LightMoE: Reducing Mixture-of-Experts Redundancy through Expert Replacing
Authors: Jiawei Hao, Zhiwei Hao, Jianyuan Guo, Li Shen, Yong Luo, Han Hu, Dan Zeng
Organizations: School of Information and Electronics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China · Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Shenzhen Campus of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China · School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China · School of Communication and Information Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) based Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance and computational efficiency. However, their deployment is often constrained by substantial memory demands, primarily due to the need to load numerous expert modules. While existing expert compression techniques like pruning or merging attempt to mitigate this, they often suffer from irreversible knowledge loss or high training overhead. In this paper, we propose a novel expert compression paradigm termed expert replacing, which replaces redundant experts with parameter-efficient modules and recovers their capabilities with low training costs. We find that even a straightforward baseline of this paradigm yields promising performance. Building on this foundation, we introduce LightMoE, a framework that enhances the paradigm by introducing adaptive expert selection, hierarchical expert construction, and an annealed recovery strategy. Experimental results show that LightMoE matches the performance of LoRA fine-tuning at a 30% compression ratio. Even under a more aggressive 50% compression rate, it outperforms existing methods and achieves average performance improvements of 5.6% across five diverse tasks. These findings demonstrate that LightMoE strikes a superior balance among memory efficiency, training efficiency, and model performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Performance comparison across different compression ratios on the Math task. While the directly replacing strategy performs comparably to MC-SMoE, both suffer from significant performance degradation, particularly at higher compression ratios
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed LightMoE framework. ( Left ) A standard MoE layer. ( Right ) The LightMoE workflow, comprising three key steps: (1) scoring experts and selecting those with lower scores as compression candidates, (2) grouping the selected candidates, and (3) replacing each group with a shared base augmented with lightweight, expert-specific adaptation parameters.
Figure 3: Analysis of expert importance in OLMoE-1B-7B-SFT.
Math
Code
Commonsense
Specialized Tasks
Ratio
Methods
# Params
GSM8K
HumanEval
8 Sub-Tasks
Intent
Translation
Average
0%
Original
-
49.3
55.0
60.6
9.8
13.6
37.7
0%
Full FT
6.92B
61.2
49.7
54.2
79.2
37.1
56.3
0%
LoRA
0.45B
59.8
54.2
61.4
73.0
29.2
55.5
MoBE
0.45B
52.9
41.3
58.3
69.4
30.3
50.4
HC-SMoE
0.45B
40.6
41.7
55.5
64.0
32.4
46.8
Table 1: Main performance comparison across methods and tasks at different compression ratios. ‘*’ indicates the full method as described in the original paper. “# Params” is the number of trainable parameters. Best results are shown in bold and second-best results are underlined . Our method LightMoE consistently achieves good performance among all tasks under different compression settings.
Ratio
Selection Methods
Math
Code
GSM8K
HumanEval
30%
Uniform
58.1
55.1
Average
59.4
55.5
Adaptive
59.7
55.7
50%
Uniform
57.1
47.9
Average
54.6
43.0
Table 2: Comparison of different experts selection methods for LightMoE on the Math and Code tasks. Our adaptive thresholding method can select the most appropriate experts for replacing, adapting to different compression ratios.
Ratio
K-means
Dominant (Ours)
30%
60.0
59.7
40%
56.1
57.9
50%
54.9
56.1
Table 3: Comparison of expert grouping strategies for OLMoE on the Math task at different compression ratios.
Figure 4: Comparison of different end ratios for LightMoE on the Math task. Directly replacing (blue points) is consistently sub-optimal, which shows the effectiveness of our annealed expert replacement strategy (red points).
Figure 5: Comparison of different ranks at different compression ratios on the Math task.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Math
Code
Common.
Specialized Tasks
Ratio
Methods
# Params
GSM8K
HumanEval
8 Sub-Tasks
Intent
Translation
Average
0%
Original
-
3.0
53.9
61.8
0.0
12.2
26.2
0%
LoRA
0.96B
38.9
58.0
62.3
81.0
19.9
52.0
MoBE
0.96B
54.3
47.7
59.7
80.2
27.0
53.8
HC-SMoE
0.96B
36.8
51.6
57.8
75.8
26.9
49.8
MC-SMoE
0.96B
48.4
53.7
57.0
60.6
26.8
49.3
Appendix
Table 4: Performance comparison on DeepSeek model across methods and tasks at different compression ratios.
Ratio
Number of Tokens
213
215
217
219
30%
57.4
59.1
59.7
59.6
40%
55.1
56.6
57.9
58.4
50%
53.9
54.5
56.1
56.3
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation study on the impact of sample size on OLMoE performance.
Ratio
Clipping Range maxΔ
0
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
∞
30%
58.1
59.4
59.7
59.7
59.3
58.6
58.6
50%
57.1
55.6
55.8
56.1
54.1
54.3
54.3
Appendix
Table 6: Sensitivity analysis of the clipping range parameter maxΔ for OLMoE on the Math task.
Figure 6: Comparison of different group sizes at different compression ratios for OLMoE on the Math task.
Figure 7: Comparison of different annealing schedules. The dashed line represents the linear decay strategy, while solid lines depict exponential decay strategies with varying γ . All schedules converge to zero at the end ratio ϵ .
Ratio
Linear
Exponential Decay
γ=1.0
γ=3.0
γ=5.0
30%
59.7
59.8
59.6
58.7
40%
57.9
56.1
58.2
58.4
50%
56.1
54.5
54.4
56.0
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of linear and exponential annealing schedules for OLMoE on the Math task.
Ratio
Total
Memory
MoE Active
Latency
Params
Usage
Params
(ms/token)
0%
6.92 B
12.89 GB
0.81 B
8.09
30%
4.82 B
9.09 GB
0.77 B
8.71
40%
4.14 B
7.85 GB
0.73 B
8.32
50%
3.47 B
6.63 GB
0.70 B
8.01
Appendix
Table 8: Inference efficiency comparison on the Math task under different compression ratios.
Figure 8: Training loss trajectories of LightMoE versus the Directly Replacing baseline on the Math task with OLMoE at a 50% compression ratio.
Ratio
Avg #
Base Threshold p^
(%)
Exp.
Math
Code
Common.
Intent
Trans.
Model: OLMoE-1B-7B-SFT
30
≈ 24
0.110
0.095
0.185
0.055
0.036
40
≈ 31
0.180
0.159
0.275
0.098
0.059
50
≈ 38
0.268
0.240
0.382
0.168
0.092
Model: DeepSeek-V2-Lite
Appendix
Table 9: Base threshold p^ settings calibrated for OLMoE and DeepSeek models. The average number of selected experts per layer (Avg # Exp.) corresponds to the target compression ratio.
Mixture-of-Experts language models use input-dependent routing to activate a small subset of expert networks, increasing capacity without proportional compute.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models enable efficient scaling of large language models but face critical deployment challenges due to massive memory requirements. Existing pruning methods either incur prohibitive search costs or neglect the dynamic interdependencies between experts. To address these challenges, we present OMP-MoE, a novel training-free compression framework for reducing expert redundancy in MoE-based LLMs. Based on observations of expert contribution patterns, we reformulate the pruning problem as a sparse signal reconstruction task solved through Orthogonal Matching Pursuit. Specifically, our method first treats individual expert contributions as dictionary atoms and selects experts that greedily minimize reconstruction error with linear computational complexity. Then, we optimize cross-layer expert allocation through a water-filling strategy that accounts for both reconstruction quality and routing stability. Finally, we introduce OMP-MoE†, an adaptive inference mechanism that dynamically adjusts expert activation based on energy prediction. Comprehensive experiments on Qwen, DeepSeek-V2, GPT-OSS, and Mixtral MoE demonstrate consistent improvements over existing methods at 25-50% pruning ratios. For Qwen3-30B-A3B at 50% compression, we retain 93.3% of original performance, achieving 33× faster search and 1.55× inference speedup. Codes will be available after acceptance.
Dezhi Li, Lujun Li, Qiyuan Zhu +4
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models have shown strong potential in scaling language models efficiently by activating only a small subset of experts per input. However, their widespread deployment remains limited due to the high memory overhead associated with storing all expert parameters, particularly as the number of experts increases. To address this challenge, prior works have explored expert dropping and merging strategies, yet they often suffer from performance drop at high compression ratios. In this paper, we introduce PuzzleMoE, a training-free MoE compression method that achieves both high accuracy and efficient inference through two key innovations: First, PuzzleMoE performs sparse expert merging by identifying element-wise weight redundancy and specialization. It uses a dual-mask to capture both shared and expert-specific parameters. Second, to avoid the overhead of storing binary masks and signs, PuzzleMoE introduces a bit-packed encoding scheme that reuses underutilized exponent bits, enabling efficient MoE inference on GPUs. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PuzzleMoE can compress MoE models by up to 50% while maintaining accuracy across various tasks. Specifically, it outperforms prior MoE compression methods by up to 16.7% on MMLU at 50% compression ratio, and achieves up to 1.28\times inference speedup.
Yushu Zhao, Zheng Wang, Minjia Zhang
1Tsinghua University · †Work done while intern at UIUC. · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) large language models (LLMs) are among the top-performing architectures. The largest models, often with hundreds of billions of parameters, pose significant memory challenges for deployment. Traditional approaches to reduce memory requirements include weight pruning and quantization. Motivated by the Router-weighted Expert Activation Pruning (REAP) that prunes experts, we propose a novel method, Router-weighted Expert Activation Merging (REAM). Instead of removing experts, REAM groups them and merges their weights, better preserving original performance. We evaluate REAM against REAP and other baselines across multiple MoE LLMs on diverse multiple-choice (MC) question answering and generative (GEN) benchmarks. Our results reveal a trade-off between MC and GEN performance that depends on the mix of calibration data. By controlling the mix of general, math and coding data, we examine the Pareto frontier of this trade-off and show that REAM often outperforms the baselines and in many cases is comparable to the original uncompressed models.
Saurav Jha, Maryam Hashemzadeh, Ali Saheb Pasand +3
Mila – Quebec AI Institute · Polytechnique Montréal · Université de Montréal +3