In recent years, various methods have been proposed for mesh analysis, each offering distinct advantages and often excelling on different object classes. We present a novel Mixture of Experts (MoE) framework designed to harness the complementary strengths of these diverse approaches. We propose a new gate architecture that encourages each expert to specialise in the classes it excels in. Our design is guided by two key ideas: (1) random walks over the mesh surface effectively capture the regions that individual experts attend to, and (2) an attention mechanism that enables the gate to focus on the areas most informative for each expert's decision-making. To further enhance performance, we introduce a dynamic loss balancing scheme that adjusts a trade-off between diversity and similarity losses throughout the training, where diversity prompts expert specialization, and similarity enables knowledge sharing among the experts. Our framework achieves state-of-the-art results in mesh classification, retrieval, and semantic segmentation tasks. Our code is available at: https://github.com/amirbelder/MME-Mixture-of-Mesh-Experts.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Model. At each iteration ( t ), the expert environment receives a batch of meshes along with a weighting factor ( λt ) that balances the loss terms. It outputs a weight for each expert ( st ) and the batch’s accuracy ( rt ), which are then passed to the agent as input for the next iteration ( t+1 ).
Figure 2: Expert environment. At each iteration t , all experts receive the same batch of meshes and independently produce their predictions. The same meshes are also fed into the random walk extractor, which generates walk-based representations. The extracted random walks are then passed to the Transformer gate as input, which assigns weights to the experts. The experts’ predictions, along with the gate’s weights, are passed to the expert chooser, that selects which expert’s prediction to use for each mesh, specifically, by choosing the one with the highest assigned weight. The similarity loss, weighted by λt , is applied to the experts’ predictions ( V1,…,VJ ), while the diversity loss is applied to the final prediction, Vchosen . The gate’s weightings form the next state ( st ) and the batch’s accuracy forms the next reward ( rt ).
Figure 3: Transformer gate. We zoom into the gate model. The gate’s input is comprised of a random walk which is extracted from a given input mesh. The gate outputs a weight for each of the J experts, which is the key to selecting the prediction of the most suitable expert for the mesh. The gate is comprised of an encoder and a decoder. The encoder processes the walk, and its output serves as input to the decoder. It consist of a single embedding layer followed by 8 Multi-Head Attention (MHA) layers. The decoder outputs a single weight for each expert (leading to an output at the size of J ). It consists of a single embedding layer, followed by 8 MHA layers, and a FC layer at the size of the number of experts ( J ).
Model
3D-Future
ModlNet40
MeshNet [ FFY∗19 ]
64.1%
91.9%
MeshWalker [ LT20 ]
70.2%
92.3%
AttWalk [ BILT22 ]
72.1%
92.5%
MeshNet++ [ SSK21 ]
71.4%
91.6%
WalkFormer [ GHF∗23 ]
-
91.1%
Ensemble
78.0%
92.3%
Table 1: Classification results. In this experiment, we used three experts: MeshWalker, AttWalk, and MeshNet. Our results outperform those of other models and, notably, surpass the individual performance of each expert. It is also more effective than combining these experts using an ensemble approach.
Model
SHREC11
Cube Engraving
MeshWalker [ LT20 ]
97.1%
98.6%
AttWalk [ BILT22 ]
99.7%
-
MeshNet++ [ SSK21 ]
99.8%
98.5%
MeshCNN [ HHF∗19 ]
91.0%
92.2%
GWCNN [ ESKBC17 ]
90.3%
-
PD-MeshNet [ MLR∗20 ]
99.1%
94.4%
Table 2: Classification results. In this experiment, we used three experts: MeshWalker, MeshCNN, and PD-MeshNet. Our results not only outperform those of other models but also exceed the individual performance of each expert and the ensemble.
Method
ShapeNet-Core55
ModelNet40
mAP
NDCG
mAP
AttWalk [ BILT22 ]
81.1%
86.7%
91.2%
MeshWalker [ BILT22 ]
79.2%
84.5%
89.9%
DALN [ SYS∗17 ]
66.3%
76.2%
-
MeshNet [ FFY∗19 ]
70.2%
75.3%
81.9%
Ensemble
84.3%
85.6%
89.2%
Table 3: Retrieval results. In this setting, we use MeshWalker, AttWalk, and MeshNet as expert models. We note that the results of MeshNet on ShapeNet-Core55 are from our own reproduction, as they are not reported in the original paper. Our results outperform those of other models and surpass the individual performance of each expert, as well as the ensemble.
Model
Human body
COSEG
PartNet
Face
Edge
Edge
Face
Edge
MeshWalker
92.7%
94.8%
99.1%
-
-
WalkFormer
-
98.0%
99.4%
-
-
MeshCNN
89.0%
92.3%
98.2%
61.0%
62.1%
MeT
-
93.6%
99.3%
-
-
PD-MeshNet
85.6%
-
96.9%
58.7%
59.8%
Table 4: Semantic segmentation accuracy. In this experiment, we used three experts: MeshFormer, MeshCNN, and PD-MeshNet. Our results outperform those of other models and surpass the individual performance of each expert as well as the ensemble. We note that since the competing methods do not report results on PartNet, we ran their publicly available code to obtain the results used as our expert baselines.
Figure 4: Qualitative results. Body parts are clearly segmented and consistently labeled across poses.
Figure 5: Qualitative results of segmentation (COSEG). Our segmentations closely match the ground truth, whereas PD-MeshNet produces errors on these objects. This is because our model selected MeshCNN as the expert for these cases, rather than PD-MeshNet.
Gate
Classi.
Seg.
Retrieval
2 FC
74.2%
92.0%
83.4%
3D conv. + 2 FC
76.4%
92.2%
84.5%
MeshNet [ FFY∗19 ]
80.0%
92.7%
85.1%
PD-MeshNet [ MLR∗20 ]
81.7%
93.5%
85.5%
MeshWalker [ LT20 ]
83.8%
93.8%
86.9%
AttWalk [ BILT22 ]
84.6%
94.0%
90.5%
Table 5: Different gates. Our method’s gating mechanism achieves the best results compared to other gating alternatives. In this experiment, we evaluated it on 3D-FUTURE classification, Human Body segmentation, and ShapeNet-Core55 retrieval.
Figure 6: λ ’s dynamic value . The value of λ changes dynamically along 3D-FUTURE’s training, transitioning between positive values that promote similarity and negative values that encourage diversity, in order to achieve optimal accuracy.
λ ’s Value
Accuracy
−1
70.1%
0
74.8%
0.01
82.3%
0.1
76.3%
0.5
76.7%
1
77.1%
Table 6: Comparison with static λ values. Our dynamic λ strategy achieves the highest accuracy
Loss
Accuracy
Diversity
82.3%
Diversity + Cosine
84.0%
Diversity + MSE
82.9%
Diversity + KLD (Ours)
86.1%
Table 7: Accuracy with different losses. KLD as the similarity loss achieves the highest accuracy, outperforming alternative similarity losses and diversity-only training.
Class
Accuracy
Expert choice
AttWalk
MeshWalker
MeshNet
Armchair
87.6%
78.3%
70.7%
90.9% AttWalk
Bar stool
74.6%
83.2%
64.8%
80.0% MeshWalker
Kids Bed
70.5%
68.3%
80.2%
91.7% MeshNet
Table 8: Expert selection at inference. Each expert excelled on different classes (3D-FUTURE): AttWalk on Armchair, MeshWalker on Bar stool, and MeshNet [ FFY∗19 ] on Kids Bed. During inference the gate selected the best model for each class, e.g. AttWalk’s classification for 90.9% of the Armchair.
Class
AttWalk (Armchair)
MeshWalker (Bar stool)
MeshNet (Kids Bed)
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
Armchair
80.4%
87.6%
79.4%
78.3%
71.5%
70.7%
Bar stool
76.1%
74.6%
75.2%
83.2%
66.0%
64.8%
Kids Bed
71.7%
70.5%
69.3%
68.3%
72.7%
80.2%
Table 9: Individual improvement. Our MoE training process improves each expert’s performance on its designated classes; as expected, the performance of the other experts on those classes correspondingly decreases.
Experts
Accuracy
AttWalk [ BILT22 ]
72.1%
3 AttWalk
83.3%
MeshWalker [ LT20 ]
70.2%
3 MeshWalker
82.9%
MeshNet [ FFY∗19 ]
64.1%
3 MeshNet
75.6%
Table 10: Comparison of homogeneous and heterogeneous configurations. While multiple identical experts can still specialise and improve performance, the heterogeneous setting yields the best results due to architectural diversity.
Mixture-of-experts models use input-dependent routing to activate specialized subnetworks, increasing model capacity without running every parameter for each input.
Mixture-of-experts (MoE) models have become an important approach for scaling model parameters. Modern MoE architectures increasingly combine two design choices: fine-grained expert segmentation and shared experts. The former increases expressiveness by enabling more expert combinations at a fixed activation ratio, and the latter introduces experts that are active for every token. We identify an exploration dilemma between these designs: shared experts can make routing less exploratory by reducing the variability of token representations. This conflicts with the greater need for exploration induced by fine-grained expert segmentation due to the combinatorially enlarged routing space. Consequently, the additional expressiveness offered by fine-grained segmentation may not be fully realized in practice. MirrorMoE is proposed to reconcile this exploration dilemma by shrinking the exploration space through token-adaptive suppression of unnecessary experts. MirrorMoE consistently improves performance across model scales.
Bingcong Li, Hao Ma, Michael Muehlebach +2
ETH Zurich · The University of Hong Kong · Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems +1
The Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model uses a set of expert networks that specialize on subsets of a dataset under the supervision of a gating network. A common issue in MoE architectures is ``expert collapse'' where overlapping class boundaries in the raw input feature space cause multiple experts to learn redundant representations, thus forcing the gating network into rigid routing to compensate. We propose an enhanced MoE architecture that utilizes a feature extractor network optimized using Soft Nearest Neighbor Loss (SNNL) prior to feeding input features to the gating and expert networks. By pre-conditioning the latent space to minimize distances among class-similar data points, we resolve structural expert collapse which results to experts learning highly orthogonal weights. We employ Expert Specialization Entropy and Pairwise Embedding Similarity to quantify this dynamic. We evaluate our experimental approach across four benchmark image classification datasets (MNIST, FashionMNIST, CIFAR10, and CIFAR100), and we show our SNNL-augmented MoE models demonstrate structurally diverse experts which allow the gating network to adopt a more flexible routing strategy. This paradigm significantly improves classification accuracy on the FashionMNIST, CIFAR10, and CIFAR100 datasets.
Neural Architecture Search (NAS) has so far rarely been applied to Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models, and existing MoE designs leave the alignment between experts and the structure of the data to emerge on its own. We propose an architecture search framework that makes this alignment an explicit search variable: the assignment of data clusters to experts is optimised jointly with the per-expert architectures. We cast the joint problem as a cluster-aware likelihood maximisation, show that it coincides with the incomplete-data maximum likelihood of a latent-variable mixture, and solve it by a generalised Expectation-Maximisation procedure whose otherwise intractable expert-quality term is supplied by an adaptively refined surrogate. We prove that the iterates converge whenever the surrogate errors are summable, and that at every limit point no candidate the search produces improves the true objective. On a heterogeneous image-classification mixture the method recovers the underlying domain partition on 95% of clusters without ever observing domain labels, and on that benchmark and a four-domain time-series forecasting one alike it outperforms the MoE and NAS baselines that likewise use no label information.