Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) scales language models by routing each input through a small set of independently parameterized experts. We show that copying this design into convolutional networks fails for a structural reason: parallel convolutional experts that read the same input channels learn nearly identical filters. We therefore move the expert axis from operator duplication to channel selection. We introduce Mixture of Channel Experts (MoCE), a structured sparse channel-mixing layer, inspired by MoE, that replaces pointwise (1x1) channel-reduction projections. In MoCE, an expert is a single output channel with a learned sparse support of k << C input channels. The selected channels are combined by a softmax whose temperature is predicted per input, so each expert can move between mean-like and max-like aggregation. A residual expert summarizes the unselected channels, and a load-balancing loss keeps channel coverage complete. MoCE replaces a dense projection whose cost is quadratic in C with a mechanism whose relative cost scales as k/C, and the predicted savings hold in measured wall-clock time. Across ResNet backbones on ImageNet-1K and CIFAR-100, transfer learning, EfficientViT, and a strong modern training recipe, MoCE matches or exceeds dense baselines and prior channel-selection methods while reducing MACs by 16.7% and end-to-end latency.
Figure 2: MoCE layer. E−1 routed experts over learned static supports, plus one residual aggregate.
MACs (G)
Params (M)
Backbone
Dense
MoCE
Dense
MoCE (tr./dep.)
ResNet-50
4.112
3.426
25.56
25.55 / 21.26
ResNet-101
7.834
6.288
44.55
44.52 / 35.83
ResNet-152
11.559
9.156
60.19
60.15 / 47.84
Table 1: Cost and storage, accounted as in Sec. 3.5 : MACs are network totals with each replaced projection counted as [(E−1)k+2C]HW under the conservative bound ∣U∣=C . MoCE parameters are training/deployment counts of learned values.
Model
Params (M)
MACs (G)
Top-1 (%)
ResNet-50
25.56
4.112
75.98 ± 0.30
+ MoCE
25.55 / 21.26
3.426
76.71 ± 0.20
ResNet-101
44.55
7.834
77.21 ± 0.29
+ MoCE
44.52 / 35.83
6.288
77.54 ± 0.19
ResNet-152
60.19
11.559
77.78 ± 0.43
+ MoCE
60.15 / 47.84
9.156
78.24 ± 0.12
Table 2: ImageNet-1K; accuracies are mean ± standard deviation over three seeds. MoCE parameters are training/deployment counts of learned values; deployment additionally stores packed support indices ( ≈60 KB for ResNet-50).
Method
Params (M)
MACs (G)
Top-1 (%)
Dense
25.56
4.112
75.98 ± 0.30
SE
28.07
4.120
76.64 ± 0.19
CondConv
55.97
4.150
76.52 ± 0.24
Pick-or-Mix
25.56
3.178
76.25 ± 0.26
MoCE
25.55 / 21.26
3.426
76.71 ± 0.20
Table 3: Matched ResNet-50 comparison on ImageNet-1K. MoCE parameters are training/deployment counts of learned values.
From scratch
Transfer
Model
MACs
C-100
MACs
C-10
C-100
ResNet-50
1.305
78.44 ± .32
4.11
97.52 ± .10
85.44 ± .20
+ MoCE
1.081
79.35 ± .35
3.43
97.76 ± .12
86.47 ± .27
ResNet-101
2.520
78.93 ± .32
7.83
97.80 ± .11
87.50 ± .11
+ MoCE
2.015
79.53 ± .19
6.29
98.06 ± .13
88.11 ± .10
ResNet-152
3.737
79.40 ± .27
11.56
97.88 ± .06
88.36 ± .16
Table 4: CIFAR-100 from scratch (left) and ImageNet → CIFAR transfer (right); three seeds.
Model
Params (M)
MACs (G)
Top-1 (%)
EfficientViT-M5
12.13
0.526
75.56 ± 0.23
+ MoCE
12.11
0.410
75.95 ± 0.17
EfficientViT-M3
6.61
0.265
75.12 ± 0.10
+ MoCE
6.60
0.210
75.20 ± 0.05
EfficientViT-M2
3.99
0.204
74.61 ± 0.39
+ MoCE
3.98
0.167
74.75 ± 0.21
Table 5: MoCE in EfficientViT on CIFAR-100 ( k=64 , second feed-forward projection, s=2 ), three seeds. Parameter counts are training-time; the deployment packing reported for ResNet is not applied here.
Setting
Top-1 (%)
Routing + gather
Where input dependence is applied (CIFAR-100)
MoCE: adaptive mixing, static support
79.35
1.9 ms
Input-conditioned support (Eq. 11 )
79.38
13.5 ms
Static mixing ( τ≡1 , L learnable)
78.16
1.9 ms
No residual aggregate
78.61
–
Support design (CIFAR-100)
Table 6: Ablations on ResNet-50; all entries are single runs. Components, support design, and temperature bounds on CIFAR-100; sparsity k and coverage weight λ on ImageNet-1K. Timings cover the inference-time routing and gather path only.
Scope
Dense
PiX
MoCE
MoCE/Dense
End-to-end
133.12
127.30
127.00
0.954
All replaced ops
19.63
15.82
15.60
0.795
Reduce 3.0
2.093
1.375
1.282
0.613
Reduce 4.0
2.116
0.802
0.701
0.331
Table 7: FP32 batch time (ms), batch 512 , ResNet-50 eval mode; medians after warm-up with device synchronization around each measurement. PiX and MoCE medians fall within their spread; IQRs, hardware, and library versions are in the supplement.
Figure 3: Routing in the first MoCE layer. Top left: top- k overlap between experts. Top right: cosine similarity of routing-logit rows. Bottom: experts selecting each channel, against the uniform expectation.
Figure 4: Learned temperatures across experts, spanning concentrated, intermediate, and near-uniform regimes rather than collapsing to one mode.
When training Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models with expert parallelism, all-to-all token dispatch and combine collectives can consume a substantial fraction of end-to-end training time. In this work, we study communication-efficient MoE models (CE-MoE), in which we adopt a heterogeneous layer pattern that decouples token-mixing and channel-mixing depth. Compared to conventional models which interleave MoE layers after each token-mixing layer (e.g., attention, Mamba-2), CE-MoE models concentrate expert capacity in a select few routed MoE layers, while maintaining depth by adding additional token-mixing and dense-FFN layers. Across a scaling ladder from 2B to 31.5B total parameters, under matched total and activated parameters, CE-MoE models consistently reduce training cost while matching validation loss and downstream benchmarks with full-MoE baselines. At the 31.5B scale, CE-MoE uses 33.3% fewer GPU-hours while improving average downstream score and inference throughput.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) scales capacity, but existing designs cannot set three quantities independently. For a single token, participation is how many experts contribute knowledge to its output, execution is how many are actually computed (compute cost), and materialization is how many expert-sized parameter sets must be built and stored (memory cost). Sparse routing keeps execution and materialization low, but shrinks participation: for each token, only a few experts contribute. Dense output-mixing restores full participation, but its execution grows with the number of experts. Parameter-merging keeps execution at one expert, but its materialization grows with the number of routing decisions. We propose IntBMoE, a block-conditioned MoE that decouples all three by pairing dense expert composition with sparse block execution. Its blocks come from a small learned codebook, one per entry. At each internal layer, a lightweight hypernetwork merges all expert bases in that layer's pool into one composed expert. Participation is full, because every composed expert draws on the entire pool. Execution stays sparse, because a router sends each token to only a few blocks. Materialization is bounded, because the codebook, not the input, fixes how many blocks exist. Dual-Path Residual Gating (DPRG) further couples two independently composed paths through multiplicative gating. Experiments on image classification show consistent gains over representative sparse and dense MoE baselines. Additional experiments on language modeling and sequential recommendation validate its generalization beyond vision. IntBMoE is fully deployed in AMap's generative recommendation system, serving hundreds of millions of users under a 60ms latency budget, with a 2.4% relative UVCTR gain in online A/B testing. Our code is available at https://github.com/AMAP-ML/DreamX-Rec/.
Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures route each token through a subset of experts at each layer independently. We propose viewing MoE computation through the lens of expert paths -- the sequence of expert selections a token makes across all layers. This perspective reveals that, despite NL possible paths for N experts across L layers, tokens in practice cluster into a small fraction of paths that align with linguistic function, yet the vast majority of paths remain unexplored, representing a statistical inefficiency. This motivates architectures that constrain the effective path space to amplify this natural concentration. As one instantiation, we introduce \pathmoe{}, which shares router parameters across blocks of consecutive layers. Analysis confirms that \pathmoe{} amplifies the emergent path structure: it produces more concentrated path clusters, better cross-layer consistency, and greater robustness to routing perturbations. Experiments on 0.9B and 16B parameter \pathmoe{} models demonstrate consistent improvements on perplexity and downstream tasks over independent routing, while eliminating the need for auxiliary losses. These results establish expert paths as a useful design axis for MoE architectures, complementary to existing work on independent routing mechanisms.