Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale model capacity efficiently by activating only a small subset of experts for each input, while still requiring all parameters to be stored in memory, resulting in substantial memory overhead. Expert merging techniques have recently emerged as a promising compression paradigm that reduces this overhead by consolidating multiple experts into a smaller set. However, existing approaches have two key limitations: (i) direct convex interpolation in parameter space is not generally guaranteed to yield meaningful interpolation of expert functions; and (ii) estimating expert similarity or merging coefficients often relies on calibration data, introducing dependence on the calibration distribution. To address these limitations, we propose Spectrum-Aware Latent Expert Merging (SLEM), a calibration-free expert merging framework that occurs in a structured latent representation of expert weights using a VAE. SLEM groups experts within and across layers based on latent similarities and derives merging coefficients from expert weight spectra. It then performs geometry-aware latent interpolation and decodes the resulting representations into merged expert weights. Compared with existing expert merging methods, SLEM achieves comparable or better performance on general knowledge benchmarks and higher average performance on generation benchmarks involving mathematical reasoning and code generation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Average performance comparison of expert merging methods on generation-based benchmarks involving mathematical reasoning and code generation (GSM8K, MATH500, MBPP, and HumanEval). SLEM consistently achieves the highest average performance under all evaluated settings.
Figure 2: Overall framework of Spectrum-Aware Latent Expert Merging (SLEM).
Figure 3: Culmulative explained variance ratio (EVR) of expert projection weights across layers in LFM2-8B-A1B. The EVR curves show that variance is concentrated along a subset of principal directions across all projection types, motivating the use of dominant spectral structure for estimating subnetwork importance. Results for the other evaluated models are provided in Appendix G .
General Knowledge (MCQA)
Mathematics & Coding (Generation)
Expert Reduction
Method
MMLU
ARC-E
ARC-C
Average ↑
GSM8K
MATH500
MBPP
HumanEval
Average ↑
LFM2-8B-A1B
0.0%
Vanilla
63.11
75.59
47.63
62.11
81.73
72.40
45.60
70.73
67.62
VAE-reconstructed
62.93±0.21
75.61±0.45
47.41±0.61
61.98±0.32
82.35±0.30
72.20±0.64
45.52±1.14
71.83±3.17
67.97±0.72
12.5%
F-Merging
55.64
68.18
42.32
55.38
69.14
30.60
03.00
03.66
26.60
M-SMoE
54.72
72.97
44.11
57.27
57.24
20.40
13.20
25.61
29.11
Table 1: Downstream performance comparison with existing expert merging methods. All merging methods are evaluated under the same expert reduction rate. The best and second-best results within each expert reduction setting are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Figure 4: Comparison of parameter-space (PS) and latent-space (LS) merging under identical expert pairs and merging coefficients. Across both models and task categories, LS Merging consistently outperforms PS Merging for every evaluated pair.
Figure 5: Effect of the truncation rank r for spectrum-aware merging coefficients. Spectrum-aware coefficients consistently outperform the uniform-coefficient baseline across models and tasks.
General Knowledge (MCQA)
Mathematics & Coding (Generation)
Max Group Size
Method
MMLU
ARC-E
ARC-C
Average ↑
GSM8K
MATH500
MBPP
HumanEval
Average ↑
LFM2-8B-A1B
∞
M-SMoE
46.07
66.89
40.31
51.09
02.05
02.20
00.00
00.00
01.06
HC-SMoE
50.98
60.47
37.15
49.53
54.13
45.20
30.40
44.51
43.56
Sub-MoE
49.91
64.82
37.75
50.83
43.59
34.20
08.20
28.05
28.51
2
M-SMoE
34.55
65.99
38.99
46.51↓4.58
08.34
03.20
00.00
00.00
02.89↑1.83
Table 2: Downstream performance under constrained maximum expert group size. Limiting the group size generally degrades performance compared with unconstrained grouping.
Figure 6: Token-level Jensen–Shannon divergence (JSD) and perplexity (PPL) of merged models on sequences generated by the original model. We evaluate 100 sequences only over the response tokens. Lower values indicate better preservation of the original model’s generative behavior.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
Metric
Few-shot
Maximum Sequence Length
Maximum Generation Tokens
General Knowledge (MCQA)
MMLU ( Hendrycks et al., 2021a )
Accuracy
0-shot
4,096
N/A
ARC-Easy ( Clark et al., 2018 )
Accuracy
0-shot
4,096
N/A
ARC-Challenge ( Clark et al., 2018 )
Accuracy
0-shot
4,096
N/A
Mathematics (Generation)
GSM8K ( Cobbe et al., 2021 )
Exact Match
8-shot (single-turn)
4,096
1,024
Appendix
Table 3: Benchmark-specific evaluation settings, including the evaluation metric, few-shot setting, maximum sequence length, and maximum generation tokens.
Model
# layers (enc./dec.)
D{emb,hidden,latent}
DFFN
# attn. heads
Pre-LN architecture
LFM2-8B-A1B
6
3,072
4×3,072
24
yes
OLMoE-1B-7B-0125-Instruct
6
3,072
4×3,072
24
yes
ERNIE-4.5-21B-A3B-PT
6
3,840
4×3,840
30
yes
Appendix
Table 4: Architecture configurations of the hyperspherical expert VAE for each evaluated model. Training and optimization hyperparameters are provided in Appendix C .
General Knowledge (MCQA)
Mathematics & Coding (Generation)
Expert Reduction
Method
MMLU
ARC-E
ARC-C
Average ↑
GSM8K
MATH500
MBPP
HumanEval
Average ↑
LFM2-8B-A1B
25.0%
SLEM ( r =14)
51.10
70.62
42.75
54.82
70.36
58.80
36.20
61.59
56.74
└ within-layer adaptive
53.12
67.85
41.81
54.26 ↓0.56
68.84
60.00
22.00
43.90
48.69 ↓8.05
└ cross-layer adaptive
52.98
69.19
43.60
55.26 ↑0.44
68.39
60.40
34.40
55.49
54.67 ↓2.07
└ uniform coefficient
50.48
68.01
41.47
53.32 ↓1.50
68.92
58.80
35.40
57.32
55.11 ↓1.63
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of SLEM design variants for expert grouping and merging coefficients. We evaluate alternative grouping strategies, uniform and row-norm coefficients, and projection-specific spectral importance using only gate, up, or down projections. All variants are compared with the default SLEM under the same expert reduction setting.
General Knowledge (MCQA)
Mathematics & Coding (Generation)
Expert Reduction
Method
MMLU
ARC-E
ARC-C
Average ↑
GSM8K
MATH500
MBPP
HumanEval
Average ↑
LFM2-8B-A1B
0.0%
Vanilla
63.11
75.59
47.63
62.11
81.73
72.40
45.60
70.73
67.62
VAE-reconstructed
62.93±0.21
75.61±0.45
47.41±0.61
61.98±0.32
82.35±0.30
72.20±0.64
45.52±1.14
71.83±3.17
67.97±0.72
└ VAE with β =0
62.94±0.19
75.14±0.50
47.25±0.61
61.78±0.19
82.02±0.49
72.68±1.84
45.56±1.51
69.39±1.18
67.41±0.62
12.5%
SLEM ( r =14)
58.37
74.79
47.87
60.34
77.10
67.60
44.20
62.80
62.93
Appendix
Table 6: Downstream performance comparison with and without KL regularization during Expert VAE training. The VAE with β=0 variant removes the KL divergence term while keeping the remaining training settings unchanged.
Expert Reduction
GSM8K
MATH500
MBPP
HumanEval
Average
n=1,319
n=500
n=500
n=164
12.5%
[9.10, 14.33]
[7.60, 15.60]
[3.40, 11.00]
[-3.05, 12.80]
[6.38, 11.31]
25.0%
[13.19, 18.65]
[9.40, 17.80]
[1.00, 9.80]
[7.93, 23.78]
[10.07, 15.32]
Appendix
Table 7: Paired bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (pp) of the performance difference between SLEM and HC-SMoE on LFM2-8B-A1B generation benchmarks. We use 200,000 bootstrap resamples. Positive intervals favor SLEM.
Figure 7: Culmulative explained variance ratio (EVR) of expert projection weights across layers in other evaluated models.
Figure 8: Normalized spectral importance across subnetworks under different truncation ranks r . Lower ranks produce more concentrated importance distributions, while larger ranks distribute importance more uniformly across subnetworks.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) large language models (LLMs) are among the top-performing architectures. The largest models, often with hundreds of billions of parameters, pose significant memory challenges for deployment. Traditional approaches to reduce memory requirements include weight pruning and quantization. Motivated by the Router-weighted Expert Activation Pruning (REAP) that prunes experts, we propose a novel method, Router-weighted Expert Activation Merging (REAM). Instead of removing experts, REAM groups them and merges their weights, better preserving original performance. We evaluate REAM against REAP and other baselines across multiple MoE LLMs on diverse multiple-choice (MC) question answering and generative (GEN) benchmarks. Our results reveal a trade-off between MC and GEN performance that depends on the mix of calibration data. By controlling the mix of general, math and coding data, we examine the Pareto frontier of this trade-off and show that REAM often outperforms the baselines and in many cases is comparable to the original uncompressed models.
Saurav Jha, Maryam Hashemzadeh, Ali Saheb Pasand +3
Mila – Quebec AI Institute · Polytechnique Montréal · Université de Montréal +3
Model merging offers a training-free way to combine multiple post-trained expert models, but merging experts obtained through reinforcement learning (RL) remains challenging. Existing spectral merging methods often assume that leading singular directions contain the main task signal, while lower-energy residual components can be compressed, selected, or attenuated to reduce interference. We find that this assumption does not hold for RL task vectors: after decomposing each task vector into a leading spectral head and a residual component, both parts can independently recover substantial behavior knowledge, while exhibiting different merging properties. The head is highly concentrated and informative but more prone to sharp cross-expert conflicts, whereas the residual component is more dispersed and provides a more stable basis for aggregation. Based on this observation, we propose ResMerge, a residual-based spectral merging framework for RL experts. ResMerge first constructs a stable residual backbone with Spherical Residual Consensus Adaptation, which estimates a reliability-weighted consensus direction on the Frobenius sphere. It then reintroduces leading-head information through a Lightweight Head Correction module gated by positive cross-expert agreement. Experiments across multiple RL expert groups and capability domains show that ResMerge better preserves expert capabilities than representative task-vector and spectral merging baselines. The implementation of ResMerge is publicly available at https://github.com/sunyd0303-cpu/ResMerge-release.
Yandu Sun, Zhiyan Hou, Haokai Ma +6
1Southeast University, Nanjing, China · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences +4
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models have gained popularity as a means of scaling the capacity of large language models (LLMs) while maintaining sparse activations and reduced per-token compute. However, in memory-constrained inference settings, expert weights must be offloaded to CPU, creating a performance bottleneck from CPU-GPU transfers during decoding. We propose an expert prefetching scheme that leverages currently computed internal model representations to speculate future experts, enabling memory transfers to overlap with computation. Across multiple MoE architectures, we demonstrate that future experts can be reliably predicted by these internal representations. We also demonstrate that executing speculated experts generally maintains downstream task accuracy, thus preserving more effective compute-memory overlap by eliminating the need to re-fetch true router-selected experts. Integrated into an optimized inference engine, our approach achieves up to 14% reduction in time per output token (TPOT) over on-demand loading of experts from CPU memory. For MoEs where speculative execution alone yields suboptimal accuracy, we further examine lightweight estimators that improve expert prediction hit rates, thereby reducing performance degradation. Our code is released in open-source at https://github.com/axonn-ai/yalis/tree/offload_prefetch.