VisCache: Visual KV Cache Pruning for Efficient Vision Large Language Model Inference
Authors: Lyuke Wang, Zhuo Li, Guangxu Zhu
Organizations: Shenzhen International Center for Industrial and Applied Mathematics · Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Shenzhen Loop Area Institute
While Vision Large Language Models (VLLMs) have achieved remarkable success in multimodal reasoning, their long-context inference remains prohibitively expensive due to the massive computation and memory overhead of visual Key-Value (KV) caches. Existing KV compression methods often apply uniform pruning across visual tokens and layers, leading to substantial information loss and degraded performance.To address this challenge, we propose VisCache, a plug-and-play framework for coarse-to-fine Visual KV Cache pruning without training, which consists of two synergistic stages. First, a lightweight VLM filters temporal redundancy by selectively forwarding semantically informative keyframes. Second, we introduce {PruneKV}, a surgical KV compression algorithm tailored to the attention dynamics of VLLMs. Unlike rigid pruning strategies, PruneKV adopts a parabolic layer-wise budget allocation together with an asymmetric update mechanism that selectively prunes keys while fusing values, thereby preserving critical contextual information. Extensive experiments demonstrate that VisCache substantially improves inference efficiency, achieving up to {2.35× speedup} and significant memory reduction while maintaining competitive performance with only {19--28%} KV cache retention. VisCache consistently outperforms existing baselines, establishing a new Pareto frontier between efficiency and performance for long-context VLLM inference. Code is available at https://github.com/Wlklk/VisCache
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visualization of different plug-and-play layer-wise KV cache compression methods. It illustrates that VisCache differs fundamentally from other baseline approaches in terms of layer-wise budgets.
Figure 2: Overview of VisCache. The framework operates in two synergistic stages: (I) A lightweight scout VLM performs prompt-aware keyframe filtering via MMR to eliminate temporal redundancy at the source; (II) During inference, the VLLM constructs the KV cache, which is subsequently refined by PruneKV through attention-aware, layer-wise compression.
Method
RR
FLOPs
FLOPs
ActCap
DREAM1K
NExTQA
ActQA
EgoSchema
Avg.
(T)
Ratio
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc
Acc
Acc
Acc
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct
Full Cache
100%
14.80
100%
2.63
9.19
34.69
40.58
57.20
44.16
Q-Frame
40%
6.26
42%
2.42
5.86
39.52
39.42
46.40
41.78
PyramidKV
40%
1.99
13%
2.43
8.48
39.53
39.56
54.80
44.63
FastV
40%
3.11
21%
2.43
8.63
37.67
40.65
50.40
42.91
Table 1: Comparison of different KV cache compression methods on various VQA and VS datasets. Bold and underlined numbers indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Method
RR
AS
AP
AA
FA
UA
OE
OI
OS
MD
AL
ST
AC
MC
MA
SC
FP
CO
EN
ER
CI
Avg
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct
Full Cache
100%
69.0
66.8
72.0
26.4
72.4
85.0
69.7
31.3
50.5
37.5
76.0
48.5
62.5
89.0
45.5
27.0
47.1
36.5
26.8
58.0
56.6
Q-Frame
50%
49.5
63.3
68.5
23.4
64.3
80.5
59.6
31.3
46.0
37.5
77.0
36.4
56.5
78.0
40.9
24.5
52.9
35.0
37.0
61.5
51.2
PyramidKV
50%
65.5
66.8
54.0
24.9
46.4
77.5
55.6
43.8
39.0
38.0
51.0
42.4
62.5
87.0
45.5
20.5
52.9
32.0
28.8
53.0
49.4
FastV
50%
60.5
53.8
61.5
29.4
48.0
80.5
64.7
18.8
41.0
38.5
50.5
36.4
63.0
81.5
45.5
20.5
47.1
30.0
22.5
62.5
47.8
PDrop
50%
54.5
58.3
72.5
24.4
65.5
77.5
63.7
30.0
44.5
36.0
70.5
45.5
63.0
86.5
50.0
29.0
50.0
34.5
25.0
53.5
51.7
Table 2: Results on MVBench of different KV cache compression methods with (p=0.75,q=0.67) . The first row lists abbreviations of the subset names, from AS to CI (e.g., Action Sequence (AS)). Bold and underlined numbers indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Method
RR
Total Mem.
KV Cache
TPS
Full Cache
100%
5.57
0.06
10.4
PyramidKV
40%
4.98
0.02
9.7
FastV
40%
4.98
0.02
10.6
PDrop
40%
4.99
0.02
15.0
VisCache
40%
4.10
0.03
15.5
VisCache
28%
4.10
0.02
18.6
Table 3: Real-system inference efficiency on ActCap. Mem. : GPU memory in GB (Total = peak usage, KV = raw KV cache size). TPS : tokens per second (higher is better).
Figure 3: Comparison of average inference time of different baseline algorithms on Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct at different KV cache compression rates for the VS task. The left, middle, and right columns report the average end-to-end (E2E) latency, time to first token (TTFT), and time per output token (TPOT), respectively.
Figure 4: Comparison of average inference time between full KV cache and VisCache under varying numbers of output tokens.
Budget
V Cache
ActCap
DREAM1K
NExTQA
ActQA
EgoSchema
Avg.
Strategy
Fusion
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc
Acc
Acc
Acc
Full cache (upper bound)
Full Cache
–
2.82
7.87
60.71
46.47
65.20
57.46
Without V Cache Fusion
Fixed
×
2.43
7.24
59.00
43.44
63.60
55.35
Arithmetic
×
2.67
7.17
58.07
42.31
57.00
52.46
Table 4: Ablation study on budget allocation strategy and value cache fusion. We keep RR=28% of the visual KV cache on Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct across all variants. Fixed : uniform budget per layer. Arithmetic : arithmetic progression (PyramidKV Cai et al. (2024) ). Geometric : geometric progression across four layer blocks (PDrop Xing et al. (2024) ). Parabola : our proposed parabolic schedule (Equation 3 ). V Cache Fusion : asymmetric value fusion.
Methods
RR
Scout
PruneKV
DREAM1K
EgoSchema
ROUGE-L
Acc
PDrop
40%
-
-
8.63
50.00
VisCache
40%
√
×
8.48
46.20
VisCache
40%
×
√
9.65
48.00
VisCache
40%
√
√
9.79
52.00
PDrop
28%
-
-
8.62
49.60
Table 5: Comparison of different KV cache compression methods on various VQA and VS datasets. Bold and underlined numbers indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Ranking strategy
RR
ActCap
DREAM1K
NExTQA
ActQA
EgoSchema
Avg. Acc.
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc.
Acc.
Acc.
Shared global ranking
28%
2.45
8.70
41.25
40.66
55.00
45.64
Layer-specific ranking
28%
2.35
8.73
41.20
39.82
51.75
44.26
Shared global ranking
19%
2.39
8.26
41.44
38.51
54.60
44.85
Layer-specific ranking
19%
2.29
7.95
41.24
37.41
53.20
43.95
Table 6: Ablation of shared global and layer-specific visual-token ranking at matched retention ratios on Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct. Bold numbers indicate the best result under each retention ratio.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Jaccard similarity between key visual tokens selected by the small VLM with MMR and those selected from the sum of attention scores across Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct layers, under different visual token compression rates. This figure highlights the consistency between the two token sets at varying compression levels.
Figure 6: Trade-off between inference accuracy and inference speed under different truncation layers of VLLM.
Figure 7: The relationship between fusion strength μ and accuracy on EgoSchema with Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct.
Fusion Strength μ
Mean Accuracy
Variance
0.1
59.80
1.15
0.2
60.40
2.30
0.3
60.40
0.03
0.4
58.40
0.44
0.5
58.40
0.75
0.6
59.00
1.00
Appendix
Table 7: Mean accuracy and variance under different fusion strengths μ on EgoSchema. Each setting is evaluated three times independently.
Method
RR
FLOPs (T)
FLOPs Ratio
ActCap
DREAM1K
NExTQA
ActQA
EgoSchema
Avg
Benchmark
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc
Acc
Acc
Acc
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
Full Cache
100%
5.08
100%
18.76
14.24
65.72
46.13
67.60
59.82
VisCache
28%
0.52
10.2%
18.66
14.34
62.90
45.35
60.22
56.16
VisCache
19%
0.51
10.0%
18.23
14.32
63.41
47.17
60.22
56.93
Appendix
Table 8: Results of applying VisCache on the Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct architecture. VisCache maintains competitive inference performance with minimal degradation compared to using full cache.
Method
RR
FLOPs (T)
FLOPs Ratio
ActCap
DREAM1K
ActQA
Benchmark
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc
LLaVA-OneVision-Qwen2-7b-ov-hf
Full Cache
100%
32.73
100%
5.04
14.45
38.36
VisCache
28%
8.62
26%
5.52
11.71
34.97
Appendix
Table 9: Results of applying VisCache on the LLaVA-OneVision architecture. It shows that VisCache maintains competitive inference performance across different VLLM architectures, exhibiting minimal degradation compared to using full cache.
Method
RR
Bits
ActCap
DREAM1K
NExtQA
ActQA
EgoSchema
Avg.
Benchmark
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc
Acc
Acc
Acc
Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct
Full Cache
100%
32
2.63
9.19
34.69
40.58
57.20
44.16
VisCache
28%
32
2.42
8.70
41.25
40.66
55.00
45.64
VisCache (FlatQuant)
28%
4
2.45
8.58
40.28
43.07
56.20
46.52
VisCache (KIVI)
28%
4
2.43
8.50
40.81
43.48
55.60
46.63
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of combining VisCache with different KV cache quantization methods on various VQA and VS datasets.
Method
RR
ActCap
DREAM1K
NExTQA
ActQA
EgoSchema
Avg. Acc.
Benchmark
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc
Acc
Acc
Acc
Full Cache
100%
2.63
9.19
34.69
40.58
57.20
44.16
Q-Frame
28%
2.37
9.69
40.98
38.60
46.60
42.06
PyramidKV
28%
2.37
7.34
38.54
40.21
50.00
42.92
FastV
28%
2.43
8.59
39.60
39.58
47.60
42.26
PDrop
28%
2.42
8.62
38.90
37.34
49.60
41.95
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of different KV cache compression methods under the same retention ratio on Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct. Bold and underlined numbers indicate the best and second-best results, respectively. Avg. Acc. denotes the average accuracy over NExTQA, ActQA, and EgoSchema.
Method
RR
FLOPs
FLOPs
DREAM1K
EgoSchema
(T)
Ratio
ROUGE-L
Acc
Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct
Full Cache
100%
93.08
100%
7.87
65.20
Q-Frame
28%
41.47
45%
7.16
62.00
PDrop
28%
20.15
22%
5.16
64.00
VisCache
28%
10.75
12%
7.29
65.80
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of representative KV cache compression methods under the same retention ratio on Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct. Bold and underlined numbers indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 8: Performance on DREAM1K and EgoSchema under different visual KV cache retention ratios. The dashed lines indicate the full cache performance for each benchmark.
Method
RR
DREAM1K
EgoSchema
ROUGE-L
Acc
FastV
28%
8.59
47.60
PDrop
28%
8.62
49.60
Scout + FastV
28%
8.49
48.80
Scout + PDrop
28%
8.56
52.80
FastV
19%
8.13
52.00
Appendix
Table 13: Compatibility analysis of Scout-based Temporal Redundancy Filtering (TRF) with existing visual token pruning methods.
Method
RR
E2E Latency (s)
TTFT (s)
TPOT (ms)
DREAM1K
Full Cache
100%
12.24
4.42
118.81
VisCache
40%
9.55 (1.28 × )
2.05
119.06
VisCache
28%
6.33 (1.93 × )
3.45
45.79
VisCache
19%
5.20 (2.35 × )
2.23
45.60
EgoSchema
Appendix
Table 14: Detailed inference time analysis under different KV cache retention ratios. We report the end-to-end (E2E) latency, time to first token (TTFT), and time per output token (TPOT) on DREAM1K and EgoSchema benchmarks based on Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct backbone. Our VisCache consistently reduces inference latency as the KV cache RR decreases, achieving up to 2.35 × E2E speedup while maintaining efficient generation performance.
Method
Scout
ActCap
DREAM1K
NExTQA
ActQA
EgoSchema
Model
ROUGE-L
ROUGE-L
Acc
Acc
Acc
Full Cache
–
2.63
9.19
34.69
40.58
57.20
VisCache
CLIP
2.42
8.70
41.25
40.66
55.00
BLIP
2.44
8.49
37.18
40.81
46.80
OpenCLIP
2.43
8.51
41.56
39.78
53.40
Appendix
Table 15: Effect of different scout VLMs for temporal filtering. We keep RR=28% of the visual KV cache on Qwen2.5-VL-32B-Instruct across all variants.
Figure 9: Comparison between Full Cache and VisCache on a pull-up activity video.
Figure 10: Comparison between Full Cache and VisCache on a movie scene video.
Key-Value (KV) cache has become a de facto component of modern Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) for inference. While it enhances decoding efficiency in Large Language Models (LLMs), its direct adoption in LVLMs introduces substantial GPU memory overhead due to the large number of vision tokens processed during the prefill stage. To tackle this problem, we propose LightKV, a novel approach that reduces KV cache size by exploiting the redundancy among vision-token embeddings. Guided by text prompts, LightKV employs cross-modality message passing to aggregate informative messages across vision tokens and progressively compress them during prefill. This prompt-aware guidance distinguishes our method from prior vision-only compression strategies. We evaluate LightKV on eight open-source LVLMs across eight public benchmark datasets, e.g., MME and SeedBench. Experimental results demonstrate that with only 55% of the original vision tokens, LightKV (a) halves the vision-token KV cache size, (b) reduces computation by up to 40%, and (c) preserves general-purpose performance while significantly outperforming existing baselines.
Xihao Chen, Yangyang Guo, Roger Zimmermann
Integrative Sciences and Engineering Programme, National University of Singapore · School of Computing, National University of Singapore
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have emerged as a critical and fast-growing extension of Large Language Models (LLMs) that enable multimodal reasoning through both text and image inputs. Although VLMs enrich the capabilities of language models, they also inherit and amplify key computational bottlenecks: the memory overhead caused by the large key-value (KV) cache during autoregressive decoding. This challenge is particularly severe in VLMs, where images produce longer token sequences and denser feature representations compared to text. Moreover, the spatial and information-rich nature of vision tokens introduces structured attention patterns that make many LLM-oriented KV cache compression techniques ineffective when applied directly to VLMs. In this work, we conduct a detailed empirical analysis of the behavior of vision tokens, highlighting the critical differences from purely text-based models. Based on these insights, we propose KVCapsule, a novel KV cache compression framework for vision tokens. KVCapsule keeps the pretrained VLM backbone frozen, requires no modification to the attention computation modules, and can be integrated into existing VLMs through lightweight compression and reconstruction components. We evaluate KVCapsule on multiple VLMs and benchmark tasks, demonstrating up to 2x improvement in TPS and 2.4x reduction in KV cache memory at a 60% compression ratio, with negligible degradation in accuracy or response quality. Our findings offer practical pathways to scale VLM inference under constrained memory budgets and inspire further research into structure-aware cache compression for multimodal models.
Yingbing Huang, Tharun Adithya Srikrishnan, Steven K. Reinhardt +1
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have advanced unified reasoning over text, images, and videos, but their inference is hindered by the rapid growth of key-value (KV) caches. Each visual input expands into thousands of tokens, causing caches to scale linearly with context length and remain resident in GPU memory throughout decoding, which leads to prohibitive memory overhead and latency even on high-end GPUs. A common solution is to compress caches under a fixed allocated budget at different granularities: token-level uniformly discards less important tokens, layer-level varies retention across layers, and head-level redistributes budgets across heads. Yet these approaches stop at allocation and overlook the heterogeneous behaviors of attention heads that require distinct compression strategies. We propose HybridKV, a hybrid KV cache compression framework that integrates complementary strategies in three stages: heads are first classified into static or dynamic types using text-centric attention; then a top-down budget allocation scheme hierarchically assigns KV budgets; finally, static heads are compressed by text-prior pruning and dynamic heads by chunk-wise retrieval. Experiments on 11 multimodal benchmarks with Qwen2.5-VL-7B show that HybridKV reduces KV cache memory by up to 7.9× and achieves 1.52× faster decoding, with almost no performance drop or even higher relative to the full-cache MLLM.
Bowen Zeng, Feiyang Ren, Jun Zhang +4
The State Key Laboratory of Blockchain and Data Security, Zhejiang University · Hangzhou High-Tech Zone (Binjiang) Institute of Blockchain and Data Security · Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China