arXiv preprint ·
Who Should Score the Cache? Mid-Depth Layers Are the Best Judges of KV-Cache Eviction
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Key-value (KV) cache eviction methods rank tokens by attention scores, and each layer scores its own cache. To our knowledge, no eviction method asks which layer should score. We find, across twenty-one models, that the depth of the scoring layer governs eviction quality. On the eighteen models with per-layer caches, spanning 0.5B to 109B, long-context retrieval accuracy collapses at shallow layers, peaks between 0.4 and 0.75 of depth, and degrades at the last layer. The curve arises because a layer judges tokens well only once it has used the question to find the answer, which takes several layers. Modeling eviction as a top-$k$ cut, we compute answer survival probability from prefill attention and reproduce the measured curves. This approach selects the scoring layer using calibration prompts with known answers, and the selected layer is the best layer measured on most models and never significantly below it. It improves on the own-layer default on sixteen of the eighteen models, with significant gains on seven, all at 14B or below, while on larger models the default is already close to the best mid-depth layer. Scoring every cache from the selected layer while keeping one set of tokens for all heads also beats per-head SnapKV by 18 to 43 points on five models up to 14B under tight budgets. This gain carries over to financial filings at 32K context, all at the same memory budget, with no extra forward pass. The same curve explains a penalty in shared-cache models, where several layers read one cache and the layer that writes it scores by default. On Gemma-4-E2B the writer is shallow and loses 28 points to a mid-depth reader at a 10% budget. We also find that in open-book question answering (LongBench) no mid-depth layer beats the own-layer default.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
XDecideBench: Evaluating Typed Decision Models and Confidence Policies Across Languages
GRIPS: An Empirical Study of Pre-SQL Grounding Information for SQL Generation
Information-Theoretic Design of Sparse Autoencoder-Based Steering
A Capitulation Direction Emerges With Scale and Is Causally Load-Bearing Where Validation Is Strong: Eight Models, Two Families, and Five Measurement Hazards
Learning by Doing: Autonomously Compiling and Curating Agent Skills from Verified Traces
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.