Beyond Routing: Characterising Expert Tuning and Representation in Vision Mixture-of-Experts

Mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures increase model capacity by combining a collection of expert predictors through input-dependent routing, while often activating only a small subset of experts for each input. Despite their growing importance in modern large-scale models, the statistical roles of their design choices, especially routing, sparse activation, and shared experts, remain only partially understood, as existing theory has largely focused on parametric or correctly specified MoE models. In this paper, we view MoE as a form of localized aggregation and show how this localization reshapes the approximation-estimation-computation tradeoff. We derive oracle risk bounds for learning dense and sparse routing with evolving experts, separating approximation, expert-learning, and router-estimation errors, and characterize how sparse Top-K routing can retain the benefits of localized aggregation while controlling per-input computation. We also interpret gating through the geometry of input space, relating routing performance to regions of local expert advantage, and show how shared experts, as adopted in architectures such as DeepSeekMoE, can extract common predictive structure so that routed experts focus on residual local variation. Together, these results provide a unified statistical framework for understanding MoE through input-dependent expert aggregation, in which expert specialization and computational tradeoffs are governed by local predictive structure.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) networks promise favorable accuracy-compute trade-offs, yet practical vision deployments are hindered by expert collapse and limited end-to-end efficiency gains. We study when sparse top-$k$ routing with hard capacity constraints helps in vision classification, evaluated under multi-seed protocols on four benchmarks (CIFAR-10/100, Tiny-ImageNet, ImageNet-1K). We observe a \emph{compute-leverage pattern}: positive accuracy gaps require a substantial fraction $ρ$ of total FLOPs to be routed; at ImageNet scale this is necessary but not sufficient, as multi-expert routing ($k \geq 2$) is additionally required. Two controlled experiments isolate these factors. A hidden-size sweep on CIFAR-10 yields both predicted sign reversals across standard and depthwise backbones, ruling out backbone family as the active variable. An ImageNet-1K ablation that varies only top-$k$ -- holding architecture, initialization, and $ρ$ fixed -- reverses the gap from positive to negative across all five seeds. A per-sample variant of Soft MoE that softmaxes over experts rather than the batch rescues CIFAR-100 above the dense baseline, identifying batch-axis dispatch as the dominant failure mode in per-sample CNN settings. Code and aggregate results: https://github.com/libophd/sparse-moe-vision-rho.

Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) language models route each token to multiple experts, suggesting a geometric account of their benefit: co-selected experts should contribute distinct representation directions. Existing evidence often conflates route coherence, candidate quality, and candidate-by-context interaction. We distinguish these quantities using an Expert Subspace Separation Index (ESSI), matched-route residuals, and a prefix-controlled $2\times2$ factorial; frozen-route interventions and a controlled Top-$k$ study assess functional value. Three paired contrasts organize the findings. First, across six MoE architectures, expert subspaces overlap substantially, yet actual routes explain token representations better than matched alternatives. Second, across the 39 factorial cells in OLMoE, Mixtral, and DeepSeek, the selected candidate explains more of the residual representation than the strongest unselected rival in every cell, yet the actual prefix narrows this advantage throughout: all interactions are negative, and every 95% confidence interval lies below zero. Third, this geometric narrowing does not imply functional redundancy: adding later experts improves next-token prediction in 24 of 39 frozen-route comparisons, while the other 15 estimates are inconclusive; a controlled training study also favors Top-2 over Top-1 in all three seeds. We call this joint pattern coherent overlap: routing selects token-relevant experts from a shared geometric neighborhood, while useful multi-expert computation persists without disjoint linear coverage. Separating these quantities clarifies why geometric similarity alone cannot determine redundancy or pruning value.