Improving Parameter Utilization by Sharing Neural Experts Across Layers in Transformers
Organizations: China Electronics Cloud Technology Co., Ltd.
Abstract
Transformer-based large language models often suffer from inter-layer parameter redundancy, where functional transformations are redundantly learned across network depths. We propose CS-MoE, a novel Transformer architecture featuring cross-layer expert sharing to address this inefficiency. Deviating from the widely used Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture that terminates each Transformer block with layer-isolated experts, CS-MoE combines layer-independent experts with concurrent access to a centralized, globally shared expert pool. This Global Experts Sharing mechanism enables elastic control over token-level parameter activation and computational consumption (FLOPs). Experiments demonstrate that CS-MoE achieves lower perplexity than equal-scale dense Transformers while activating only 55% of parameters. Furthermore, its performance scales monotonically with an increased number of activated experts and approaches MoE counterparts that consume more FLOPs by expanding the shared pool with a fixed FLOPs budget. CS-MoE also establishes a flexible Pareto frontier between computational cost and model capacity, offering an efficient alternative for computation-constrained environments.
Figures & tables
| Steps | 0.6B / -A0.9B | 1.7B / -A4B | 4B / -A8B | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dense | CS-MoE | Dense | CS-MoE | Dense | CS-MoE | |
| C-Eval (Multi-discipline Chinese Evaluation) | ||||||
| 2,500 | 28.2 | 31.5 | 30.1 | 31.7 | 29.3 | 29.8 |
| 7,500 | 35.1 | 39.3 | 36.4 | 40.1 | 35.6 | 41.0 |
| 12,500 | 37.5 | 41.9 | 38.6 | 42.3 | 40.7 | 43.2 |
| AQuA (Multi-step Algebraic Reasoning) | ||||||
| Benchmark | 8B Dense Baseline | 8B-A8B CS-MoE (Ours) | Diff ( ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BBH Suzgun et al. (2023) | 0.2867 | 0.7507 | +0.4640 |
| CMMLU Li et al. (2024a) | 0.7417 | 0.7942 | +0.0525 |
| ARC Clark et al. (2018) | 0.6875 | 0.7300 | +0.0425 |
| GSM8K Cobbe et al. (2021) | 0.9400 | 0.9450 | +0.0050 |
| C-Eval Huang et al. (2023) | 0.6996 | 0.7038 | +0.0042 |
| IFEval Zhou et al. (2023) | 0.4300 | 0.4005 | -0.0295 |
| Ablation Setting | PPL | C-Eval | AQuA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Independent Expert Allocation ( ) | |||
| (Shared pool only) | 10.32 | 41.8 | 39.5 |
| (Default) | 10.08 | 43.2 | 40.5 |
| 10.11 | 43.0 | 40.3 | |
| 2. Router Architecture | |||
| Centrally Shared Router | 10.29 | 41.9 | 39.6 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Substitution Type | Direction | + PPL (ESR=5%) | + PPL (ESR=20%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Targeted (CKA) | Shallow Deep | +1.22 | +3.45 |
| Targeted (CKA) | Deep Shallow | +1.54 | +3.98 |
| Random Swap | Shallow Deep | +4.20 | +12.80 |
| Random Control | Arbitrary Layer Swap | +4.15 | +15.30 |
| Model Type | Total Params | Activated Params | Layers ( ) | Shared Pool ( ) | Top- ∗ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dense | 0.6B / 1.7B / 4B / 8B | Same | 16 - 36 | 3,072 - 12,288 | - | - | - | - |
| CS-MoE 0.6B | 0.6B | 0.6B / 0.9B / 1.7B | 28 | 3,072 | 768 | 1 | 84 | 4 / 10 / 21 |
| CS-MoE 1.7B | 1.7B | 1.7B / 4B | 28 | 6,144 | 1,536 | 1 | 84 | 4 / 13 |
| CS-MoE 4B | 4B | 4B / 8B | 36 | 9,728 | 2,432 | 1 | 108 | 4 / 10 |
| CS-MoE 8B | 8B | 4B | 36 | 9,728 | 2,432 | 1 | 324 | 4 |
| CS-MoE 8B | 8B | 8B | 36 | 12,288 | 3,072 | 1 | 324 | 4 |
| Hyperparameters | Settings |
|---|---|
| Optimizer | AdamW ( ) |
| Peak Learning Rate | 3e-4 |
| Weight Decay | 0.01 |
| Batch Size | 512 (effective token count 1M) |
| Warmup Steps | 1,000 |
| Total Steps | 12,500 (Base) / 4.5T tokens (Scaled) |
| Model Scale | Dense Baseline | CS-MoE (Ours) | Reduction (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.6B Scale | 13.62 | 13.48 | 1.03% |
| 1.7B Scale | 11.30 | 11.12 | 1.59% |
| 4B Scale | 10.45 | 10.08 | 3.54% |
| 8B Scale | 9.75 | 9.55 | 2.05% |
| Model Scale | Activation Configuration | Final Perplexity (PPL) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.6B Scale | 0.6B-A0.6B | 13.48 |
| 0.6B-A0.9B | 13.18 | |
| 0.6B-A1.7B | 13.11 | |
| 1.7B Scale | 1.7B-A1.7B | 11.12 |
| 1.7B-A4B | 10.82 | |
| 4B Scale | 4B-A4B | 10.08 |
| Configuration | Standard MoE | CS-MoE (Ours) | Reduction (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8B-A4B | 9.70 | 9.65 | 0.52% |
| 12B-A4B | 9.40 | 9.19 | 2.23% |
| Model | Pre-train PPL | C-Eval (%) | AQuA (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4B Dense Baseline | 10.25 0.04 | 40.8 0.3 | 39.0 0.5 |
| 4B CS-MoE (Ours) | 10.06 0.03 | 42.3 0.2 | 40.5 0.4 |
| Model Configuration | Prefill (ms) | Decoding (ms/tok) |
|---|---|---|
| Dense 8B | 12.5 | 14.2 |
| Standard Sparse MoE 8B | 14.1 | 16.5 |
| CS-MoE 8B (Default) | 13.8 | 15.8 |
| CS-MoE 8B (with Cache Optimization) | 13.1 | 14.9 |
Mixture-of-Experts Language Models
Mixture-of-Experts language models use input-dependent routing to activate a small subset of expert networks, increasing capacity without proportional compute.
See all 225 papers