analiza aiqbench
This empirical study demonstrates that fine-grained Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models exhibit significant redundancy, allowing uniform retention of roughly two-thirds of selected experts to preserve nearly 99% of performance while delivering a 1.2–1.7x speedup. The research reveals that complex dynamic allocation strategies offer minimal gains under conservative pruning budgets but become valuable only in aggressive scenarios, particularly for generative tasks where degradation is sharpest. These findings provide critical deployment insights by establishing clear thresholds for when the overhead of dynamic expert selection outweighs its benefits.
You Only Need 2/3 of the Chosen Experts: An Empirical Study of Dynamic Expert Pruning in Fine-Grained MoE LLMs
arXiv:2609.25809v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fine-grained mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures have become a mainstream design for open-weight LLMs, with hundreds of experts and increasingly many selected per token. This shift makes dynamic expert pruning an attractive route to cheaper inference. Yet existing evidence comes largely from coarser architectures and likelihood-scored multiple-choice benchmarks, leaving three central questions open in the fine-grained regime: how redundant per-token expert selection is, how effectively existing pruning methods exploit that redundancy, and what governs a model's sensitivity to pruning. We fill this gap with a systematic empirical study of twelve fine-grained MoE checkpoints spanning nine architecture families, with a core suite of eleven benchmarks covering knowledge QA, mathematics, code generation, and general reasoning. We find that expert selection is far more redundant than the field's operating points assume: uniformly retaining about two thirds of the selected experts preserves 98.8% of unpruned performance on average, requiring only a one-integer change and delivering 1.2-1.7x measured speedup across two serving backends. This simple baseline leaves little room for dynamic allocation at conservative budgets: even the best published rules differ from it by under 1% at matched expert budgets. Their value emerges under aggressive pruning, where the best rules recover up to 3.0% over uniform truncation, with gains concentrated in the generative tasks that suffer the sharpest degradation. Sensitivity to aggressive pruning also depends on the model: larger and thinking models are more resilient, whereas multimodal models are more vulnerable. Together, these findings reveal how much expert computation fine-grained MoEs can dispense with, and establish when dynamic allocation earns its complexity, informing both practical deployment and future pruning methods.
Abstract:Fine-grained mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures have become a mainstream design for open-weight LLMs, with hundreds of experts and increasingly many selected per token. This shift makes dynamic expert pruning an attractive route to cheaper inference. Yet existing evidence comes largely from coarser architectures and likelihood-scored multiple-choice benchmarks, leaving three central questions open in the fine-grained regime: how redundant per-token expert selection is, how effectively existing pruning methods exploit that redundancy, and what governs a model's sensitivity to pruning. We fill this gap with a systematic empirical study of twelve fine-grained MoE checkpoints spanning nine architecture families, with a core suite of eleven benchmarks covering knowledge QA, mathematics, code generation, and general reasoning. We find that expert selection is far more redundant than the field's operating points assume: uniformly retaining about two thirds of the selected experts preserves 98.8% of unpruned performance on average, requiring only a one-integer change and delivering 1.2-1.7x measured speedup across two serving backends. This simple baseline leaves little room for dynamic allocation at conservative budgets: even the best published rules differ from it by under 1% at matched expert budgets. Their value emerges under aggressive pruning, where the best rules recover up to 3.0% over uniform truncation, with gains concentrated in the generative tasks that suffer the sharpest degradation. Sensitivity to aggressive pruning also depends on the model: larger and thinking models are more resilient, whereas multimodal models are more vulnerable. Together, these findings reveal how much expert computation fine-grained MoEs can dispense with, and establish when dynamic allocation earns its complexity, informing both practical deployment and future pruning methods.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.25809 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.25809v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.25809 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 · 360 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · 11 iul. 2026