Figure 1: (a) Per-object token allocation under different selection strategies. Object coverage is defined as the fraction of GT object instances that contain at least one selected token, computed using GT object masks and aggregated over 10 scenes from SQA3D. Spatial sampling (XYZ-DPP) concentrates tokens on large objects (51% coverage), whereas Feature-DPP distributes tokens more evenly across objects, increasing coverage to 70%. (b) 3DZip overview. 3DZip compresses dense 3D tokens to only 128 while retaining 94.7% accuracy and achieving 1.92× faster inference.
Table 1: Comparison of token compression methods. The 3D-Aware column indicates whether spatial geometry is explicitly considered during token selection.
Method
3D-Aware
ScanQA
SQA3D
OpenEQA
Rel.
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D (ICCV’25)
✓
26.5
55.7
60.3
100.0%
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(9.1%)
FastV (ECCV’24)
✗
21.9
50.9
56.0
88.9%
SparseVLM (ICML’25)
✗
21.8
50.3
53.9
87.3%
VisionZip (CVPR’25)
✗
22.2
51.5
56.2
89.8%
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
✗
22.3
52.0
55.8
90.0%
Voxelization
✓
23.6
51.5
54.6
90.7%
DTC (CVPR’25)
✓
22.1
51.3
54.8
88.8%
3DZip (Ours)
✓
24.2
53.2
58.6
94.7%
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(4.5%)
FastV (ECCV’24)
✗
21.1
49.5
53.8
85.9%
SparseVLM (ICML’25)
✗
20.9
49.8
53.6
85.7%
VisionZip (CVPR’25)
✗
20.0
49.1
53.4
84.1%
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
✗
21.9
50.1
53.9
87.3%
Voxelization
✓
21.9
49.8
54.6
87.5%
DTC (CVPR’25)
✓
21.3
50.2
54.3
86.8%
3DZip (Ours)
✓
23.3
52.8
56.7
92.3%
Retain 32 Tokens ↓(2.3%)
FastV (ECCV’24)
✗
19.9
47.7
52.5
82.6%
SparseVLM (ICML’25)
✗
20.4
48.7
52.2
83.7%
VisionZip (CVPR’25)
✗
19.6
47.0
52.0
81.5%
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
✗
20.9
49.1
53.5
85.2%
Voxelization
✓
20.7
47.9
53.4
84.2%
DTC (CVPR’25)
✓
20.6
48.8
52.6
84.2%
3DZip (Ours)
✓
21.9
51.1
55.7
88.9%
Figure 2: Overview of geometry-aware 3D token construction and the compression objective. Multi-view RGB-D inputs are projected into world coordinates to form geometry-aware 3D tokens 𝒱 via 3D positional embedding. Due to the large token cardinality N=M×N2D, an efficient token compression strategy is crucial.
Table 2: Category-wise OpenEQA results. 3DZip achieves the highest average at all token budgets, with the largest gains in attribute recognition and object recognition.
OpenEQA
Method
attribute recognition
functional reasoning
object localization
object recognition
object state recognition
spatial understanding
world knowledge
Avg.
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D (ICCV’25)
64.0
62.7
51.5
55.9
73.7
54.2
59.1
60.3
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(9.1%)
FastV(ECCV’24)
57.8
58.9
46.8
47.7
75.6
45.3
59.4
56.0
SparseVLM(ICML’25)
54.0
54.1
48.3
45.9
74.1
44.5
55.5
53.9
VisionZip(CVPR’25)
58.4
57.8
48.4
51.0
69.4
47.2
60.9
56.2
Voxelization
56.3
58.5
47.2
47.2
68.6
49.1
54.9
54.6
DTC(CVPR’25)
56.4
57.7
48.5
46.2
71.5
47.2
55.3
54.8
3DZip (Ours)
64.2
60.0
50.0
53.2
72.5
49.5
60.1
58.6
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(4.5%)
FastV(ECCV’24)
51.2
58.2
47.1
43.2
76.3
43.2
56.7
53.8
SparseVLM(ICML’25)
50.6
57.8
46.5
45.3
74.3
45.2
55.5
53.6
VisionZip(CVPR’25)
51.7
57.4
48.6
44.7
69.4
45.6
56.3
53.4
Voxelization
50.8
61.4
46.2
47.9
71.5
48.5
55.7
54.6
DTC(CVPR’25)
55.5
58.2
45.5
43.2
74.1
47.8
55.0
54.3
3DZip (Ours)
60.9
59.7
48.8
51.2
69.6
48.1
58.0
56.7
Retain 32 Tokens ↓(2.3%)
FastV(ECCV’24)
50.7
58.6
43.9
41.2
73.6
42.6
56.6
52.5
SparseVLM(ICML’25)
50.8
57.4
45.6
40.6
73.3
42.9
54.2
52.2
VisionZip(CVPR’25)
51.0
57.0
45.2
42.6
68.1
44.4
55.6
52.0
Voxelization
50.4
60.3
46.9
43.8
68.8
46.1
57.7
53.4
DTC(CVPR’25)
51.3
56.8
45.1
42.9
72.2
44.2
55.6
52.6
3DZip (Ours)
56.3
59.7
47.4
50.5
70.7
47.7
57.4
55.7
Figure 3: Overview of the proposed three-stage token compression pipeline. Given geometry-aware 3D tokens 𝒱, we first apply coarse voxelization to obtain a spatially reduced set 𝒱vox. We then perform diversity-aware anchor selection via DPP on 𝒱vox to identify semantically representative anchors 𝒜. Finally, spatially-constrained token merging aggregates nearby non-anchor tokens into anchors to produce the compressed set 𝒱′.
Table 3: Component-wise ablation results on SQA3D. (a) feature vs. spatial distance in anchor selection, (b) the effect of varying voxel sizes (δ) in coarse voxelization, and (c) the role of the merging step and spatial constraints.
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
Voxelization
49.8
DTC (CVPR’25)
50.2
Spatial distance
50.1
Feature distance
52.8
Retain 32 Tokens
Voxelization
47.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
48.8
Spatial distance
49.0
Feature distance
51.1
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of retained 3D tokens on OpenEQA. VisPruner tends to allocate many tokens to floor regions, while DTC may miss some key objects in the scene. In contrast, 3DZip retains tokens on multiple semantically important objects and further enriches them through spatially-constrained merging.
(a)
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
Voxelization
49.8
DTC (CVPR’25)
50.2
Spatial distance
50.1
Feature distance
52.8
Retain 32 Tokens
Voxelization
47.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
48.8
Spatial distance
49.0
Feature distance
51.1
Figure 5: Additional qualitative examples on SQA3D. This figure illustrates the retained 3D tokens produced by 3DZip across different indoor scenes.
(b)
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
w/o Coarse voxelize
51.8
δ=0.1m
52.6
𝜹=0.2m
52.8
δ=0.3m
52.1
Retain 32 Tokens
w/o Coarse voxelize
50.2
δ=0.1m
50.9
𝜹=0.2m
51.1
δ=0.3m
50.6
Figure 6: Additional qualitative examples on OpenEQA. This figure illustrates the retained 3D tokens produced by 3DZip across different indoor scenes.
(c)
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
DTC (CVPR’25)
50.2
w/o Merge
52.5
w/o Spatial-Const.
52.3
w/ All
52.8
Retain 32 Tokens
DTC (CVPR’25)
48.8
w/o Merge
50.5
w/o Spatial-Const.
50.8
w/ All
51.1
Figure 7: Additional qualitative examples on ScanQA. This figure illustrates the retained 3D tokens produced by 3DZip across different indoor scenes.
Table 4: Efficiency and accuracy comparison on a single RTX 4090 using SQA3D.
Method
Retain Tokens
FLOPs (T)
Latency (ms/sample)
Cache Size (MB)
EM
LLaVA-3D
1410
9.18
342
722
55.7
FastV (ECCV’24)
128
1.41
191
139
50.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
128
0.90
196
101
51.3
3DZip (Ours)
128
0.90
178
101
53.2
Figure 8: Object-level token allocation across selection strategies on the full SQA3D test scenes. Per-object token counts for 1,729 foreground object instances across 67 ScanNet scenes from the SQA3D test split. The voxel-only distribution (gray) reveals a pronounced long-tail pattern, where a small subset of objects receives a disproportionately large number of tokens. Spatial sampling (XYZ-DPP) reduces the extreme concentration but still allocates tokens to a limited subset of objects, resulting in 47% object coverage. In contrast, Feature-DPP promotes diversity in feature space and distributes tokens more evenly across object instances, improving object coverage to 64%.
Table 5: Generalization across projection-based 3D VLM models. We evaluate 3DZip on two recent projection-based 3D VLMs, Video-3D-LLM and SR-3D. Under identical token budgets, 3DZip consistently outperforms all baselines across both architectures, demonstrating that the proposed compression strategy generalizes beyond the LLaVA-3D model used in the main experiments.
Method
ScanQA
SQA3D
OpenEQA
All 3920 Tokens
Video-3D-LLM (CVPR’25)
29.9
58.4
59.4
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(3.3%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
23.6
51.2
53.5
Voxelization
24.6
52.2
52.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
23.7
51.9
53.5
3DZip (Ours)
24.7
53.1
54.6
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(1.6%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
22.3
49.2
51.4
Voxelization
22.7
50.0
51.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
22.5
49.2
52.0
3DZip (Ours)
23.8
52.2
54.6
Retain 32 Tokens ↓(0.8%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
21.0
48.4
50.2
Voxelization
20.9
48.3
50.3
DTC (CVPR’25)
20.8
49.0
50.0
3DZip (Ours)
23.3
51.8
53.0
(a) Video-3D-LLM [52]
Method
ScanQA
SQA3D
OpenEQA
All 3920 Tokens
Video-3D-LLM (CVPR’25)
29.9
58.4
59.4
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(3.3%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
23.6
51.2
53.5
Voxelization
24.6
52.2
52.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
23.7
51.9
53.5
3DZip (Ours)
24.7
53.1
54.6
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(1.6%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
22.3
49.2
51.4
Voxelization
22.7
50.0
51.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
22.5
49.2
52.0
3DZip (Ours)
23.8
52.2
54.6
Retain 32 Tokens ↓(0.8%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
21.0
48.4
50.2
Voxelization
20.9
48.3
50.3
DTC (CVPR’25)
20.8
49.0
50.0
3DZip (Ours)
23.3
51.8
53.0
(b) SR-3D [9]
Method
ScanQA
SQA3D
OpenEQA
All 2420 Tokens
SR-3D (ICLR’26)
29.6
61.0
61.7
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(5.3%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
23.0
51.5
54.3
Voxelization
22.8
51.1
52.2
DTC (CVPR’25)
23.5
51.4
53.5
3DZip (Ours)
24.2
53.2
54.5
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(2.6%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
21.9
50.3
52.0
Voxelization
21.1
48.8
49.6
DTC (CVPR’25)
21.1
49.6
52.0
3DZip (Ours)
23.1
51.9
52.6
Retain 32 Tokens ↓(1.3%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
20.1
49.1
51.5
Voxelization
19.9
47.9
50.3
DTC (CVPR’25)
19.7
48.1
51.4
3DZip (Ours)
21.5
49.6
51.7
Table 6: 3D dense captioning results on the Scan2Cap benchmark. We compare 3DZip with existing token compression methods under different token budgets.
Method
CIDEr
BLEU-4
METEOR
ROUGE-L
All 1410 Tokens (Baseline)
LLaVA-3D (ICCV’25)
65.8
11.2
15.5
37.0
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(9.1%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
43.9
9.5
13.9
33.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
39.9
9.0
13.4
33.7
3DZip (Ours)
49.2
9.6
14.3
34.4
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(4.5%)
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
38.9
9.0
13.6
33.2
DTC (CVPR’25)
36.0
8.8
13.3
33.1
3DZip (Ours)
45.7
9.3
14.0
33.8
Table 7: Additional captioning-oriented metrics on ScanQA. We report BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE-L, and CIDEr scores under different token budgets. 3DZip consistently outperforms existing token compression methods across all metrics.
Method
CIDEr
BLEU-4
METEOR
ROUGE-L
EM
All 1410 Tokens (Baseline)
LLaVA-3D (ICCV’25)
85.5
11.2
17.1
43.6
26.5
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(9.1%)
FastV(ECCV’24)
71.8
8.9
14.6
37.4
21.9
SparseVLM(ICML’25)
69.2
9.7
14.0
36.3
21.8
VisionZip(CVPR’25)
73.1
10.9
14.7
37.7
22.2
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
73.1
10.3
14.8
37.7
22.3
Voxelization
75.8
10.5
15.3
39.0
23.6
DTC (CVPR’25)
72.6
10.4
14.8
37.8
22.1
3DZip (Ours)
78.2
11.4
15.6
40.3
24.2
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(4.5%)
FastV(ECCV’24)
68.9
8.0
14.0
36.0
21.1
SparseVLM(ICML’25)
67.4
8.5
13.8
35.5
20.9
VisionZip(CVPR’25)
66.0
8.3
13.7
34.9
20.0
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
71.6
9.0
14.5
37.1
21.9
Voxelization
70.9
10.0
14.6
37.1
21.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
69.5
8.7
14.3
36.6
21.3
3DZip (Ours)
76.1
10.7
15.3
39.0
23.3
Retain 32 Tokens ↓(2.3%)
FastV(ECCV’24)
65.5
8.1
13.6
34.6
19.9
SparseVLM(ICML’25)
65.5
7.8
13.4
34.8
20.4
VisionZip(CVPR’25)
64.9
7.7
13.7
34.7
19.6
VisPruner (ICCV’25)
67.4
8.0
14.0
35.9
20.9
Voxelization
66.9
8.6
13.8
35.4
20.7
DTC (CVPR’25)
67.7
9.0
14.1
35.8
20.6
3DZip (Ours)
70.5
9.7
14.5
37.0
21.9
Table 8: Point-level redundancy under voxel aggregation. PLR (Eq. (21)) is the mean number of tokens surviving per physical point; 1.0 denotes no duplication. PLR drops monotonically with voxel size δ while object purity degrades, and EM peaks at δ=0.2 m.
δ
PLR ↓
Obj. purity ↑
Tok./vox.
EM@64 ↑
w/o
4.74
N/A
N/A
51.8
0.10 m
3.09
0.975
3.1
52.6
0.20 m
2.50
0.915
9.5
52.8
0.30 m
2.25
0.847
19.4
52.1
Table 9: Component-wise ablation on SQA3D. (a) Comparison of diversity-promoting strategies for anchor selection. (b) Effect of different feature-space distance metrics. (c) Effect of the spatial constraint threshold τg in token merging.
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
Voxelization
49.8
DTC (CVPR’25)
50.2
FPS-based
52.2
MMDP-based
52.5
DPP-based
52.8
Retain 32 Tokens
Voxelization
47.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
48.8
FPS-based
51.0
MMDP-based
51.0
DPP-based
51.1
(a)
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
Voxelization
49.8
DTC (CVPR’25)
50.2
FPS-based
52.2
MMDP-based
52.5
DPP-based
52.8
Retain 32 Tokens
Voxelization
47.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
48.8
FPS-based
51.0
MMDP-based
51.0
DPP-based
51.1
(b)
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
Voxelization
49.8
DTC (CVPR’25)
50.2
ℓ1
52.5
ℓ2
52.4
Cosine
52.8
Retain 32 Tokens
Voxelization
47.9
DTC (CVPR’25)
48.8
ℓ1
50.9
ℓ2
50.6
Cosine
51.1
(c)
Method
EM
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D
55.7
Retain 64 Tokens
(w/o Merge)
52.5
τg=1
52.5
τg=3
52.7
τg=5
52.8
τg=7
52.6
(w/o Spatial-Const.)
52.3
Retain 32 Tokens
(w/o Merge)
50.5
τg=1
50.6
τg=3
50.9
τg=5
51.1
τg=7
51.1
(w/o Spatial-Const.)
50.8
Table 10: Comparison with 2D Diversity-based method. 3DZip consistently outperforms DivPrune, demonstrating that spatial awareness is a necessary complement to feature diversity in 3D token compression.
Method
3D-Aware
ScanQA
SQA3D
OpenEQA
Rel.
All 1410 Tokens
LLaVA-3D (ICCV’25)
✓
26.5
55.7
60.3
100.0%
Retain 128 Tokens ↓(9.1%)
DivPrune (CVPR’25)
✗
22.2
51.6
57.3
90.5%
3DZip (Ours)
✓
24.2
53.2
58.6
94.7%
Retain 64 Tokens ↓(4.5%)
DivPrune (CVPR’25)
✗
20.6
50.6
56.2
87.3%
3DZip (Ours)
✓
23.3
52.8
56.7
92.3%
Retain 32 Tokens ↓(2.3%)
DivPrune (CVPR’25)
✗
19.6
49.3
54.9
84.5%
3DZip (Ours)
✓
21.9
51.1
55.7
88.9%
Table 11: Robustness of Stage 2 to different Stage-1 aggregation strategies (SQA3D). Under an identical 64-token budget, adding DPP-based anchor selection (Stage 2) consistently improves EM across all Stage-1 strategies. All variants exclude Stage 3; “+ DPP” denotes adding Stage 2 on top of the corresponding Stage-1 aggregation strategies.
Method
EM
ConceptFusion [21]
50.3
ConceptFusion + DPP
52.7 +2.4
OpenFusion++ [22]
49.8
OpenFusion++ + DPP
52.3 +2.5
Voxel-mean
49.8
Voxel-mean + DPP
52.5 +2.7
Table 12: Fine-grained performance analysis on ScanQA (EM@64 tokens). Subsets: Fine detail (shape/contour/material/color), Local struct. (part-/local structure), Small obj. (bottom 10% by size). Small obj. purity: fraction of a voxel’s tokens from one small object.
Method
EM@64 ↑
Small obj. purity ↑
All
Fine.
Local.
Small obj.
3DZip (Full)
23.3
30.5
22.4
19.5
0.426
w/o Voxel (S2+S3)
22.8
31.7
22.4
21.6
N/A
Voxel-only (S1)
21.9
29.9
20.1
16.9
0.070
Table 13: Scene-size dependence on SQA3D. At a 32-token budget, small scenes favor smaller δ and tighter τg, large scenes the opposite; the fixed setting (δ=0.2m, τg=5) is the best overall trade-off.
Param.
Small
Overall
Large
Retain 32 Tokens (↓2.3%)
δ=0.1m
54.1
50.9
43.8
δ=0.2m
53.6
51.1
44.6
δ=0.3m
53.5
50.6
43.8
τg=1
54.1
50.6
43.8
τg=3
53.9
50.9
44.9
τg=5
53.6
51.1
44.6
τg=7
53.6
51.1
45.9
Table 14: Latency comparison of token selection methods at K=128. We report the selection algorithm time, total inference latency, and the proportion of the selection overhead relative to the total time.
Recent 3D vision-language models (3D VLMs) construct geometry aware tokens by projecting 2D visual features into world coordinates, enabling spatial reasoning for tasks such as 3D question answering. However, this design generates thousands of tokens per scene, resulting in substantial computational and memory overhead. While token compression has been extensively studied in 2D VLMs, existing approaches rely on semantic relevance or attention-based selection that overlook the structured spatial
