Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.20641

AbridgeKV: Compressing Long Reasoning into the KV Cache of Learned Pause Tokens

Jack Cai·Lijie Yang·Vasilis Kontonis·Dimitris Papailiopoulos·Shivam Garg
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Long chain-of-thought decoding is memory-bound: the KV cache of the generated tokens grows linearly with the test-time compute being spent. Evicting cache entries does not fix this, because a model never trained on a cache with entries removed generates longer, often up to the length limit. We instead train the model to compress its own output. AbridgeKV compresses each completed block of generated text into the KV entries of a few learned pause tokens. These are extra input tokens with trained embeddings that produce no output. Once the pause tokens have encoded the block, AbridgeKV frees the block's original cache; subsequent tokens attend to the pause tokens' KV entries in its place. Three novel choices make this work: the pause tokens' KV entries take positions inside the block they replace, the cache budget is allocated across layers according to the measured value of each layer's entries, and compression operates on relatively large blocks. On 446 competition problems from AIME, HMMT, AMC, BRUMO, CMIMC and SMT with 32K-token generations, keeping a quarter of the generated cache matches an identically trained full-KV model in accuracy and output length; the strongest published evictor at a matched budget writes far longer, and the closest trained compressor, retrained on the same data, loses 10 points. Served in vLLM, the cache is 3.5x smaller per sequence and a saturated H100 finishes a problem 3.2x faster than with full KV.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jack Cai, Lijie Yang, Vasilis Kontonis, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, Shivam Garg. 2026-10-07. AbridgeKV: Compressing Long Reasoning into the KV Cache of Learned Pause Tokens. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.20641

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Adamas: Hadamard Sparse Attention for Efficient Long-Context Inference

Large language models (LLMs) now support context windows of hundreds of thousands to millions of tokens, enabling applications such as long-document summarization, large-scale code synthesis, multi-document question answering and persistent multi-turn dialogue. However, such extended contexts exacerbate the quadratic cost of self-attention, leading to severe latency in autoregressive decoding. Existing sparse attention methods reduce these costs by attending to only a subset of key-value (KV) tokens, but fixed or coarse-grained selection strategies can miss important tokens or retain substantial redundancy under constrained token budgets. We introduce \textbf{Adamas}, an accurate and efficient token-level sparse attention mechanism for long-context inference. Adamas applies the Hadamard transform, bucketization and 2-bit compression to produce compact representations, and uses lightweight distance-based estimation for efficient top-$k$ candidate selection. The selected positions are then used to gather the corresponding original KV states for sparse attention. Comprehensive evaluations show that Adamas maintains near-lossless performance within the effective context length of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. In efficiency evaluations, Adamas achieves up to $6.5\times$ self-attention speedup and $1.7\times$ end-to-end decoding speedup at a 32K context length. Adamas also maintains performance comparable to full attention on challenging long-form reasoning benchmarks, including AIME 2024 and AIME 2025.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

An Empirical Analysis of Static Analysis Methods for Detection and Mitigation of Code Library Hallucinations

Despite extensive research, Large Language Models continue to hallucinate when generating code, particularly when using libraries. On NL-to-code benchmarks that require library use, we find that LLMs generate code that uses non-existent library features in 8.1-40% of responses. One intuitive approach for detection and mitigation of hallucinations is static analysis. In this paper, we analyse the potential of static analysis tools, both in terms of what they can solve and what they cannot. We find that static analysis tools can detect 16-70% of all errors, and 14-85% of library hallucinations, with performance varying by LLM and dataset. Through manual analysis, we identify cases a static method could not plausibly catch, which gives an upper bound on their potential from 48.5% to 77%. Overall, we show that static analysis methods are cheap method for addressing some forms of hallucination, and we quantify how far short of solving the problem they will always be.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Human vs. LLM Annotation in Active Learning for TikTok Hate Speech Detection

Annotating data remains a costly bottleneck for supervised NLP. Active learning (AL) reduces the number of human labels needed by selecting only the most informative instances, while instruction-tuned LLMs attack the same bottleneck from the other side, making labels cheap enough to annotate entire corpora. This raises two questions: can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be cheaply labeled? We investigate both by training supervised hate speech classifiers on a new dataset of 278K German political TikTok comments, comparing human and LLM annotation under matched conditions. LLM annotation at scale outperforms human-supervised classifiers at roughly one-tenth the cost, for both a closed-source (GPT-5.2) and an open-weight (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B) LLM, and the advantage is robust under soft-label evaluation. It hinges on the annotation interface: only a two-question decomposition mirroring the human annotation task unlocks it. AL provides no reliable advantage over random sampling in our prefiltered pool. Error structure depends on the LLM: only GPT-5.2 matches the human FP/FN balance, while other variants over-flag border-control and economic-competition discourse. Humans remain essential as evaluators; for training labels, the question shifts to which LLM, which interface, and what shape of pool.

cs.CL↗