← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.07654 · v1
English Calibration Erodes Lithuanian in Expert-Pruned Mixture-of-Experts Language Models
首次提交 2026-11-05 16:39
版本更新 2026-11-05 16:39
雷达观测 2026-11-06 11:06
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.
作者备注：41 pages, 13 figures, 10 tables
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-05 16:39 · 最新观测版本
English Calibration Erodes Lithuanian in Expert-Pruned Mixture-of-Experts Language Models
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.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗