HFEPX · Eval paper review

TEMPO: Makespan-Aware Expert-Parallel Load Balancing Across Memory- and Compute-Bound Regimes

Jie Li, Chenxin Jia, Jinliang Shen, Cunzhuang Liu +4 more

Published

Aug 13, 2026

Citations

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Domain Experts

Signals refreshed

Aug 13, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

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.

Abstract-only analysis, low confidence

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.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

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.

Human feedback signal

Not explicit

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation signal

Detected

Eval setup described

Usefulness for eval research

0/100

Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

In expert-parallel (EP) MoE serving, every layer synchronizes at the slowest GPU. Dispatchers balance token counts (EPLB, LPLB, UltraEP) or activated-expert counts (METRO), assuming expert time is linear in one. Measurements on two datacenter GPU generations show it is neither: below $\nstar\!\approx\!156$--$168$ tokens, HBM weight streaming dominates---cost attaches to \emph{activated replicas}, not tokens; above it, grouped GEMM rounds tokens to 128-tile $M$-tiles, so \emph{splitting} an expert adds padded compute. A max-affine profile $t=\max(a+bG,\,c+βN)$ captures both regimes. Realistic decode batches hold hot experts in the linear regime and cold in the flat \emph{simultaneously}; recorded batches show proxy dispatches differ by $1.4$--$1.6\times$ in modeled block time (p95 up to $1.7\times$), and \emph{which} proxy wins flips with the regime. We formalize per-batch dispatch as a fixed-charge makespan problem---NP-hard on two fully replicated GPUs, polynomial in degenerate limits---and present \sys{}, a makespan-aware dispatcher solving it in milliseconds off the critical path; its SGLang integration runs out-of-process and fuses dispatch with count collection into one in-graph kernel. Anchored by an 8-GPU Testbed~A microbenchmark, \sys{} stays within 1\% of the best fixed baseline everywhere and wins by up to $15.5\%$ where regimes mix. End-to-end on Testbed~B, Qwen3-235B (inside the win region) gains $4$--$6\%$ throughput and cuts p99 latency by ${\sim}15.6\%$; DeepSeek-V3 (outside, communication-dominated) shows only mechanism cost. A phase diagram, not a universal win, is the claim: it predicts both outcomes before deployment.

What we could verify

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.