SPARKLING: Balancing Signal Preservation and Symmetry Breaking for Width-Progressive Learning

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models offer a powerful way to scale model size without increasing compute, as per-token FLOPs depend only on k active experts rather than the total pool of E experts. Yet, this asymmetry creates an MoE efficiency paradox in practice: adding more experts balloons memory and communication costs, making actual training inefficient. We argue that this bottleneck arises in part because current MoE training allocates too many experts from the beginning, even though early-stage data may not fully utilize such capacity. Motivated by this, we propose EMO, a simple progressive training framework that treats MoE capacity as expandable memory and grows the expert pool over the course of training. EMO explicitly models sparsity in scaling law to derive stage-wise compute-optimal token budgets for progressive expansion. Empirical results show that EMO matches the performance of a fixed-expert setup in large-scale experiments while improving wall-clock efficiency. It offers a surprisingly simple yet effective path to scalable MoE training, preserving the benefits of large expert pools while reducing both training time and GPU cost.

We introduce a model for neural scaling laws under sparse activations. In the model, test loss is often dominated by rare coordinates that are never observed in the training input. This mechanism induces a novel bottleneck absent from dense models. We derive the asymptotic population loss in both the underparameterized and overparameterized regimes, and show that the loss exhibits a double-descent peak near the interpolation threshold -- where the number of parameters is just sufficient to fit the training data -- resulting in a loss curve governed by two distinct scaling exponents -- one for the overparameterized regime and one for the underparameterized regime -- with a gap determined by the degree of sparsity. Additionally, we derive a compute-optimal frontier that favors increasing dataset size over model capacity under fixed compute budgets. We also analyze gradient-descent dynamics and identify a scaling law for the probability that fixed-step gradient descent becomes unstable. We further show that the sparsity-induced effect persists under nonlinear activations.

Recent frontier large language models predominantly rely on Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures. Despite empirical progress, there is still no principled understanding of how hyperparameters should scale with network width $N$, expert width $N_e$, number of experts $M$, sparsity $K$, and depth $L$ to ensure both stability and optimal performance at scale. We take a principled step toward resolving this gap by analyzing three different scaling regimes: (I) co-scaling $N\asymp N_e$, (II) co-scaling $N\asymp M\asymp K$, and (III) full proportional scaling of $N, N_e, M$, and $K$. For each regime, we develop a novel Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT) description of the limiting training dynamics of MoEs that provides a formal foundation for our analysis. Within this framework, we derive the unique parameterization for SGD and Adam satisfying all maximal-update ($μ$) desiderata. We then show that the resulting $μ$P prescription does not reliably induce monotonic improvement with scale or robust learning-rate transfer. We trace these pathologies to scale-dependent observables in the aggregation dynamics, which motivates a refined set of desiderata that we term maximal scale stability. Guided by this principle, we derive a Maximally Scale-Stable Parameterization (MSSP) for both SGD and Adam in all three scaling regimes, and characterize the corresponding limiting dynamics - qualitatively distinct from the $μ$P limit - through a separate DMFT analysis. Experiments verify that MSSP robustly recovers learning rate transfer and monotonic improvement with scale across regimes. Combined with existing depth-scaling theory, these results provide a complete scaling prescription for MoE architectures as a function of width, depth, expert width, and number of experts.