mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When Keywords Drop but Classifiers Hold: Soft Refusals under KV Cache Compression

arXiv 2609.31678 ↗First posted 16 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: Efficient LLM inference and serving → KV cache optimization

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

KV cache compression is widely used for long context LLM inference under memory constraints, while deployed systems typically score refusals after generation with keyword filters or learned classifiers. Such monitors are intended to indicate whether a model declined a harmful request under the serving regime actually used. However, it remains unclear whether matched compression that preserves task accuracy also preserves agreement between lightweight lexical monitors and stronger refusal classifiers. We study this with a paired protocol on n=200 harmful prompts with a long filler context: each prompt is answered once under full retention and once under matched eviction after a shared prefill, and the same replies are scored by keyword heuristics, the HarmBench Llama-2-13B classifier, an auxiliary LLM judge, and humans on disagreements. On Qwen2.5-3B, keyword refusal falls from 98.0% to 80.5% (McNemar p~1e-8) while classifier refusal stays near ceiling (99.0%-99.5%) and MMLU accuracy is unchanged (50.0%); human labels predominantly follow the classifier, consistent with soft refusals. The gap is not universal and weakens under short fillers and paired SnapKV, so safety auditing under compression should rely on several judges matched to the serving context rather than on keyword rates alone.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in KV cache optimization, one of 12 directions in Efficient LLM inference and serving. Builds on 14 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2026.

Builds on

14 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025The Pitfalls of KV Cache Compression30 Sep
  2. 2024SnapKV: LLM Knows What You are Looking for Before Generation22 Apr
  3. 2023Model Tells You What to Discard: Adaptive KV Cache Compression for LLMs3 Oct
  4. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention12 Sep

Other references · 10

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  3. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  4. 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,186
  5. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  6. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
  7. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
  8. 2024KIVI: A Tuning-Free Asymmetric 2bit Quantization for KV Cachecited by 637
  9. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
  10. 2022A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real Worldcited by 356

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Refusal-Gated Decoding: Preserving Refusal Behavior Under High-Temperature Sampling
  2. 2026PAGE: Partition-Aware Gated KV-Cache Eviction
  3. 2025How Semantically Stable Are LLM Refusals? Measuring Confusion in Local Safety Boundaries
  4. 2024OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models
  5. 2025Towards Understanding and Improving Refusal in Compressed Models via Mechanistic Interpretability
  6. 2026Compression-Aware Abstention: Teaching LLMs to Refuse When KV-Compression Masks Remove Answer Evidence
  7. 2025Beyond Over-Refusal: Scenario-Based Diagnostics and Post-Hoc Mitigation for Exaggerated Refusals in LLMs
  8. 2025Beyond I'm Sorry, I Can't: Dissecting Large Language Model Refusal