We study post-training for dynamically routed mixture-of-experts (MoE) models, focusing on integrating independently optimized specialists while keeping consolidation efficient. Our approach combines calibrated multi-teacher on-policy distillation (C-MOPD), which matches each selected teacher on a local Top-K support with teacher-wise loss normalization and clipping, with an execution path that uses post-capacity bounded-width dispatch, final-route replay, and asynchronous rollout--training overlap. On Turing-20B-A2B, the selected model achieves a four-domain normalized integration score of 0.9988 and retains at least 90.16% of the measured specialist gain in every domain. At matched K=32, the full calibration objective scores 0.9962, compared with 0.9724 without calibration and 0.9834 without clipping. At a matched 8K response cap, the model exceeds both shared SFT and Qwen3-8B on all four reasoning-enabled mathematics and code benchmarks (unweighted mean: 85.92, versus 80.33 for Qwen3-8B and 74.21 for SFT), and improves over SFT on ten of twelve broader evaluation metrics. In a PPU-based profile, the combined execution configuration reduces consolidation step time from 398.7 to 139.3 seconds, an observed 2.86× speedup over serial execution. These results demonstrate strong specialist integration alongside more efficient consolidation, while reflecting the complete training and execution framework rather than any single component.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Turing LLM post-training framework. Shared supervised initialization provides the starting point for domain-specialist RL. C-MOPD consolidates the frozen specialists into one student through teacher-local Top- K matching and loss-scale calibration on student-generated prefixes. Bounded-width dispatch, route replay following R3, and asynchronous overlap support efficient dynamic-MoE execution in the consolidation workflow.
Task
Think
Non-think
Verification and reward
Code
80%
20%
Extraction, signature validity, compilation, and unit-test pass rate; auxiliary terms are gated by executable validity.
Math
80%
20%
Final-answer correctness and normal completion, with penalties for truncation and repeated reasoning.
IF
20%
80%
Constraint satisfaction or option correctness, with a preference for concise valid outputs.
Agent
100%
0%
Tool-call format, argument correctness, task completion, and process feedback from a 20B process reward model.
Table 1: Prompt-form mixtures and reward components for specialist training. Think and Non-think denote reasoning-enabled and direct-response prompts; percentages give their sampling proportions within each domain.
Figure 2: Dynamic-MoE execution during consolidation. (a) RW32 bounds post-capacity dispatch width at 32, preserving non-overflow expert assignments and retaining the highest-scoring 32 assignments on overflow. (b) R3-style final-route replay reuses the executed expert assignments and recomputes routing weights under the current actor parameters. AsyncOverlap overlaps rollout with actor updates using a one-step policy lag. (c) Base-model Quantile Routing selects a variable number of experts per token, followed by per-expert capacity filtering.
Reference / model
Math
Code
IF
Agent
Macro
SFT reference
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Specialist references
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
C-MOPD ( K=16 , cmax=5 )
0.9407
1.0093
0.9016
1.1435
0.9988
Table 2: Normalized specialist-gain recovery. The SFT and specialist rows define the normalization references; Macro is the unweighted mean of the four domain ratios.
Metric
SFT
Specialist
C-MOPD
Δ vs. SFT
Δ vs. specialist
GSM8K
90.07
91.96
91.58
+1.51
−0.38
MATH
65.86
74.50
74.10
+8.24
−0.40
MBPP
69.31
72.75
73.28
+3.97
+0.53
HumanEval
79.88
86.59
84.15
+4.27
−2.44
IFEval
58.41
80.96
78.74
+20.33
−2.22
BFCL v4 (Think)
20.54
32.04
33.69
+13.15
+1.65
Table 3: Stage-wise scores on the benchmarks directly associated with each specialist. All rows use direct-response evaluation except BFCL v4, which uses reasoning-enabled evaluation.
Objective
Variant
Math
Code
IF
Agent
Macro
Sampled-token MOPD
0.7747
0.7830
0.9836
1.1417
0.9208
Top- K ( K=32 )
No calibration
0.8938
0.9142
0.9756
1.1061
0.9724
No clipping
0.8736
0.9356
0.9592
1.1652
0.9834
Full C-MOPD
0.8298
0.9514
0.9836
1.2200
0.9962
Table 4: Calibration ablations at K=32 , with sampled-token MOPD as a separate method reference. No calibration removes normalization and clipping; No clipping retains normalization.
Sweep
Value
Math
Code
IF
Agent
Macro
Support size
K=8
0.7846
0.9661
0.9264
1.1870
0.9660
K=16
0.9407
1.0093
0.9016
1.1435
0.9988
K=32
0.8298
0.9514
0.9836
1.2200
0.9962
K=64
0.8250
0.8226
0.9016
1.1809
0.9325
Clipping threshold
cmax=2
0.7949
0.9403
0.8772
1.0600
0.9181
cmax=5
0.8298
0.9514
0.9836
1.2200
0.9962
Table 5: Normalized integration scores for two sweeps: support size K with cmax=5 fixed, and clipping threshold cmax with K=32 fixed.
Metric
Qwen3-8B
Turing SFT
C-MOPD
Δ vs. SFT
General Knowledge and Reasoning Tasks
MMLU
74.23
76.59
78.10
+1.51
CMMLU
76.81
83.49
83.48
−0.01
C-Eval
67.74
80.48
81.07
+0.59
MMLU-Pro
25.71
45.75
48.53
+2.78
BBH
80.47
72.10
74.25
+2.15
Table 6: Broader benchmark results. The first eleven rows use direct-response evaluation; BFCL v4 uses reasoning-enabled evaluation. Δ denotes the change from Turing SFT.
Metric
Qwen3-8B
Turing SFT
C-MOPD
Δ vs. SFT
Δ vs. Qwen3
GSM8K
92.72
92.95
95.68
+2.73
+2.96
MATH-500
80.80
73.00
82.40
+9.40
+1.60
MBPP
62.43
55.29
77.78
+22.49
+15.35
HumanEval
85.37
75.61
87.80
+12.19
+2.43
Table 7: Reasoning-enabled mathematics and code evaluation with an 8K response cap for all models.
Cap hits (%)
Accuracy (%)
Metric
C-MOPD 8K
Qwen3 8K
Qwen3 32K
Qwen3 32K
GSM8K
0.08
1.74
0.30
92.95
MATH-500
3.60
19.00
2.60
95.00
HumanEval
0.00
12.20
10.37
86.59
MBPP
0.75
14.79
9.52
64.02
Table 8: Output-cap hit rates under reasoning-enabled prompts and Qwen3-8B accuracy at 32K. A cap hit is a response that reaches the configured token limit. Corresponding 8K accuracies are reported in Table 7 . Bold marks the lowest cap-hit rate for each task.
Metric
Consolidate
AsyncOverlap
AsyncOverlapRW32
Step time (s)
398.7
330.1
139.3
Trainer wait (s)
265.0
195.8
18.3
Trainer compute (s)
133.7
134.3
121.0
Rollout time (s)
242.9
312.1
93.9
Rollout throughput (tok/GPU/s)
183.9
143.1
478.4
Actor throughput (tok/s)
26,966
26,451
31,165
Table 9: Average consolidation-system measurements over the common profiling interval.
Figure 3: Consolidation-system profile. (a) Mean step time decomposed into trainer compute and waiting. (b) Rollout throughput in tokens per GPU per second. Summary values compare AsyncOverlapRW32 with serial Consolidate. Rollout generation may overlap trainer phases.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage
Steps
Batch / step
Training pool
Epochs
SFT
10,000
512 packed rows
5.27M samples
∼ 1.0
Code RL
240
128 prompts × 16 rollouts
16K prompts
∼ 2.0
IF RL
480
128 prompts × 16 rollouts
16.2K prompts
∼ 4.0
Math RL
550
128 prompts × 16 rollouts
35.5K prompts
∼ 2.0
Agent RL
512
64 prompts × 16 rollouts
8.5K prompts
∼ 4.0
C-MOPD
400
128 prompts × 1 rollout
51.5K prompts
∼ 1.0
Appendix
Table 10: Post-training stages and data budgets. Pool sizes are rounded. RL and C-MOPD batch sizes distinguish sampled prompts from rollouts per prompt; epochs denote approximate passes through the corresponding data pool.
Data category
Examples
Share
Mathematics and code distillation
2.69M
51.0%
Agent tool use
1.51M
28.7%
General and instruction following (including ICL)
0.67M
12.7%
Long context and dialogue
0.40M
7.6%
Total
5.27M
100%
Appendix
Table 11: Composition of the SFT mixture. Counts are rounded to two decimal places in millions; shares use unrounded counts.
Figure 4: Specialist RL diagnostics over the displayed training intervals. Normalized verifier reward tracks task-specific rollout quality; the effective-prompt count records groups with non-degenerate relative-advantage signals; response length is measured in generated tokens; KL is measured against each specialist’s RL reference policy rather than the C-MOPD student. Light lines show per-step values and dark lines show TensorBoard EMA curves ( s=0.9 ).
Benchmark
Split
Prompting
Metric
MMLU / CMMLU
Test
5-shot
Acc.
C-Eval
Validation
5-shot
Acc.
MMLU-Pro
Test
5-shot CoT
Acc.
GPQA Diamond
Diamond
5-shot CoT
Acc.
BBH
All 27 tasks
3-shot CoT
EM
GSM8K
Test
4-shot CoT
EM
Appendix
Table 12: Benchmark splits, prompting settings, and scoring metrics used in the reported evaluations.
Metric
Qwen3-8B Base
Turing-20B-A2B Pretrain
MMLU
78.92
79.83
CMMLU
81.28
84.17
C-Eval
83.06
81.76
MMLU-Pro
55.35
55.17
BBH
73.67
73.61
GPQA Main
34.82
37.05
Appendix
Table 13: Base-model results under the base-model prompting setup. GPQA uses the Main subset.
References
Sampled
Objective controls at K=32
Selected
Metric
SFT
Teacher
MOPD
No calibration
No clipping
Full
K=16 Full
Mathematics Tasks
GSM8K
90.07
91.96
90.45
91.81
91.13
91.66
91.58
MATH
65.86
74.50
70.32
73.28
73.14
73.34
74.10
GSM8K (Think)
92.95
95.68
95.53
95.38
95.53
95.38
95.68
MATH-500 (Think)
73.00
83.00
83.60
82.20
82.40
80.80
82.40
Appendix
Table 14: Raw benchmark scores (%) for the reference checkpoints, sampled-token MOPD, three calibration variants at K=32 , and the selected C-MOPD model. Teacher denotes the corresponding domain specialist. Bold marks the highest score in each row.
Support size, cmax=5
Clipping, K=32
Metric
K=8
K=16
K=32
K=64
cmax=2
cmax=5
cmax=10
Mathematics Tasks
GSM8K
90.75
91.58
91.66
91.21
90.30
91.66
90.90
MATH
73.90
74.10
73.34
73.22
73.22
73.34
73.30
GSM8K (Think)
95.68
95.68
95.38
94.84
95.45
95.38
95.30
MATH-500 (Think)
79.80
82.40
80.80
81.80
81.40
80.80
80.60
Appendix
Table 15: Raw benchmark scores (%) for the support-size and clipping-threshold sweeps. Bold marks the highest score within each row and sweep block.
Configuration
Step time (s)
Wait (%)
Speedup
HumanEval
MBPP
MBPP+
Consolidate
381.4
65.4
1.0 ×
86.59
78.04
66.67
AsyncOverlap
335.3
59.8
1.1 ×
84.76
76.46
65.34
AsyncOverlapRW32
137.2
12.4
2.8 ×
87.20
76.19
65.87
Appendix
Table 16: Timing and code benchmark scores for the PPU execution configurations.
Large language model post-training adapts pretrained models into more useful, reliable, and specialized assistants through supervised and preference-based learning.
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) scales language models efficiently through sparse expert activation, and its dynamic variant further reduces computation by adjusting the activated experts in an input-dependent manner. Existing dynamic MoE methods usually rely on pre-training from scratch or task-specific adaptation, leaving the practical conversion of fully trained MoE underexplored. Enabling such adaptation would directly alleviate the inference costs by allowing easy tokens to bypass unnecessary expert during serving. This paper introduces Zero-Expert Self-Distillation Adaptation (ZEDA), a low-cost framework that transforms post-trained static MoE models into efficient dynamic ones. To stabilize this architectural conversion, ZEDA injects parameter-free zero-output experts into each MoE layer and adapts the augmented model through two-stage self-distillation, utilizing the original MoE as a frozen teacher and applying a group-level balancing loss. On Qwen3-30B-A3B and GLM-4.7-Flash across 11 benchmarks spanning math, code, and instruction following, ZEDA eliminates over 50% of expert FLOPs at marginal accuracy loss. It outperforms the strongest dynamic MoE baseline by 6.1 and 4.0 points on the two models, and delivers ~1.20× end-to-end inference speedup.
Xingtai Lv, Li Sheng, Kaiyan Zhang +12
Tsinghua University · Shanghai AI Lab · WeChat AI +1
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale capacity without proportional compute cost and have become a key architecture for frontier large language models (LLMs). Yet domain-specific post-training inherits an expert pool shaped by mixed-domain pre-training: a substantial subset of experts contributes little on the target domain, and standard supervised fine-tuning (SFT) leaves the composition of this pool unchanged. We propose a simple, budget-preserving pipeline that realigns the expert pool to the target domain before fine-tuning. Given a target domain, we (1) prune the experts with lowest domain-aligned saliency, (2) regrow the expert pool to its original size through perturbation-based expert expansion, and (3) apply standard SFT. The resulting model preserves the original expert count, parameter count, and inference cost. With a single frozen recipe and no per-domain hyperparameter tuning, UMoE consistently improves over direct sft across two MoE architectures (Qwen3-30B-A3B and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B), five domains (math, code, science, tool-use, and agentic coding), and 12 benchmarks. Representative improvements are 3.4 points in math average accuracy, 6.0 points on SWE-bench Verified. On a strong in-house math corpus, direct sft already surpasses Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking (82.81 vs.\ 81.06), yet UMoE further raises the average to 84.17, an additional 1.36 points, demonstrating robustness to a substantially stronger SFT regime. Data-scaling experiments further show that the gain persists as training data grows. Analysis reveals that the direct-SFT model allocates substantial routed-expert compute to a low-saliency subset that can be removed post hoc with little average degradation; UMoE turns this redundant capacity into useful domain capacity and achieves lower training loss, with gains spanning all difficulty levels in downstream evaluation.
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