Complete-muE: Optimal Hyperparameter Transfer and Scaling for MoE Models

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models expand model capacity without a proportional increase in training compute, but increasing sparsity makes reliable hyperparameter transfer challenging. In this work, we show that conventional hyperparameter scaling laws are insufficient for ultra-sparse MoEs: the optimal learning rate and batch size vary with activation ratio, and these shifts cannot be explained by either total or activated parameter count alone. To characterize this dependence, we conduct 1,800 pre-training runs spanning six activated-parameter scales and models with up to 6B total non-embedding parameters, processing approximately 20 trillion tokens at a cost of 200,000 equivalent H800 GPU-hours. Our results reconcile conflicting findings in prior work by revealing two scaling regimes. At fixed sparsity, the optimal batch size follows a power-law relationship with training tokens $D$, whereas the optimal learning rate scales with training compute $C$ and remains robust to the allocation between model size and data. Across sparsity levels, the activation ratio $A$ enters both relationships as an additional multiplicative power-law factor. These observations lead to unified hyperparameter scaling laws that transfer across MoE sparsity levels. Large-scale evaluation shows that the scaling form outperforms alternative functional forms. On a held-out ultra-sparse MoE with 12B total parameters and only 1/64 of its experts activated, the predicted hyperparameters remain close to the observed optima, supporting joint extrapolation across model scale and sparsity. Further experiments demonstrate transfer across expert granularities and isolate the effect of activation ratio from that of total expert count.

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.

We study dense and mixture-of-experts (MoE) transformers in a tiny-scale pretraining regime under a shared LLaMA-style decoder training recipe. The sparse model replaces dense feed-forward blocks with Mixtral-style routed experts. Dense baselines are modestly width-resized to tightly match either active or total parameter budgets, while tokenizer, data, optimizer, schedule, depth, context length, normalization style, and evaluation protocol are held fixed. Our best sparse recipe uses four experts, top-2 routing, Switch-style load balancing, and router z-loss. In a three-seed full-data comparison, the dense active-match model reaches 1.6545 +/- 0.0012 best validation loss, the MoE reaches 1.5788 +/- 0.0020, and the dense total-match model reaches 1.5608 +/- 0.0025. This yields a matched-active gap of 0.0758 +/- 0.0021 in the MoE's favor and a matched-total gap of 0.0180 +/- 0.0020 in the dense model's favor. Across training, the matched-active advantage grows while the matched-total dense advantage narrows sharply. In this sub-25M-parameter regime, MoE therefore improves validation loss under active-parameter matching but does not surpass dense training at equal total stored capacity.