跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 06:10 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 06:30 — 2026-11-09 06:30(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 06:10最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 06:08(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07654

English Calibration Erodes Lithuanian in Expert-Pruned Mixture-of-Experts Language Models

Tomas Rasymas, Povilas Kvedaras

原文摘要

Expert pruning compresses Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models by removing the experts that a calibration set marks as unimportant. Studies of high-resource languages largely find that English calibration transfers well to other languages. We test this for Lithuanian: we pruned four MoE models with REAP, removing 25% or 50% of the experts with English, Lithuanian or mixed calibration, and evaluated both languages on reading comprehension, translation and language modelling. English calibration does not transfer to Lithuanian: at 25% pruning, English comprehension fell by a median of 1.7 points but Lithuanian by 21.4. The transfer is asymmetric. Lithuanian calibration removed most of the Lithuanian loss and never significantly hurt English comprehension, which was on average 2.5 points better than under English calibration; only English language modeling got slightly worse. Routing suggests why: in the last layers, Lithuanian sends 55-72% of its expert selections to just eight experts, against 19-39% for English, and English calibration removes some of these experts. Compressed models should be calibrated, and evaluated, in every language they must serve.

cs.CL · cs.LG