Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) language-model training can exhibit large loss spikes with Muon-family optimizers. We introduce EnergyCal, a lightweight rule that attenuates routed-expert updates according to the normalized squared Frobenius norm of their finite-step Newton-Schulz directions. EnergyCal leaves the spectral transform unchanged and adds no persistent optimizer state. We evaluate it on a 4B-parameter MoE model. Against a development-selected, lower-learning-rate MuonH recipe, EnergyCal-MuonH reduces mean thresholded loss-spike burden by 99.51% and final geometric-mean perplexity by 4.06%, with a modest throughput cost. With plain Muon at matched nominal learning rate and weight decay, the reduction in mean spike burden averages 95.98% across the two tested exponents, accompanied by small endpoint improvements. These findings support stabilization both with and without Hyperball in the evaluated setting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: EnergyCal overview. (1) Sparse routing creates uneven expert traffic. (2) Each routed matrix’s post-NS energy determines qe ; when qe>0 , scaling preserves the individual NS direction, not necessarily the displacement after Hyperball projection or writeback. (3) Continuous calibration reduces observed thresholded loss-spike burden. Curves are schematic, not measurements; coefficients use direction energy, not token counts.
Recipe
Matrix LR
Matrix WD
Fallback WD
MuonH
0.005
0
0
EnergyCal ( p=1 )
0.010
0
0
Muon + WD
0.005
0.1
0.1
Table 1: Frozen Cohort H recipes. These are development-selected, best-tested settings rather than a coefficient-only factorial. Fallback peak LR is 0.001; weight decay applies only to eligible parameters.
Recipe
Peak LR
Final CE
PPL
Episodes
B1
Lmax
MuonH
0.005
3.2760±0.0270
26.476±0.721
37.33±4.04
2046.01±1289.75
39.99±12.64
EnergyCal ( p=1 )
0.010
3.2345±0.0011
25.394±0.027
3.33±2.89
10.11±9.65
5.92±1.07
Muon + WD
0.005
3.2410±0.0060
25.560±0.152
8.33±3.51
67.41±52.76
7.66±1.83
Table 2: Cohort H confirmation: complete 10k schedule, 1.3107B tokens per run. Values are arithmetic mean ± sample SD over n=3 unused initialization seeds. PPL is computed per run before aggregation; episodes and burden B1 are per-run quantities. Lmax is the maximum post-warmup training loss within each run before aggregation. LRs are selected within bounded development grids.
Figure 2: Fixed-bank validation CE across Cohort H confirmation runs. Lines show means and shaded bands show ±1 sample SD over three initialization seeds. All 20 evaluations are included, including loss excursions. Bands describe run-to-run variation, not confidence intervals. The predefined primary endpoint is step 10,000; development observations are not concatenated with these curves.
Recipe
Tokens/s
Optimizer (s)
Malloc (GiB)
MuonH
67061.4±570.4
0.5460±0.0017
39.7224±0.0000
EnergyCal ( p=1 )
65976.8±353.3
0.5487±0.0015
39.7224±0.0000
Muon + WD
68458.9±487.7
0.4824±0.0014
39.7245±0.0000
Table 3: Cohort H production-style benchmark: arithmetic mean ± sample SD over n=3 execution repeats on one eight-H100 node, not three quality seeds. Throughput is aggregated within each run over steps 501–1000. Optimizer time is summarized first by its within-run median and then across repeats. Peak allocated memory is first maximized over recorded ranks, including initialization, and then summarized across repeats. SD 0.0000 indicates identical recorded peaks, not an absence of hardware variability.
Recipe
Final CE
PPL
Episodes
B1
Muon + WD
3.189786±0.002381
24.283±0.058
11.67±4.04
84.79±33.13
Muon + EnergyCal ( p=0.5 )
3.185547±0.001877
24.181±0.045
3.00±2.00
4.25±4.06
Muon + EnergyCal ( p=1 )
3.185975±0.001173
24.191±0.028
1.67±1.15
2.57±2.46
Table 4: Cohort M: EnergyCal added to plain Muon without Hyperball. All conditions share matrix LR 0.005, eligible matrix and fallback weight decay 0.1, and the same 10k-update token budget. Values are mean ± sample SD over n=3 new initialization seeds; episodes and B1 are per-run quantities. The validation bank differs from Cohort H, so absolute CE and PPL values must not be compared directly with Table 2 .
Condition
3k CE
Ep.
B1
MuonH
3.791280
4
430.51
Energy ( p=0.5 )
3.774685
4
89.03
EnergyCal ( p=1 )
3.769136
3
10.59
Stable-rank
3.761237
4
76.17
Amplitude only
9.318367
9
364.67
Near-zero gate
3.814775
6
531.36
Table 5: Single-initialization diagnostic audit at common matrix LR 0.01, over 3k updates. Alternative coefficients are not matched for effective update magnitude. An endpoint occurring during a spike is retained.
Figure 3: Selected diagnostic measurements of direction stable rank and BF16-stored operator displacement. Stored movement is measured directly; the selected observations do not establish a general bound or a causal link to spikes.
Single-update intervention
Event A
Event B
Canonical
6.3165
6.9069
Candidate: freeze
6.3172
6.9110
Control: freeze
6.3160
6.9085
All routed: EnergyCal
6.3024
6.9873
Table 6: Next-step training CE after single-update interventions in two distinct saved-state events. Pre-intervention CE is 4.1928 (A) and 4.2143 (B). No tested branch eliminates the subsequent loss rise.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Recipe
LR
Final CE
Episodes
B1
MuonH
0.005000
3.703740±0.013658
8.00±0.00
339.40±379.07
MuonH
0.007071
3.733119±0.013795
7.00±1.41
562.76±0.88
MuonH
0.010000
3.949324±0.226689
11.50±4.95
592.87±99.21
EnergyCal ( p=1 )
0.010000
3.769425±0.000647
2.50±0.71
8.76±0.24
Muon + WD
0.005000
3.703061±0.004366
1.50±0.71
1.84±1.53
Muon + WD
0.010000
3.772394±0.011707
5.50±0.71
75.87±0.14
Appendix
Table 7: Completed development screen: mean ± sample SD over n=2 initialization runs after 3,000 updates. All endpoints, including unfavorable ones, are retained. Episodes and burden are per-run quantities.
Table 9: Cohort H curve summaries: mean ± sample SD of run-level results. The late-window comparison is post hoc.
Figure 4: Late-schedule validation CE (mean ± sample SD, n=3 ). EnergyCal’s small endpoint advantage over plain Muon appears late; the full trajectory is shown in Fig. 2 .
Figure 5: Cohort M validation CE: mean ± sample SD over three runs on its own fixed evaluation bank. All observations, including the plain-Muon loss excursion at step 4000, are retained. Bands are not confidence intervals.
Recipe
PPL
Lmax
Observed-range CE
Late-window CE
Muon + WD
24.2833±0.0578
8.54±0.82
3.578701±0.042809
3.203759±0.002122
Muon + EnergyCal ( p=0.5 )
24.1805±0.0454
5.61±0.87
3.548957±0.002669
3.200299±0.001403
Muon + EnergyCal ( p=1 )
24.1909±0.0284
5.49±0.75
3.550821±0.000788
3.200778±0.001217
Appendix
Table 10: Additional Cohort M results: mean ± sample SD over n=3 initialization runs. Observed-range CE integrates the 500–10,000 evaluations; late-window CE is a post hoc check over the final three evaluations.
Coefficient
Δ CE
ΔB1
p=0.5
−0.004239±0.004194
−80.54±36.44
p=1
−0.003811±0.002849
−82.23±30.67
Appendix
Table 11: Cohort M paired effects: mean ± sample SD over three within-initialization differences (EnergyCal minus plain Muon). Negative values favor calibration.
Intervention
CE A
CE B
rA (%)
rB (%)
Canonical
6.3165
6.9069
0.00
0.00
Candidate ECal
6.3163
6.9068
+0.93
+0.22
Candidate zero
6.3160
6.9109
-1.25
+0.32
Candidate freeze
6.3172
6.9110
+3.09
+0.76
Control freeze
6.3160
6.9085
+1.61
+1.40
All routed ECal
6.3024
6.9873
+2.12
-3.41
Appendix
Table 12: All intervention branches in events A and B ( n=1 per branch and event). rA,rB are short-window burden improvements, not reductions in the full-schedule B1 .
Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models offer a powerful way to scale model size without increasing compute, as per-token FLOPs depend only on k active experts rather than the total pool of E experts. Yet, this asymmetry creates an MoE efficiency paradox in practice: adding more experts balloons memory and communication costs, making actual training inefficient. We argue that this bottleneck arises in part because current MoE training allocates too many experts from the beginning, even though early-stage data may not fully utilize such capacity. Motivated by this, we propose EMO, a simple progressive training framework that treats MoE capacity as expandable memory and grows the expert pool over the course of training. EMO explicitly models sparsity in scaling law to derive stage-wise compute-optimal token budgets for progressive expansion. Empirical results show that EMO matches the performance of a fixed-expert setup in large-scale experiments while improving wall-clock efficiency. It offers a surprisingly simple yet effective path to scalable MoE training, preserving the benefits of large expert pools while reducing both training time and GPU cost.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models reduce computation through sparse expert activation, but deployment still requires storing a large number of expert parameters. We study post-training expert pruning using task-domain calibration data as a subset-selection problem: given a pretrained MoE layer, select a fixed number of experts that best reconstruct its original output. Exact subset search is combinatorial and becomes intractable for modern MoE models with many experts per layer. We develop OptEP, a scalable continuous relaxation that directly optimizes differentiable expert-selection variables, followed by a lightweight reconstruction-based update of the retained expert weights. Across multiple MoE architectures and tasks spanning mathematical reasoning and code generation, our approach improves over the strongest existing expert-pruning baselines, with absolute accuracy gains of up to 15.05% on Qwen3-30B-A3B, 14.55% on Qwen3-235B-A22B, 11.06% on GLM-4.5-Air, and 16.20% on Mixtral-8x7B. The improvements are particularly pronounced under aggressive pruning, demonstrating that reconstruction-driven expert selection and weight adaptation can preserve substantially more of the original model's performance while reducing the number of retained experts.
Jelena Markovic-Voronov, Petros Prastakos, Kayhan Behdin +7
Mixture-of-experts (MoE) language models send each token to a few experts, so each expert is trained on a different part of the data, and this part changes during training. With a shared learning rate, Muon applies updates of roughly the same size to expert matrices of the same shape, even when an expert's update is poorly aligned with its current gradient. We here propose ExpertMuon-Compass (Compass), which multiplies the Muon step of each expert by two factors. A family factor compares the cosine between the expert's orthogonalized update and its gradient with the same cosine for the other experts in its layer. A scalar radius aggregates the alignment between corresponding rows of the update and gradient into one step-length multiplier. Compass keeps the update direction and the momentum buffer of Muon. In pretraining on FineWeb-Edu, Compass with Nesterov momentum on all matrices performs as well as or better than Muon, NorMuon, and other optimizers, with weight decay matched to NorMuon in the longer runs. Adding its factors to NorMuon gives the same or a lower loss than NorMuon. Compass is the most effective when the data seen by each expert varies during training, for example, as when the languages of a multilingual corpus arrive in separate blocks. With Compass, the expert load stays balanced, and the router assigns tokens to experts more decisively. We also prove a perturbation bound for the two factors.