Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language models scale model capacity by routing each token to a small subset of experts."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Yury Nahshan, Nati Daniel, Jacob Goldberger, Yoli Shavit
Published
Sep 29, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
5/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Domain Experts
Signals refreshed
Sep 29, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language models scale model capacity by routing each token to a small subset of experts. Their routers are regularized with load balancing terms and learn affinity scores through the language-model objective. However, these objectives do not provide direct alignment between routing affinities and token-level error. We introduce token-error supervision for sparse routing in two forms. The first form predicts an error score per expert. The affinity-weighted aggregate of these scores is aligned to the next-token cross-entropy loss, while the individual scores attenuate affinity before top-$K$ selection. The second directly aligns the router's affinities to the model's objective without requiring an additional head or inference-time modification. Both formulations use the Itakura--Saito divergence or an exponential negative log-likelihood for aligning affinities and token errors. Across two sparse MoE backbones and four multiple-choice question-answering benchmarks, we evaluate both supervision mechanisms. On Granite, our method improves accuracy by approximately 2.3 percentage points on average over a parameter-matched routing baseline. With stronger supervision, the gain on ARC-Challenge reaches 2.94 points. Both mechanisms preserve the native sparse execution budget and aggregation policy. Our code is available in the supplementary materials.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language models scale model capacity by routing each token to a small subset of experts."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language models scale model capacity by routing each token to a small subset of experts."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language models scale model capacity by routing each token to a small subset of experts."
ARC Challenge
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"With stronger supervision, the gain on ARC-Challenge reaches 2.94 points."
Accuracy, Nll
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"On Granite, our method improves accuracy by approximately 2.3 percentage points on average over a parameter-matched routing baseline."
Domain Experts
Helpful for staffing comparability.
"Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language models scale model capacity by routing each token to a small subset of experts."
Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) large language models scale model capacity by routing each token to a small subset of experts.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
Detected: ARC-Challenge
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy, nll