Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models increase parameter capacity without proportional per-token computation, yet deployment still requires storing the full expert pool, making expert pruning important for reducing memory and serving overhead. Existing task-agnostic expert-pruning methods are typically calibration-dependent: they estimate expert importance from routing or activation statistics on a calibration set, making pruning decisions sensitive to calibration-data variation while introducing substantial preprocessing cost. We propose AIMER (Absolute mean over root mean square IMportance for Expert Ranking), a simple calibration-free criterion that identifies more distinct experts by capturing the concentration pattern of expert weights, making it well suited for task-agnostic expert pruning. Across 7B to 47B MoE language models with distinct architectures and 16 diverse benchmarks, AIMER consistently delivers stronger capability balance across diverse tasks than existing calibration-free methods. Surprisingly, AIMER also achieves better balance than strong calibration-based expert-pruning baselines calibrated on the widely used task-agnostic C4 corpus, while requiring only 0.22--2.06 seconds to score all experts.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Sensitivity of REAP Lasby et al. (2025) to calibration set size on Qwen3-30B at 50% pruning ratio. We fix the calibration corpus to C4 Allen Institute for AI (2024) and vary only the size of the calibration set from 0.5M to 2.1M tokens. The horizontal axis reports calibration tokens in millions (M = million tokens), and the vertical axis reports performance change relative to the 0.5M-token setting (pp = percentage points). Half of the benchmarks show significant variation. Some benchmarks improve while others degrade, showing that performance is highly sensitive to calibration set size even with the same corpus.
Figure 2: Change in expert distinctiveness after pruning. For each model and pruning ratio, we use 4096 C4 tokens to compute pairwise CKA similarities among expert outputs within each layer. Each cell reports the layer-averaged relative decrease in mean CKA after pruning, (CKAall−CKAkept)/CKAall . Positive values indicate that the retained experts are less similar to one another than the original expert pool, i.e., more functionally distinct; negative values indicate increased redundancy among retained experts. AIMER (Ours) yields positive distinctiveness gains in all shown settings and is strongest or near-strongest in most of them.
Method
Data
Act.
Route
Frequency
✓
×
✓
SEER
✓
×
✓
EAN
✓
✓
×
REAP
✓
✓
✓
AIMER (Ours)
×
×
×
Table 1: Comparison of statistics requirements for AIMER and calibration-based baselines. Data = calibration set, Act. = expert activations, and Route = router weights. AIMER ranks experts from pretrained weights alone, so none of these extra signals are required. Red marks required; green marks not required.
Coding
Creative Writing
Math
MC
Rank
Model
Ratio
Method
Eval+
LiveCode
Code Avg
WildBench
GSM8K
MATH-500
Math Avg
MC Avg
Rank Avg
OLMoE
0%
Full
0.341
0.033
0.187
0.444
0.682
0.222
0.452
0.653
N/A
25%
Frequency
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.127
0.033
0.024
0.028
0.560
6.67
SEER
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.141
0.037
0.012
0.025
0.564
6.00
EAN
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.205
0.115
0.006
0.061
0.577
5.50
REAP
0.014
0.000
0.007
0.260
0.202
0.056
0.129
0.588
2.92
Table 2: Expert-pruning results on OLMoE-1B-7B-0125-Instruct (OLMoE) and ERNIE-4.5-21B-A3B-PT (ERNIE). AIMER is compared with calibration-based baselines calibrated on C4 and with calibration-free baselines. It achieves the best rank average in both settings, indicating the strongest overall capability balance.
Coding
Creative Writing
Math
MC
Rank
Model
Ratio
Method
Eval+
LiveCode
Code Avg
WildBench
GSM8K
MATH-500
Math Avg
MC Avg
Rank Avg
DeepSeek
0%
Full
0.549
0.104
0.327
0.418
0.610
0.298
0.454
0.678
N/A
25%
Frequency
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.291
0.023
0.012
0.017
0.602
6.17
SEER
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.155
0.034
0.016
0.025
0.602
6.33
EAN
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.307
0.290
0.018
0.154
0.625
4.00
REAP
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.152
0.242
0.046
0.144
0.640
3.92
Table 3: Expert-pruning results on DeepSeek-V2-Lite-Chat (DeepSeek), Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 (Qwen3), and Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1 (Mixtral). AIMER achieves the best rank average on DeepSeek and Qwen3 and ties for the best rank average on Mixtral, indicating a consistently strong overall capability balance across coding, creative writing, math, and multiple-choice evaluation.
Figure 3: Layer-wise Magnitude and AIMER score profiles across three MoE models. Columns show OLMoE, DeepSeek,ERNIE, and Qwen3. The top row uses Magnitude, and the bottom row uses AIMER. Within each layer, experts are ranked by the corresponding score, and scores are min-max rescaled to [0,1] . The x -axis reports within-layer expert rank, the y -axis reports layer index, and color indicates the rescaled score. Compared with Magnitude, AIMER yields a more separable distribution over experts, making the differences more distinguishable.
Model
Calibration Time
Peak Calibration Memory
Loading Memory (GB) After / Before
REAP
AIMER (Ours)
REAP
AIMER (Ours)
OLMoE-7B
0.75 h
0.22 s
15.51 GB
13.00 GB
6.89 / 12.89
DeepSeek-16B
1.04 h
0.51 s
34.44 GB
29.42 GB
15.86 / 29.27
ERNIE-21B
1.37 h
0.51 s
44.72 GB
40.85 GB
21.67 / 40.66
Qwen3-30B
2.96 h
1.27 s
63.07 GB
57.01 GB
29.93 / 56.92
Mixtral-47B
1.61 h
2.06 s
93.18 GB
92.27 GB
44.99 / 86.99
Table 4: Efficiency comparison between AIMER (Ours) and REAP. All calibration measurements are collected on two NVIDIA L40S 48GB GPUs, except Mixtral, which uses four GPUs. Calibration time and peak calibration memory measure the expert-scoring stage before structural pruning. Loading memory is reported as after / before pruning at 50% pruning ratio. Overall, AIMER incurs substantially lower resource consumption than calibration-based REAP during expert scoring.
Figure 4: Radar plot of Qwen3-30B performance across all benchmarks at 50% pruning ratio. The dashed outline denotes the dense model, and each colored trace corresponds to one pruning method. Higher values indicate better task performance on the corresponding benchmark. Among the pruned models, AIMER encloses the largest area and has a capability profile closer to that of the full model. Additional radar plots for the other settings are provided in Appendix E .
Model
Total params
Experts per layer
Routing sparsity
Shared experts
Dense/MoE layout
OLMoE-1B-7B-0125-Instruct
7B
64
top-8
No
0 dense, 16 MoE layers
DeepSeek-V2-Lite-Chat
16B
64 routed
top-6
Yes (2 shared)
1 dense, 26 MoE layers
ERNIE-4.5-21B-A3B-PT
21B
64 routed
top-6
Yes (2 shared)
1 dense, 27 MoE layers
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
30B
128
top-8
No
0 dense, 48 MoE layers
Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1
47B
8
top-2
No
0 dense, 32 MoE layers
Table 5: Architectural diversity of the evaluated MoE models.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
WildBench
Math
Model
Ratio
Method
WildBench
GSM8K
MATH-500
Math Avg
OLMoE
0%
Full
0.444
0.682
0.222
0.452
25%
Frequency
0.127
0.033
0.024
0.028
SEER
0.141
0.037
0.012
0.025
EAN
0.205
0.115
0.006
0.061
REAP
0.260
0.202
0.056
0.129
Appendix
Table 6: Full benchmark comparison on WildBench and math benchmarks.
Code
Model
Ratio
Method
HumanEval
HumanEval +
MBPP
MBPP +
Eval+
LiveCode
Code Avg
OLMoE
0%
Full
0.354
0.323
0.373
0.312
0.341
0.033
0.187
25%
Frequency
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
SEER
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
EAN
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
REAP
0.012
0.012
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.000
0.007
Appendix
Table 7: Full benchmark comparison on coding benchmarks.
Multiple Choice
Model
Ratio
Method
MMLU
ARC-C
ARC-E
HellaSwag
BoolQ
OpenBookQA
RTE
WinoGrande
MC Avg
OLMoE
0%
Full
0.534
0.490
0.758
0.808
0.766
0.470
0.711
0.684
0.653
25%
Frequency
0.325
0.382
0.582
0.727
0.691
0.416
0.690
0.665
0.560
SEER
0.320
0.388
0.590
0.733
0.694
0.414
0.711
0.661
0.564
EAN
0.347
0.432
0.627
0.748
0.734
0.430
0.632
0.665
0.577
REAP
0.391
0.462
0.685
0.766
0.727
0.448
0.581
0.642
0.588
Appendix
Table 8: Full benchmark comparison on multiple-choice benchmarks.
Model
Ratio
Calibration Data
Method
Code Avg
WildBench
MC Avg
ERNIE
25%
C4
REAP
0.126
0.405
0.685
CodeAlpaca
REAP
0.534
0.352
0.665
CodeAlpaca:C4 = 1:1
REAP
0.520
0.410
0.692
CodeAlpaca:C4 = 1:3
REAP
0.501
0.426
0.692
N/A
AIMER (Ours)
0.455
0.402
0.681
50%
C4
REAP
0.012
0.199
0.592
Appendix
Table 9: Effect of calibration data choice. We report summary performance using C4, CodeAlpaca, and CodeAlpaca–C4 mixtures. All REAP settings use approximately 4.2M calibration tokens; CodeAlpaca denotes Evol-CodeAlpaca-v1.
Figure 5: Radar plot of DeepSeek performance across all benchmarks at 25% pruning.
Figure 6: Radar plots of ERNIE-21B performance across all benchmarks. The left and right panels show 25% and 50% pruning ratios, respectively.
Figure 7: Radar plots of Mixtral performance across all benchmarks. The left and right panels show 25% and 50% pruning ratios, respectively.
Figure 8: Radar plots of Qwen3-30B and OLMoE-7B performance across all benchmarks at 25% pruning. The left and right panels show Qwen3-30B and OLMoE-7B, respectively.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models reduce per-token computation through sparse expert activation, yet deployment still requires storing the full expert pool, making one-shot expert pruning a practical approach for reducing memory usage. Although effective, existing criteria are largely heuristic, and no single criterion is universally optimal. Thus, establishing a principle for selecting pruning criteria suited to different deployment objectives remains an important yet largely underexplored problem in one-shot expert pruning. To this end, we introduce a unified formulation for one-shot MoE expert pruning organized around three factors: routing frequency, gate weighting, and activation strength. The formulation yields a criteria selection principle: task-agnostic pruning should favor routed-token-averaged, gate-free activation-based criteria, whereas task-specific pruning can benefit from retaining routing-frequency and gate-weight information. Beyond this principle, the formulation also provides a systematic view of existing heuristic criteria and gives rise to two new task-agnostic criteria, Mean Activation Norm (MAN) and Mean Squared Activation Norm (MSAN). Across four representative MoE models and 16 diverse benchmarks, MAN and MSAN are consistently strong in the task-agnostic setting, obtain the top-two average ranks, and improve average performance by up to 8.8 points over the strongest baseline.
Zongfang Liu, Jinghui Zhang, Zijian Ma +2
1Zhejiang University · 2Westlake University · 3Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence +1
Sparsely activated Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models contain substantial structured redundancy among routed experts, but pruning them without downstream calibration data remains challenging. Existing expert-pruning methods typically rely on a single aggregated importance score, which can bias the retained set toward experts favored by dominant calibration patterns. We propose Generic TB-Coverage, a coverage-aware expert pruning method that uses only generic text corpora (WikiText2 and C4) for calibration. Instead of collapsing expert utility into one score, our method profiles per-expert utility separately on each corpus and enforces a fixed-budget coverage rule that preserves high-utility experts from each corpus before constructing the final pruning mask. Across Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B and DeepSeek-MoE-16B-Base at 25%, 50%, and 75% retention budgets, our method improves average accuracy on six common zero-shot benchmarks over random pruning, REAP, and ExpertSparsity, while also reducing perplexity degradation on WikiText2 and C4. The gains are largest under aggressive pruning (25% and 50% retain), suggesting that preserving cross-corpus expert coverage is an effective generic-data prior for MoE pruning. Our improvements hold with fixed pruning budgets and no downstream calibration data.
Sparsely-activated Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models achieve remarkable inference efficiency by activating only a small fraction of parameters per token, yet their full expert banks reside in memory at all times, creating a prohibitive deployment bottleneck. Existing structured pruning methods, largely designed for dense transformers, assess expert importance using locally derived heuristics that are blind to the interdependent nature of MoE routing. We introduce MAESTRO (Markov-chain Approximated Expert Sparsification via Transition-based ROuting), a structured pruning framework designed for MoE architectures that models autoregressive expert activation trajectories as Ergodic Markov chains whose stationary distributions encode cross-layer dependencies, yielding a globally aware importance heuristic. Evaluated across five diverse domains including Safety, Bias, and Ethics, MAESTRO outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by up to 10.61% in average performance retention under a strict 50% compression regime, while exhibiting substantially lower cross-task variance, indicating that global, routing-congruent pruning produces models that generalize more consistently across heterogeneous tasks.