Fung, P., & Hoi, S. (2023). InstructBLIP: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 36, pp. 49250-49267). Curran Associates.
8. Chen, L., Zhao, H., Liu, T., Bai, S., Lin, J., Zhou, C., & Chang, B. (2024). An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision-language models. In European Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 19-35). Springer.
9. Shang, Y., Cai, B., Xu, G., Lee, Y. J., & Yan, Y. (2024). LLaVA-PruMerge: Adaptive token reduction for efficient large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15388.
10. Jin, Y., Li, J., Liu, Y., Qin, T., Wang, Y., & Liu, T. (2024). Efficient multimodal large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10739.
11. Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., & Sutskever, I. (2019). Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10509.
12. Baevski, A., & Auli, M. (2019). Adaptive input representations for neural language modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
13. Thrush, T., Jiang, R., Bartolo, M., Singh, A., Williams, A., Kiela, D., & Ross, C. (2022). Winoground: Probing vision and language models for visio-linguistic compositionality. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 5238-5248). IEEE.
14. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., ... Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.
15. Chen, Y., Li, J., Yao, W., Ma, X., Du, G., Wang, W., & Li, J. (2026, July). Vocabulary hijacking in lvlms: Unveiling critical attention heads by excluding inert tokens to mitigate hallucination. In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 38458-38485).
16. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Vol. 81, pp. 77-91). PMLR.
17. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1-35.
18. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019). Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 3645-3650). Association for Computational Linguistics.
19. Schwartz, R., Dodge, J., Smith, N. A., & Etzioni, O. (2020). Green AI. Communications of the ACM, 63(12), 54-63.
20. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).
21. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501-507.
22. Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press.
23. Sculley, D., Holt, G., Golovin, D., Davydov, E., Phillips, T., Ebner, D., Chaudhary, V., Young, M., Crespo, J.-F., & Dennison, D. (2015). Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 28, pp. 2503-2511). Curran Associates.
24. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565.
25. Kaur, D., Uslu, S., Rittichier, K. J., & Durresi, A. (2022). Trustworthy artificial intelligence: A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(2), 1-38.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Engineering Systems and Digital Innovation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.