Converting telecom KPIs into images for vision-language models halves-or-more inference energy while boosting anomaly-detection accuracy, making VLMs a practical, energy-efficient alternative to text-based LLM inference at the edge; tested across three architectures, VLMs cut token counts dramatically (3.6–10.4x) and deliver 1.8–2.5x measured energy savings with substantial F1/precision gains.

Main Finding

Vision-language models (VLMs) that process numerical time series as rendered 2-D plots (images) substantially reduce inference tokens and energy compared with text-only LLM pipelines, while improving anomaly-detection accuracy. Across three representative VLM architectures the paper reports 3.6–10.4× input-token reductions, 1.8–2.5× measured per-query energy reductions, large improvements in energy-per-performance (J/F1), and substantial operational energy savings at telecom edge scale — without sacrificing (and often improving) detection precision and F1.

Key Points

• Token compression:

  • Serializing multivariate KPI windows as text explodes into tens of thousands of tokens (e.g., 46k–60k tokens for an 8-KPI × 381-timepoint window).
  • Rendering the same data as stacked subplot images yields far fewer vision tokens (5.4k–16.8k), a 3.6–10.4× reduction depending on vision encoder.
  • At higher KPI counts (e.g., 24 KPIs) text representations can exceed 128k tokens (beyond common model context windows), while images remain within standard limits.

• Energy savings (measured via NVML/Zeus):

  • Public benchmark (realAWSCloudwatch): image modality reduced per-query energy by 4.5× (Llama-3.2-90B), 13.8× (Qwen2.5-VL-72B), and 18.3× (Pixtral-12B) in one set of measurements.
  • Telecom operational configuration (A100/A6000 hardware): measured per-query reductions were 2.5× (Llama), 1.8× (Qwen), and 2.5× (Pixtral) — the visual encoder overhead narrows the gap versus pure token-count scaling, but net savings remain decisive.
  • Operational example: monitoring 209 cells every 15 minutes → ~20,064 queries/day; VLM modality saves ≈7.2 MJ/day per model (equivalent to daily energy use of ≈2.4 average US households).

• Accuracy and efficiency:

  • Fine-tuned Llama-3.2-90B-Vision (SFT) reaches precision = 0.465 vs. 0.145 for the text-only LLM (a 220.7% relative increase) and F1 = 0.464 vs. 0.185 for text.
  • VLMs outperform classical baselines (LSTM, ARIMA): SFT VLM F1 (0.464) vs LSTM/ARIMA (~0.19) — >144% relative improvement.
  • Energy-per-performance (J/F1) strongly favors images; example: Pixtral image pathway ≈2,538 J/F1 vs text 52,356 J/F1 (≈20.6× improvement).

• Image compression:

  • Lowering DPI (e.g., 150 → 75 DPI) cut vision tokens by ~70% and inference energy by ~24% with negligible F1 degradation — a practical tuning knob for edge deployments.

• Architecture trade-offs:

  • Llama-3.2-90B-Vision: fixed visual token budget (6,404 tokens) → predictable energy and capacity planning, lower spatial fidelity.
  • Qwen2.5-VL-72B: dynamic tiling → highest compression on moderate heights but scales with image height.
  • Pixtral-12B: small patch size (16×16) → best spatial fidelity, modest compression.

Data & Methods

• Representation

  • Multivariate time series rendered as stacked-subplot raster images (time on horizontal axis, each KPI a vertical subplot); axes/tick labels removed to avoid textual artifacts.
  • Structured textual prompts (domain morphological primitives) condition VLM inference on rendered images.

• Models / Architectures evaluated

  • Llama-3.2-90B-Vision (cross-attention fusion, fixed visual token budget).
  • Qwen2.5-VL-72B (dynamic-resolution patching).
  • Pixtral-12B (16×16 patch decomposition).

• Datasets

  • Public: realAWSCloudwatch subset from VLM4TS benchmark (univariate signals; 10 selected signals per model).
  • Telecom: live 4G/5G KPI data from one operator (209 cells, 24 KPIs sampled at 15-min intervals; experiments focused on 8-KPI stacked images and ∼381 time points per evaluation window; ground truth from a causal anomaly detection system).

• Hardware, quantization, and measurement

  • GPUs: NVIDIA RTX A6000 (benchmarks) and A100 (telecom configs). Pixtral run bfloat16 on A6000; many models evaluated with 4-bit NF4 quantization.
  • Energy measurement: Zeus framework reading NVML cumulative energy counters; instantaneous power polled at 50 ms and integrated; runs repeated (3 runs) after warmup.
  • Token accounting: native tokenizers/processors (Llama tokenizer, AutoProcessor, LlavaProcessor) used to measure text and vision token counts.

• Evaluation metrics

  • Detection performance: precision, recall, F1 (per-day temporal evaluation; α = 0.01 significance threshold for public dataset).
  • Efficiency: per-query energy (J), inference time (s), average power (W), and J/F1 (GPU Joules consumed per unit F1).

• Experiments

  • Compared zero-shot and LoRA SFT VLMs vs text-only LLM, LSTM, ARIMA baselines.
  • Explored image resolution (DPI) and compression (PNG vs JPEG) impacts on tokens, energy, and F1.

Implications for AI Economics

• Token count is a fundamental, actionable energy lever:

  • Because inference energy scales roughly linearly with input token count, reducing input tokens (by modality change) yields consistent per-query energy savings that compound across millions of inferences.

• VLMs enable feasible and cheaper edge deployments for NTSDA:

  • Text-only pipelines can exceed context-window limits and GPU memory ceilings (e.g., 40k–60k tokens → OOM or chunking), making VLMs not just more efficient but sometimes the only feasible option for constrained edge hardware.
  • Predictable visual-token budgets (where available) aid capacity planning and thermal budget forecasting for telecom MEC and near-RT RIC sites.

• Energy-per-performance (J/F1) provides a hardware-grounded selection criterion:

  • Choosing modality/architecture should consider J/F1 under target workloads and hardware, not only raw model accuracy.

• Operational cost and carbon implications:

  • Per-query energy reductions translate into non-trivial daily operational savings at scale (paper example: ~7.2 MJ/day saved for 209 cells sampled every 15 minutes). Across large deployments this becomes significant OPEX and carbon-emissions reduction.
  • Image-compression tuning offers a low-cost optimization lever (no retraining) to further reduce energy while preserving accuracy.

• Architecture and deployment trade-offs:

  • Choose Llama-like fixed-budget VLMs when energy/capacity predictability and constrained budgets matter.
  • Choose Qwen-like dynamic tiling for maximum token compression on typical input sizes, but beware scaling behavior with taller images (many KPIs).
  • Choose Pixtral-like patching if fine spatial detail in waveforms is critical and slightly higher energy is acceptable.

• Caveats & future directions affecting economic assessments:

  • Results are measured on single-/small multi-GPU setups; multi-GPU and distributed inference introduce communication and transfer costs that may change the balance.
  • Long textual outputs or diagnostic reports (large output token sizes) shift energy dominance to output generation; savings from input-token compression reduce in relative importance.
  • The telecom study is from a single operator/market; broader cross-operator validation would strengthen generalizability.
  • Full-system accounting (including CPU preprocessing, image rendering, storage, networking, cooling) and region-specific carbon intensity are needed for complete carbon/economic impact estimates.

Overall, the paper argues that treating energy as a first-class engineering constraint for AI systems favors modality choices (visual encoding of numeric time series) that materially lower inference energy and operating cost while improving or preserving predictive performance — an outcome with direct operational and economic significance for high-frequency, large-scale monitoring workloads such as telecom network analytics.