Long-context decoding is increasingly constrained by key--value (KV) cache memory and bandwidth. Existing fixed-budget compression methods typically separate retention from compensation, while a retention ranking specifies neither discarded attention mass nor the direction of induced output error. We start from an exact factorization: eviction error equals evicted attention mass times the directional gap between the evicted centroid and retained output, highlighting the importance of set-level coverage in retention and mass-preserving memory writing. We introduce CORE COverage Calibration and Evicted-Mass REdistribution for KV Cache, which distills an offline allocation combining query utility and log-determinant coverage into a lightweight cache-aware indexer. At inference, one calibrated distribution drives both channels: its Top-B ordering retains complementary KV states, while its excluded allocation mass and conditional weights parameterize latent-memory writes without a separate write-weight predictor or online log-determinant evaluation. Our analysis provides a four-term pre-compensation error certificate, characterizes non-additive coverage interactions, and establishes mass-independent write stability with hierarchical bounds through recurrent and query-adaptive normalization. Across three backbones, CORE exceeds the strongest RULER baseline by up to 3.78 points at 90% compression; LongBench and repeated-eviction evaluations further demonstrate strong effectiveness and decoding efficiency.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: From separate retention and compensation to a unified eviction error perspective
Figure 2: CORE couples KV retention and compensation via a coverage-calibrated distribution.
Model
Method
RULER-4K Avg.
RULER-16K Avg.
0%
25%
50%
75%
90%
0%
25%
50%
75%
90%
Mistral-7B
H 2 O \corevenuebox NeurIPS’23
93.29
68.65
49.13
34.36
21.15
80.95
52.49
37.11
24.55
15.74
SnapKV \corevenuebox NeurIPS’24
93.29
58.64
42.71
33.16
20.91
80.95
44.61
32.06
24.57
19.04
PyramidKV \corevenuebox COLM’25
93.29
62.14
41.68
30.92
20.92
80.95
49.04
34.41
23.50
17.82
Expected Attention \corevenuebox arXiv’25
93.29
72.60
48.57
28.59
13.74
80.95
59.06
43.28
28.94
15.79
KeyDiff \corevenuebox NeurIPS’25
93.29
0.00 87.09
81.58
0.00 70.49
0.00 52.17
80.95
75.26
0.00 70.79
65.80
50.40
Table 1: RULER results across KV compression ratios. 0% denotes full KV cache. Within each model and compressed setting, red/bold and orange/underlined indicate best and second-best results.
Figure 3: LongBench performance across six representative tasks and four compression ratios.
Method
AIME25
Math500
64
128
256
512
64
128
256
512
CAPKV
26.67
40.00
43.33
40.00
32.20
30.00
43.40
39.60
IndexMem
23.33
33.33
43.33
46.67
35.20
40.60
47.40
50.20
MOMENTKV
20.00
30.00
36.67
43.33
28.40
37.60
45.20
49.00
CORE
33.33
43.33
50.00
53.33
37.60
43.00
49.80
52.60
Table 2: Decode-time compression results.
Figure 4: Position-sensitive needle retrieval across context lengths and evidence depths.
Figure 5: Mechanistic analysis of CORE’s retention, allocation fidelity, and write stability.
Figure 6: CORE Evaluation across Compression Performance, Component Analysis, and Efficiency.
Write allocation
RULER-4K
RULER-16K
75%
90%
75%
90%
CORE
80.60
62.44
74.98
68.48
COREind
79.37
61.82
73.02
67.43
Table 3: Write allocation comparison.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Retention principle
Evicted-state representation
Compensation
Retention–compensation link
CAPKV
Information-capacity selection
None
None
Retention only
MOMENTKV
Moment-aware eviction
Low-order moments
First-order approximation
Shared moment statistics
IndexMem
Learned importance indexer
Latent memory
Gated residual readout
Separate modules
CORE
Coverage-calibrated allocation
Allocation-weighted latent memory
Gated residual reconstruction
Shared allocation
Appendix
Table 4: Conceptual positioning of closely related fixed-budget KV-cache methods.
Steps
Median eR
P90 eR
Overlap vs. 16
1
7.643×10−3
2.407×10−2
92.80%
R0=8
2.176×10−7
5.564×10−5
99.74%
2R0=16
4.025×10−12
1.496×10−7
ref.
Appendix
Table 5: Teacher residuals and Top- B selection agreement (relative to R=16 ).
Comp.
μE
pˉ(E)
M , Bound
RetErr
Tight.
25%
0.120
0.3251
0.370
0.2471
0.668
50%
0.300
0.5427
0.550
0.4354
0.792
75%
0.520
0.7436
0.770
0.5289
0.687
90%
0.680
0.8718
0.930
0.5392
0.580
Appendix
Table 6: Empirical normalized eviction-certificate audit. All columns use common state weights. M and Bound agree at the displayed precision. Tightness =RetErr/Bound .
Compression
Selector
UB
CB
JB
75%
Utility-only
1.3689
0.9883
2.3572
Student Top- B
1.1548
1.3262
2.4810
Teacher Top- B
1.1503
1.3334
2.4837
Greedy
1.1140
1.3911
2.5051
90%
Utility-only
1.4352
0.9351
2.3703
Student Top- B
1.1522
1.3616
2.5138
Appendix
Table 7: Fixed-budget utility–coverage set quality.
Figure 7: Repeated-write compensation at 75% initial compression: (a) compensation gain, (b) residual–correction alignment ρg , and (c) relative correction magnitude rg .
Writing rule
G(0) (%)
G(δ) (%)
ΔG
Mass-weighted
50.38
49.72
0.66
Equal-event
34.38
33.94
0.44
Uniform-token
35.73
35.16
0.57
Appendix
Table 8: Fourth-event compensation gain at δ=0.05 . Gains are percentages; ΔG=G(0)−G(δ) is the percentage-point decrease.
Component
Setting
Indexer
14→128→128→1 , GELU
Projected key space
dz=64
Coverage prototypes
Mp=64 , fixed
Memory map
ϕφ:RD→R512 , no bias
Memory state
Mt∈R512×D , bt∈R512 , Zt∈R
Memory readout
m(q)∈RD (pre- WO space)
Appendix
Table 9: Implementation details.
SD-QA
MD-QA
Summ.
FSL
Synth.
Code
Method
NQA
Qasper
MF
HPQA
2WQA
MQue
GR
QMS
MN
TREC
TQA
SSum
PC
PR
LCC
RBP
Avg.
Full KV
30.99
47.39
56.31
59.80
51.33
33.51
35.19
25.34
26.99
29.00
91.71
40.77
10.70
100.00
53.31
47.23
46.22
SnapKV
29.00
30.97
38.87
53.67
41.53
29.11
29.23
22.69
23.25
34.50
91.16
41.64
9.05
95.00
54.76
47.70
42.01
PyramidKV
27.66
30.01
36.23
55.69
42.48
25.76
28.29
22.42
23.49
32.50
91.73
42.10
9.05
97.50
54.73
47.40
41.69
ExpectedAttention
29.77
38.94
44.37
55.93
43.02
34.13
28.85
23.01
24.94
54.75
91.18
37.09
8.50
96.00
40.40
51.12
43.88
KeyDiff
29.75
32.87
42.45
53.05
39.11
25.40
29.49
23.66
22.78
51.50
91.61
40.85
11.06
99.50
37.43
47.43
42.37
Appendix
Table 10: Per-task LongBench results for Llama-3.1-8B at 75% compression. Tasks follow the official LongBench taxonomy; Avg. is the unweighted mean over all 16 tasks.
Method
S1
S2
S3
MK1
MK2
MK3
MV
MQ
VT
CWE
FWE
QA1
QA2
Avg.
Full KV
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.60
100.00
98.80
99.10
99.10
99.72
89.32
90.27
81.00
57.00
93.38
SnapKV
79.20
92.20
2.60
71.20
15.60
2.60
50.90
57.05
69.44
35.58
84.93
32.80
37.20
48.56
PyramidKV
85.80
95.20
2.40
80.00
18.60
2.80
56.20
59.30
76.84
11.26
81.33
33.40
33.80
48.99
ExpectedAttention
100.00
99.60
10.20
96.20
64.40
10.80
80.25
97.50
96.04
28.14
83.67
51.80
43.40
66.31
KeyDiff
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.60
26.20
0.00
99.10
99.45
98.64
71.52
87.80
44.80
44.60
74.75
CAPKV
100.00
100.00
78.20
97.80
14.20
0.40
94.95
96.45
99.48
37.50
54.67
62.20
44.00
67.68
Appendix
Table 11: Per-subtask RULER-16K results for Llama-3.1-8B at 75% compression; Avg. is the unweighted mean over all 13 official subtasks.
Method
KV budget
2K
4K
8K
Full KV
32.02
SnapKV
25.12
26.60
27.09
EA
24.63
25.12
26.11
KeyDiff
25.62
26.11
25.62
CAPKV
25.62
26.60
27.09
Appendix
Table 12: Ultra-long-context accuracy (%).
Figure 8: One-at-a-time hyperparameter sensitivity at 75% compression.
Variant
RULER-4K
RULER-16K
75%
90%
75%
90%
CORE
80.60
62.44
74.98
68.48
COREEA
78.22
50.39
70.65
56.87
COREKeyDiff
76.78
61.53
74.87
67.16
Appendix
Table 13: CORE allocation replacement.
Training Source
RULER-4K
RULER-16K
LongBench
Code Avg.
75%
90%
75%
90%
75%
75%
LongAlpaca-12k
80.60
62.44
74.98
68.48
46.18
49.42
OpenMathReasoning
80.18
62.69
74.63
68.16
45.61
47.38
SWE-smith-trajectories
79.72
61.83
74.41
67.54
45.83
50.12
Appendix
Table 14: Training-source sensitivity on Llama-3.1-8B. Code Avg. averages LCC and RepoBench-P. Higher scores are better; column-wise best results are bold.
Model
Method
RULER-4K
RULER-16K
75%
90%
75%
90%
Mistral-7B
Locret
63.72±0.26
37.03±0.09
49.85±0.35
35.53±0.03
TRIM-KV
68.24±0.35
42.89±0.07
65.95±0.05
53.39±0.07
KVP
66.54±0.32
42.80±0.29
61.80±0.06
48.68±0.35
IndexMem
68.95±0.16
43.19±0.12
66.41±0.09
53.89±0.16
CORE
73.52±0.27
54.73±0.13
69.02±0.21
56.43±0.19
Appendix
Table 15: Training-seed sensitivity on RULER.
Table 24
Method
Add. Params.
Aux. State
Online Overhead
CAPKV
0.00M
≈0 GiB
+12.8%
IndexMem
≈40 M
0.27 GiB
+24.1%
CORE
≈40 M
0.22 GiB
+7.7%
Appendix
Table 18: Additional parameter and runtime costs.
Metric
Method
8K
16K
32K
64K
Prefill latency
CAPKV
1.257
2.914
7.233
21.127
IndexMem
1.274
3.139
8.062
23.031
CORE
1.388
3.597
9.402
27.562
TTFT
CAPKV
1.260
2.917
7.236
21.130
IndexMem
1.277
3.144
8.068
23.036
CORE
1.393
3.602
9.406
27.567
Appendix
Table 19: Prefill latency and GPU-resident TTFT (s) for Qwen3-14B at 75% compression.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across diverse tasks, but their inference with long input contexts is bottlenecked by memory size and bandwidth. The Key-Value (KV) cache size grows linearly with sequence length and needs to be re-read from off-chip high-bandwidth memory (HBM) to on-chip memory at every decoding step, resulting in memory-bound inference. Existing methods reduce the cache by either eviction or quantization, but typically treat the two in isolation. In this paper, we cast KV cache compression as a rate-distortion problem, under which eviction and quantization are two end-points of the same bit allocation scheme. This exposes the need to optimize them jointly, motivating our method, RDKV (Rate-Distortion KV cache compression). RDKV derives the weight of each token or channel from the distortion that compression induces on the attention computation. Based on these weights, it assigns each token or channel a bit-width ranging from full precision down to zero bits guided by reverse water-filling, applied once after the prefilling stage. Experiments on LongBench, RULER, and InfiniteBench show that RDKV outperforms the best evaluated baseline by 9.1% on average. On LongBench it recovers 97.81% of full-cache accuracy with only 2.48% cache retention. Compared with full-cache FlashAttention-2 decoding, it achieves 4.5x decode speedup and 1.9x peak memory reduction with 128K context length, while maintaining comparable performance.
KV cache compression is essential for efficient long-context inference. Existing eviction methods permanently discard unselected tokens and consequently remove their aggregate contribution to attention. Merging-based alternatives preserve more information but can perturb retained keys and values that should remain exact. We observe that the information omitted by cache eviction can be formulated as residual statistics in both the numerator and denominator of softmax attention. Based on this observation, we propose ResKV, which divides a fixed KV budget into an exact main cache and a compact residual cache that reconstructs the contribution of omitted tokens. ResKV lets main-cache tokens and residual entries participate in the same softmax normalization, so residual entries restore both attention numerator and denominator mass rather than acting as a post-hoc correction. A construction-time validation proxy determines residual allocation for each layer and KV head, while a decode-time dynamic gate adjusts residual contributions for individual queries. Comprehensive evaluations on LongBench and RULER, covering query-aware and query-agnostic settings, multiple backbones, cache budgets, and representative compression baselines, demonstrate broad improvements under the same retained KV budget while preserving the practical efficiency of compressed decoding, including peak memory usage and long-context decode throughput.
Yuhang Zhan, Lisi Chen, Shuo Shang
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
KV-cache entries are stored before their future queries are known, but each decoding query needs precision in different places. We study this mismatch using separate budgets for retained bits and bits fetched per query. ReadKV stores each key and value in a progressive code whose prefixes support different reconstruction precisions. For each query, it allocates key-channel prefixes using the query, computes attention from the reconstructed keys, and then allocates value-token prefixes using that attention. Stored entries remain unchanged. Each stage optimizes a calibrated distortion objective under a fixed budget; we prove exact allocation under diminishing refinement gains and relate these objectives to attention-output error. We also exhibit a finite-dimensional attention family where query-dependent access strictly outperforms every query-independent reader at the same read budget, even with unrestricted competing encoders and decoders. Across six base models, reading four bits on average from an eight-bit cache increases C4 perplexity by at most 0.66%, using about one quarter of the logical reads and half the retained capacity of a 16-bit cache. It is consistently more accurate than storing and fully reading four bits at the same payload-read budget. Retaining more bits than each query fetches is aimed at long-context decoding, where the cache bytes moved per step, rather than the weights, dominate cost. Long-context question answering and retrieval on two instruction-tuned models provide additional quality evidence. On the tested 8K-token, batch-one, single-layer workload on an NVIDIA A10G, a restricted eight-bit ReadKV reader with a two-bit mean payload-read budget has 39% lower latency than the tested TurboQuant codec.
Siddharth Bhandari, Lucas Gretta, Krishna Balasubramanian +1