aiqbench analysis
This research investigates how sparsity-inducing probability maps like sparsemax and entmax interact with router score distributions during training in Mixture-of-Experts models. The study reveals that expert participation is determined by the joint co-adaptation of these maps and learned scores rather than the map's theoretical capacity alone, offering new insights into designing more robust inference strategies for MoE architectures.
How Sparse Probability Maps Shape Mixture-of-Experts Routing
arXiv:2610.06677v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mixture-of-experts (MoE) routers typically apply softmax to the router scores and keep the top-K experts, making every token use exactly K experts. Sparsity-inducing probability maps such as sparsemax, alpha-entmax and normmax can adaptively assign exact zeros to selected experts, and therefore appear to offer token-dependent expert participation, even when using the same top-K machinery. In this work, we study whether and how this sparsity survives training. We train matched 300M and 1B top-2 MoE language models with softmax, 1.5-entmax, sparsemax and 2-normmax, and find that the maps behave very differently once trained: at 1B, entmax discards 30% less probability mass than softmax while almost never dropping a selected expert, sparsemax retains the most mass, and normmax routes 21% of tokens to a single expert. These outcomes are not properties of the maps alone. Each map drops a selected expert only when the gap between the two largest scores reaches a fixed threshold, and the trained routers differ in the score distribution they learn: the entmax router learns scores with roughly half the spread of softmax's, which keeps its top-2 gaps below its threshold, while sparsemax and normmax, which share the same threshold, learn different gap distributions and hence different participation. Routers thus co-adapt their scores to the map, and a map's capacity to produce zeros does not by itself determine expert participation. While none of the sparse maps improves validation loss over softmax, they make the trained models far less sensitive to selecting more experts at inference: sparsemax trained with K=2 loses 0.02 nats when run with K=8, where softmax loses 0.58. Our results indicate that adaptive MoE routing has to be designed around the joint behavior of the probability map and the learned scores, rather than around the map alone.
Abstract:Mixture-of-experts (MoE) routers typically apply softmax to the router scores and keep the top-K experts, making every token use exactly K experts. Sparsity-inducing probability maps such as sparsemax, alpha-entmax and normmax can adaptively assign exact zeros to selected experts, and therefore appear to offer token-dependent expert participation, even when using the same top-K machinery. In this work, we study whether and how this sparsity survives training. We train matched 300M and 1B top-2 MoE language models with softmax, 1.5-entmax, sparsemax and 2-normmax, and find that the maps behave very differently once trained: at 1B, entmax discards 30% less probability mass than softmax while almost never dropping a selected expert, sparsemax retains the most mass, and normmax routes 21% of tokens to a single expert. These outcomes are not properties of the maps alone. Each map drops a selected expert only when the gap between the two largest scores reaches a fixed threshold, and the trained routers differ in the score distribution they learn: the entmax router learns scores with roughly half the spread of softmax's, which keeps its top-2 gaps below its threshold, while sparsemax and normmax, which share the same threshold, learn different gap distributions and hence different participation. Routers thus co-adapt their scores to the map, and a map's capacity to produce zeros does not by itself determine expert participation. While none of the sparse maps improves validation loss over softmax, they make the trained models far less sensitive to selecting more experts at inference: sparsemax trained with K=2 loses 0.02 nats when run with K=8, where softmax loses 0.58. Our results indicate that adaptive MoE routing has to be designed around the joint behavior of the probability map and the learned scores, rather than around the map alone.
22 pages, 6 figures, 9 tables. Under review at ICLR 2027
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.06677 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.06677v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.06677 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 400 words
Related coverage
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
Dropless MoE Training in JAX with Primus-Turbo
AMD · Jun 10, 2026
Accelerating Dropless MoE Training in JAX with NVIDIA Transformer Engine
NVIDIA · Sep 14, 2026
Mixture-of-Experts kernel engineering on Amazon SageMaker AI
AWS · Oct 13, 2026