Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

To Keep or Not to Keep: Learning KV Cache Retention in Disaggregated LLM Serving Systems

Summary

The paper introduces KVLearn, a learning-based KV-cache retention framework for disaggregated LLM serving that predicts prefix reuse probability and turns it into keep/admit decisions using recomputation, transfer, and storage costs, with an online adaptive threshold controller. Across text and multimodal workloads it cuts end-to-end time-to-first-token by up to 56% versus No-Cache, 38% versus LRU-Pool, and 33% versus Mooncake-style baselines, while reducing inter-node KV transfer volume by up to 53% versus LRU-Pool.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Dong Liu, Yanxuan Yu, Eric Jiang, Shu Wang, Ying Nian Wu
To Keep or Not to Keep: Learning KV Cache Retention in Disaggregated LLM Serving Systems
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 10 Aug 2026]

Title:To Keep or Not to Keep: Learning KV Cache Retention in Disaggregated LLM Serving Systems

View a PDF of the paper titled To Keep or Not to Keep: Learning KV Cache Retention in Disaggregated LLM Serving Systems, by Dong Liu and Yanxuan Yu and Eric Jiang and Shu Wang and Ying Nian Wu

View PDF

Abstract:Disaggregated \textsc{LLM} serving separates prefill and decode across node pools, placing a network fabric between \textsc{KV}-cache computation and consumption. This breaks a key assumption of classical cache policies: a miss no longer incurs only local recomputation, but also network transfer to the decode node. Likewise, admitting a block to the global cache requires an additional transfer, so poor retention decisions waste both memory and bandwidth. We present \textbf{KVLearn}, a learning-based framework for cost-aware \textsc{KV}-cache retention in disaggregated serving. KVLearn includes: (i) a lightweight Prefix Reuse Predictor (\textsc{PRP}) that estimates reuse probability from structural and temporal prefix features without modifying model weights; (ii) a Cost-Aware Retention Score (\textsc{CARS}) that converts reuse probability into keep/admit decisions using recomputation, transfer, and storage costs; and (iii) an Adaptive Threshold Controller (\textsc{ATC}) that adjusts admission thresholds online from observed hit rates and memory pressure. We integrate KVLearn into a globally disaggregated serving topology and evaluate it on text and multimodal workloads, including large image/video-derived \textsc{KV} blocks with heterogeneous reuse patterns. KVLearn reduces end-to-end time-to-first-token by up to 56% versus No-Cache, 38% versus LRU-Pool, and 33% versus Mooncake-style baselines, while cutting inter-node \textsc{KV} transfer volume by up to 53% versus LRU-Pool. On MM-Session, throughput remains within ${\sim}5%$ of oracle. Code is available at this https URL.

Comments: Accepted to ACM SYSTOR 2026

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing (cs.DC)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.28637 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.28637v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.28637

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Dong Liu [view email] [v1] Mon, 10 Aug 2026 10:46:26 UTC (89 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled To Keep or Not to Keep: Learning KV Cache Retention in Disaggregated LLM Serving Systems, by Dong Liu and Yanxuan Yu and Eric Jiang and Shu Wang and Ying Nian Wu

View PDF

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.DC

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • A lightweight Prefix Reuse Predictor (PRP) estimates reuse probability from structural and temporal prefix features without modifying model weights
  • A Cost-Aware Retention Score (CARS) converts reuse probability into keep/admit decisions using recomputation, transfer, and storage costs
  • An Adaptive Threshold Controller (ATC) adjusts admission thresholds online from observed hit rates and memory pressure
  • Reduces TTFT by up to 56% vs No-Cache, 38% vs LRU-Pool, and 33% vs Mooncake-style baselines, while cutting inter-node KV transfer volume by up to 53% vs LRU-Pool

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.