analiza aiqbench
The paper treats the gate scale of surviving experts as the biggest lever in training-free MoE pruning, and it shows that renormalizing gates can cost 0.8 to 8.5 points on routers trained without top-k renormalization. Its proposed "tilted novice" operator adds about 1.2 to 1.8% parameters and improves on MoNE's constant replacement at 50% pruning, but no single operator wins across all models. For practitioners, the results suggest that pruning benchmarks can hinge on implicit implementation choices and that evaluation domain (multiple-choice vs. GSM8K or code) can change conclusions.
What We Keep of What We Forget: Replacement Operators and Routing Semantics in Training-Free MoE Expert Pruning
arXiv:2610.41366v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training-free expert pruning makes two decisions: which experts to remove, and what the layer computes when its router still selects a removed expert. Published methods change both at once. Holding the mask fixed, we compare replacement operators from three families on OLMoE, DeepSeek-V2-Lite and Moonlight, with Granite as a fourth router, using paired, multiplicity-corrected tests. The largest effect is a choice usually left implicit: the survivors' gate scale. On routers trained without top-k renormalization, renormalizing the survivors' gates, a common implementation choice, costs 0.8-8.5 points and reverses whether rerouting beats MoNE's mean-output replacement; on two routers trained with renormalization, the trained scale wins at 50% pruning. We introduce the tilted novice, a closed-form low-rank map of the pruned expert's input whose rank-0 case is MoNE's constant. At 50% pruning it adds 1.2-1.8% parameters and gains 3.45 and 1.37 points over the constant on OLMoE and Moonlight, stable across calibration draws and largely unchanged by 4- and 3-bit quantization. No operator dominates: trained-scale rerouting is best on DeepSeek-V2-Lite, and a partial copy of each pruned expert is statistically indistinguishable from the tilted novice on two models. Evaluation can change conclusions: at 25% pruning MoNE's constant keeps 92-97% of dense multiple-choice accuracy but only 5-65% of GSM8K and 0-17% of code scores, and the calibration domain moves the mask 4-9 times more than resampling. We propose a five-item reporting checklist.
Abstract:Training-free expert pruning makes two decisions: which experts to remove, and what the layer computes when its router still selects a removed expert. Published methods change both at once. Holding the mask fixed, we compare replacement operators from three families on OLMoE, DeepSeek-V2-Lite and Moonlight, with Granite as a fourth router, using paired, multiplicity-corrected tests. The largest effect is a choice usually left implicit: the survivors' gate scale. On routers trained without top-k renormalization, renormalizing the survivors' gates, a common implementation choice, costs 0.8-8.5 points and reverses whether rerouting beats MoNE's mean-output replacement; on two routers trained with renormalization, the trained scale wins at 50% pruning. We introduce the tilted novice, a closed-form low-rank map of the pruned expert's input whose rank-0 case is MoNE's constant. At 50% pruning it adds 1.2-1.8% parameters and gains 3.45 and 1.37 points over the constant on OLMoE and Moonlight, stable across calibration draws and largely unchanged by 4- and 3-bit quantization. No operator dominates: trained-scale rerouting is best on DeepSeek-V2-Lite, and a partial copy of each pruned expert is statistically indistinguishable from the tilted novice on two models. Evaluation can change conclusions: at 25% pruning MoNE's constant keeps 92-97% of dense multiple-choice accuracy but only 5-65% of GSM8K and 0-17% of code scores, and the calibration domain moves the mask 4-9 times more than resampling. We propose a five-item reporting checklist.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.41366 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.41366v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.41366 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 326 cuvinte