Towards Principled Design of Mixture-of-Experts Language Models under Memory and Inference Constraints

Seng Pei Liew, Kenta Shinzato, Yuyang Dong
1/13/2026
cs.CLcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Modern Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models are designed based on total parameters (memory footprint) and active parameters (inference cost). However, we find these two factors alone are insufficient to describe an optimal architecture. Through a systematic study, we demonstrate that MoE performance is primarily determined by total parameters ($N_{total}$) and expert sparsity ($s:=n_{exp}/n_{topk}$). Moreover, $n_{exp}$ and $n_{topk}$ do not "cancel out" within the sparsity ratio; instead, a larger total number of experts slightly penalizes performance by forcing a reduction in core model dimensions (depth and width) to meet memory constraints. This motivates a simple principle for MoE design which maximizes $N_{total}$ while minimizing $s$ (maximizing $n_{topk}$) and $n_{exp}$ under the given constraints. Our findings provide a robust framework for resolving architectural ambiguity and guiding MoE design.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{liew2026towards,
  title  = {Towards Principled Design of Mixture-of-Experts Language Models under Memory and Inference Constraints},
  author = {Seng Pei Liew and Kenta Shinzato and Yuyang Dong},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2601.08215},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08215v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2601.08215.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2601.08215)

Discussion