KV-cache compression
StreamingLLM
Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinks
Heavily superseded — a standard baseline that newer methods routinely beat
43 papers critique it · 44 beat it on benchmarks
What papers say
Verbatim critique sentences, each from a paper that cites StreamingLLM as a baseline.
the undiscriminating sliding eviction of cache elements results in a significant reduction in generation quality
“these methods either (i) optimize throughput while leaving allocation semantics untouched or (ii) assume a monolithic, forward-moving path, failing to model the topological constraints and frequent backtracking inherent in tree-structured search”
“H2O and StreamingLLM allocate the same cache budget across all layers, causing denser layers to miss important tokens in the context, while sparser layers contain redundant tokens.”
“StreamingLLM improves accuracy slightly by preserving KVs of a few initial tokens (attention sinks) alongside recent tokens but struggles when early tokens fail to capture sufficient context.”
“StreamingLLM xiao2023efficient retains a sliding window of recent tokens and the first few tokens, but this static, request-independent strategy degrades accuracy on long-context tasks.”
“While these methods differ in selecting tokens for KV cache retention, they generally apply a uniform budget size across layers, even though the optimal budget size may vary.”
“Early methods streamingllm, which preserved recent entries in a sliding window, risked losing important information in long sequences.”
“Most existing KV cache compression methods, such as StreamingLLM and SnapKV target the decoding stage, by pruning already-generated KV cache, but do not accelerate the prefill stage at all.”
“While this improves performance, static approaches generally lack the flexibility needed to adapt to different tokens, attention-heads, or layers.”
“Streaming methods maintain bounded inference memory by retaining a small set of attention sinks together with a sliding window of recent tokens”
“The sparse attention method StreamingLLM, based on fixed sparse patterns, can guarantee some of the model's capabilities, but due to discarding a large amount of long-context information, it performs poorly on retrieval-related tasks (R.PK, R.Num, R.KV).”
“Despite their differences, these methods all apply a single eviction policy to every layer.”
Beaten on benchmarks
Head-to-head results where a newer method reports beating StreamingLLM. Values are copied from the source paper's tables — verify against the cited paper.
Louver beats StreamingLLM
90.7 vs 3.1
Accuracy · [32k tokens, 10% KV retention, RULER, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct]
Sparse Attention as a Range Searching Problem: Towards an Inference-Efficient Index for KV CacheTokenSelect beats StreamingLLM
100.00 vs 5.00
Avg. · [Llama-3-8B-Instruct-262k]
TokenSelect: Efficient Long-Context Inference and Length Extrapolation for LLMs via Dynamic Token-Level KV Cache SelectionVL-Cache beats StreamingLLM
137.35 vs 8.23
CIDEr · [Coco-Caption, LLaVA-1.6-34B, 10% cache budget]
VL-Cache: Sparsity and Modality-Aware KV Cache Compression for Vision-Language Model Inference AccelerationTailorKV-2 beats StreamingLLM
68.5 vs 5.4
Average (Avg.) · [Llama-3.1-8B at 128k]
TailorKV: A Hybrid Framework for Long-Context Inference via Tailored KV Cache OptimizationEMS(w.o. pos) beats StreamingLLM
31.94 vs 5.66
Avg. · [LongChat-7B-v1.5-32k, cache budget 256]
EMS: Adaptive Evict-then-Merge Strategy for Head-wise KV Cache Compression Based on Global-Local ImportanceFastKV beats StreamingLLM
75.6 vs 18.6
Avg. · [10% KV retention]
FastKV: KV Cache Compression for Fast Long-Context Processing with Token-Selective PropagationRA beats StreamingLLM
34.86 vs 9.86
Average · [Llama3-8B-Instruct]
RazorAttention: Efficient KV Cache Compression Through Retrieval HeadsPoD beats StreamingLLM
40.6 vs 14.4
Average · [128K context]
Compressing KV Cache for Long-Context LLM Inference with Inter-Layer Attention SimilarityMInference beats StreamingLLM
42.5 vs 15.5
AVG · [LLaMA-3.1-8B, Multi-turn Mode]
SCBench: A KV Cache-Centric Analysis of Long-Context MethodsTailorKV-1 beats StreamingLLM
39.2 vs 16.4
Average (Avg.) · [Yi-9B on InfiniteBench]
TailorKV: A Hybrid Framework for Long-Context Inference via Tailored KV Cache OptimizationLagKV beats StreamingLLM
48.9 vs 21.3
AVERAGE · [Compression Ratio 0.875]
LagKV: Lag-Relative Information of the KV Cache Tells Which Tokens Are ImportantSCOPE (Slide) beats StreamingLLM
56.21 vs 29.48
Avg. · [LongGenBench-4K, Decoding Compression Ratio=25.0%, LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct]
SCOPE: Optimizing Key-Value Cache Compression in Long-context Generation
What to use instead
Recent methods in the same sub-problem, not yet superseded in the knowledge base — arXiv benchmark leaders, not vetted production recommendations.
- STaR-KVSTaR-KV: Spatio-Temporal Adaptive Re-weighting for KV Cache Compression in GUI Vision-Language ModelsJun 1, 2026
- May 29, 2026
- May 28, 2026
- May 26, 2026
- May 25, 2026
- CONF-KVCONF-KV: Confidence-Aware KV Cache Eviction with Mixed-Precision Storage for Long-Horizon LLMMay 24, 2026
- May 21, 2026
- May 12, 2026
- Global Retention-Based KV EvictionMake Each Token Count: Towards Improving Long-Context Performance with KV Cache EvictionMay 10, 2026
- ReST-KVReST-KV: Robust KV Cache Eviction with Layer-wise Output Reconstruction and Spatial-Temporal SmoothingMay 9, 2026
- May 8, 2026