Which Eviction Policy Should an LLM Cache Use? A Systematic Study Across Workloads, Capacities, and Encoders

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Semantic caches reuse an LLM response when the incoming query embedding lies near a cached query, but proposed eviction policies have rarely been compared under one protocol. Using CLEVER, we evaluate FIFO, LRU, LFU, ARC, GDSF, a single-pass streaming adaptation of SISO, and a semantic-redundancy policy across three ordered, deduplicated query corpora, three cache capacities, and two encoders. No evaluated policy improves on LFU by more than 0.041 percentage points in any of the eighteen settings. Replacement is not irrelevant: FIFO and streaming SISO trail LFU by as much as 8.67 and 8.55 points, respectively, at tight capacity. We explain the missing upside with a conditional packing result. Under exact lookup and insert-on-miss, a newly inserted entry cannot have a resident neighbor within the hit radius, so a geometry-aware eviction rule receives little new redundancy signal. A separate audit exposes a larger problem with the evaluated operating point. At MiniLM's median nearest-neighbor threshold, only 2.1-3.9% of sampled LMSYS and QQP hits are judged answer-substitutable, reducing raw hit rates of 51-60% to quality-adjusted rates of 1.1-2.2%. The cross-encoder study further shows that thresholds do not transfer between embedding models. LFU is the strongest simple default in this protocol; deployment decisions should first establish answer validity and then test sub-point policy differences with exact search.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments