Organizations: Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Tylogi AI Lab / TAIL · Anhui University of Technology · Southeast University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Microsoft · University of Cambridge
Mixture-of-experts (MoE) language models activate only a few experts per token, yet all expert weights must be stored. Mixed-precision quantization reduces this storage cost by assigning higher bit-widths to sensitive experts and lower bit-widths to resilient ones, but expert rankings alone do not determine how strongly to weight their errors. To address this gap, we propose NatScale, a contrast-calibrated allocation framework for mixed-precision MoE quantization. It uses a model-specific power transformation to calibrate gradient-based expert weights to an information-theoretic contrast target while preserving rankings. We jointly evaluate each expert's gate, up and down configurations to estimate its output error. We then combine these errors and calibrated weights with an existing prior based on weight spectra, variance and precision decay to select configurations under a storage budget. Across three models, NatScale achieves the lowest native-to-quantized KL divergence and the highest top-token agreement in all nine settings against five allocation baselines. It also yields the lowest perplexity in seven settings. These findings highlight the importance of objective-aware precision allocation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of NatScale . (a) Contrast Calibration: Maps gradient scores gi via a power transformation wi=giβτ , where the exponent βτ is calibrated using a symmetric KL divergence target τ to control expert storage competition. (b) Joint Error Estimation: Evaluates quantization distortion by jointly quantizing gate, up, and down projections over replay inputs while incorporating structural priors. (c) Budgeted Allocation: Synthesizes calibrated weights, structural priors, and joint errors into expert costs, solving the global storage allocation by linear-programming (LP) relaxation and feasible rounding under a storage budget B .
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
2.0 routed bpw
2.5 routed bpw
3.0 routed bpw
Method
PPL ↓
KLD ↓
Top1 ↑
PPL ↓
KLD ↓
Top1 ↑
PPL ↓
KLD ↓
Top1 ↑
MxMoE ( Duanmu et al., 2025 )
8.0690
0.2727
79.87
7.2930
0.1489
85.30
7.0630
0.0870
88.93
FRI-MxMoE ( Qi et al., 2026 )
8.4293
0.3118
78.14
7.9069
0.2359
80.90
7.6321
0.1992
82.55
AlphaQ ( Yang et al., 2026 )
7.7790
0.2047
81.76
7.3119
0.1236
85.70
6.9932
0.0671
89.49
MODE ( Chen et al., 2026 )
8.4724
0.3291
78.30
7.6407
0.1901
83.68
7.2792
0.1196
87.21
GEMQ (alloc.) ( Deng et al., 2026 )
7.9142
0.2189
81.89
7.3333
0.1160
87.01
7.1582
0.0762
89.85
Table 1: WikiText-2 results at three nominal routed-weight budgets. Lower perplexity (PPL) and native-to-quantized KL divergence (KLD) are better; higher native top-token agreement (Top1, %) is better. Bold indicates the best result in each column. All methods use the same candidate quantized weights, but retain method-specific allocation constraints and payload/header accounting (Appendix D ). NatScale uses the fixed contrast target τ=1 nat.
Figure 2: Sensitivity to the contrast target τ . Changes in KLD (%) and Top1 (percentage points) are measured relative to NatScale at τ=1 for each model and nominal routed-bpw budget. Solid curves show NatScale allocations at different targets; same-color horizontal dashed lines show the corresponding AlphaQ reference. The vertical dotted line marks the fixed default.
UD reference tier (NatScale byte ceiling)
Method
IQ1_M
Q2_K_XL
IQ3_XXS
Size (GB)
KLD ↓
Top1 ↑
Size (GB)
KLD ↓
Top1 ↑
Size (GB)
KLD ↓
Top1 ↑
UD (reported)
74.5
0.314739
79.691
78.9
0.224607
82.715
82.0
0.165120
85.414
GSQ-RCO †
75.840
0.221337
82.998
—
—
—
83.618
0.137169
86.898
NatScale (ours)
74.529
0.196894
84.721
78.859
0.146297
86.543
81.952
0.124359
87.623
Table 2: Whole-model Qwen3.8-Flash-Next comparison by Unsloth Dynamic (UD) reference tier. NatScale uses each tier’s UD byte ceiling. GSQ-RCO release sizes differ ( † ). Total size includes fixed tensors and metadata, with GB defined as 109 bytes. Top1 is native-model agreement (%). UD scores are externally reported, while NatScale and GSQ-RCO are evaluated locally using the same WikiText-2 stream and native reference. Bold indicates the lowest KLD and highest Top1 within each tier. Additional details appear in Appendix H .
Method
AIME
GPQA
TQA
LCB
MxMoE
63.33
73.23
93.54
57.14
FRI-MxMoE
50.00
67.68
92.03
51.43
AlphaQ
62.50
73.74
93.04
58.86
MODE
60.83
74.75
93.42
62.86
GEMQ (alloc.)
15.83
63.13
93.80
47.43
NatScale (ours)
68.33
78.28
94.05
61.14
Table 3: Downstream performance on Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 2.5 routed bpw (%). Thinking is disabled. AIME is mean response accuracy on AIME 2025; GPQA is GPQA Diamond; TQA is TruthfulQA binary accuracy; and LCB is LiveCodeBench v6 pass@1. GEMQ denotes the allocation-only adaptation. Bold indicates the highest point estimate per task.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Expert precision and layer budgets for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at nominal 2.5 routed bpw. Panels (a)–(e) show actual expert storage; (f) gives its cumulative distribution; (g) shows routed storage by layer. The five methods use the same order, storage definition and color scale across the three model figures.
Figure 4: Expert precision and layer budgets for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at nominal 2.5 routed bpw. Heatmaps, cumulative storage distributions and layer curves follow the definitions and shared scales in Figure 3 . NatScale uses the joint-error default.
Figure 5: Expert precision and layer budgets for DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 at nominal 2.5 routed bpw. All 43 layers and 256 routed experts per layer are shown in their original order. Heatmaps, cumulative distributions and layer curves use the same definitions and scales as the two Qwen figures.
Model
Target bpw
τ (nat)
KLD ↓
Top1 (%) ↑
PPL ↓
Qwen3.6- 35B-A3B
2.0
0.5
0.202861
82.8668
7.703205
0.7071
0.201441
82.9946
7.682874
1
0.198816
82.9824
7.676734
1.4142
0.196132
83.1650
7.676333
2
0.195436
83.0852
7.689436
2.5
0.5
0.100756
87.7958
7.125175
Appendix
Table 4: All 45 threshold settings, including the nine defaults. Top1 is native-reference agreement (%). Bold marks each metric’s best value among the five contrasts within each model and budget.
bpw
Variant
KLD ↓
Top1 (%) ↑
PPL ↓
2.0
NatScale w/o local RMS error
0.243853
81.1204
8.156114
2.0
NatScale w/o bit decay
0.310342
79.1062
8.450841
2.0
NatScale w/o gradient weights
0.222994
81.9155
7.854326
2.0
NatScale w/o gradient smoothing
0.245525
81.0257
8.210989
2.0
NatScale w/o exposure magnitude
0.194500
82.4719
7.719427
2.0
NatScale (ours, τ=1 )
0.198816
82.9824
7.676734
Appendix
Table 5: NatScale component variants for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B under fixed candidate weights and payload ceilings. Top1 is native agreement (%). Bold marks the best listed variant within each budget and metric; the joint-error default appears last.
bpw
Variant
KLD ↓
Top1 (%) ↑
PPL ↓
2.0
NatScale w/o local RMS error
0.378134
78.5598
5.302109
2.0
NatScale w/o bit decay
0.456162
76.5707
5.582535
2.0
NatScale w/o gradient weights
0.337510
79.8438
5.154556
2.0
NatScale w/o gradient smoothing
0.492273
75.1075
5.816586
2.0
NatScale w/o exposure magnitude
0.330178
80.1420
5.035539
2.0
NatScale w/ MSE, w/o bit decay
0.389347
78.4050
5.372212
Appendix
Table 6: NatScale component variants for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, including error-power and spectral/variance controls. Bold marks the best variant within each budget and metric.
bpw
Variant
KLD ↓
Top1 (%) ↑
PPL ↓
2.0
NatScale w/o local RMS error
0.655823
73.9828
7.726484
2.0
NatScale w/o bit decay
1.102132
65.5826
11.946395
2.0
NatScale w/o gradient weights
0.912658
69.1134
10.175868
2.0
NatScale w/o gradient smoothing
0.609329
74.8965
7.378263
2.0
NatScale w/o exposure magnitude
0.787991
71.1932
8.884293
2.0
NatScale (ours, τ=1 )
0.729311
72.1534
8.364731
Appendix
Table 7: NatScale component variants for DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731. Bold marks the best variant within each budget and metric.
Setting
Joint error
Separate error
KLD ↓
Top1 (%) ↑
PPL ↓
KLD ↓
Top1 (%) ↑
PPL ↓
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
2.0 bpw
0.329276
80.2170
5.067797
0.326225
80.2569
5.073339
2.5 bpw
0.194086
84.8573
4.834395
0.195639
84.9175
4.831680
3.0 bpw
0.124340
87.6714
4.743009
0.123854
87.6423
4.741410
Appendix
Table 8: Joint versus separate projection errors on Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at the NatScale default. Both variants use raw RMS and τ=1 under each setting’s fixed payload ceiling. Top1 is native agreement (%). Bold marks the better of the two scores within each row and metric, using unrounded values.
Error score
AIME
GPQA
TQA
LCB
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
NatScale w/ separate errors
65.00 (78/120)
74.75 (148/198)
93.42 (738/790)
62.86 (110/175)
NatScale (joint, ours)
68.33 (82/120)
78.28 (155/198)
94.05 (743/790)
61.14 (107/175)
Appendix
Table 9: Downstream comparison of joint and separate-error NatScale on Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at nominal 2.5 routed bpw, with thinking disabled. Cells show percentages and correct counts over the full denominator. AIME is mean response accuracy on AIME 2025; GPQA is Diamond; TQA is TruthfulQA binary; LCB is LiveCodeBench v6 pass@1. Bold marks the higher point estimate on each task.
Mixed-precision quantization assigns different numeric precisions across a model to balance accuracy with memory, speed, energy, and hardware constraints.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures scale model capacity through sparse expert activation, but their deployment remains memory-bound because all expert weights must reside in memory. Mixed-precision quantization can substantially reduce this footprint by assigning different bit-widths to different experts. Existing approaches, however, typically rely on calibration data to estimate expert importance and determine bit allocation. For frontier MoE LLMs, the original training data, and hence the true training distribution, is proprietary and inaccessible. As a result, calibration sets are inevitably imperfect surrogates, and this can misestimate expert utilization and lead to suboptimal bit allocation. Motivated by the substantial cross-expert quality variability observed in modern MoE models, and by the success of Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization (HT-SR) theory at predicting neural network model quality without access to training or testing data, we propose AlphaQ, a calibration-free bit-allocation method for MoE quantization. AlphaQ draws on HT-SR theory and follows a simple principle: experts with more heavy-tailed weight spectra are typically better trained and hence should receive higher bit-widths, while experts with weaker heavy-tailed structure can be quantized more aggressively. AlphaQ operationalizes this principle by measuring expert-wise spectral heavy-tailedness and solving a budget-constrained optimization problem that minimizes total quantization error under a global bit-budget constraint. Across several MoE models, AlphaQ consistently outperforms calibration-based baselines under matched bit budgets. Notably, on Qwen1.5-MoE, AlphaQ achieves near full-precision accuracy with an average expert precision of only 3.5 bits, while delivering more than 4× memory compression. Our code is available at https://github.com/Superone77/AlphaQ.
Wanqi Yang, Yuexiao Ma, Alexander Conzelmann +4
Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems · ELLIS Institute Tübingen · Tübingen AI Center +5
Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) allows scaling of language and vision models efficiently by activating only a small subset of experts per input. While this reduces computation, the large number of parameters still incurs substantial memory overhead during inference. Post-training quantization has been explored to address this issue. Because uniform quantization suffers from significant accuracy loss at low bit-widths, mixed-precision methods have been recently explored; however, they often require substantial computation for bit-width allocation and overlook the varying sensitivity of model performance to the quantization of different experts. We propose a theoretically grounded expert-wise mixed precision strategy that assigns bit-width to each expert primarily based on their change in routers l2 norm during training. Experts with smaller changes are shown to capture less frequent but critical features, and model performance is more sensitive to the quantization of these experts, thus requiring higher precision. Furthermore, to avoid allocating experts to lower precision that inject high quantization noise, experts with large maximum intra-neuron variance are also allocated higher precision. Experiments on large-scale MoE models, including Switch Transformer and Mixtral, show that our method achieves higher accuracy than existing approaches, while also reducing inference cost and incurring only negligible overhead for bit-width assignment.
Mohammed Nowaz Rabbani Chowdhury, Kaoutar El Maghraoui, Hsinyu Tsai +4
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) large language models reduce computation through sparse activation but still incur substantial storage costs. Mixed-precision post-training quantization (PTQ) reduces these costs by quantizing different model components at different bit widths, but existing methods often struggle to preserve generation quality under tight bit budgets. We identify two key challenges: (1) nonlinear quantization errors at extremely low precision are underestimated when cross-layer propagation is ignored; (2) direct router fine-tuning may cause routing drift, and calibration gains may not generalize to downstream tasks. To address these issues, we propose ProQuant, a weight-only PTQ framework for MoE models. Prune-or-Prioritize Mixed-Precision Allocation (PoP) jointly optimizes expert pruning and bit-width assignment. It allows higher-precision experts to substitute for severely degraded ones while improving bit-budget utilization. Routing-Consistent RMSNorm Finetune (RoCo) adapts expert input representations through mathematically equivalent transformations. It compensates for quantization errors to reduce routing drift. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ProQuant outperforms existing methods across diverse generative tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/ThrowBug/ProQuant.git.