Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:A671A40B

How does dynamic batch-aware expert selection in MoE inference affect token-per-second throughput compared to

Submitted: 28 May 2026
Review score: 2.67/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: Quarantine candidate
Verified claims: 15

Abstract

Abstract: Selective parameter activation provided by Mixture-of-Expert (MoE) models have made them a popular choice in modern foundational models. However, MoEs face a fundamental tension when employed for serving. Batching, critical for performance in serving, forces the activation of all experts, thereby negating MoEs' benefits and exacerbating memory bandwidth bottlenecks. Existing work on efficient MoE inference are unable to resolve this tension even with extensive workload-specific tuning. We present LYNX, a system that enables efficient MoE inference in a workload-agnostic fashion. LYNX leverages

Research Question

How does dynamic batch-aware expert selection in MoE inference affect token-per-second throughput compared to dense models of equivalent total parameter count on DocVQA and ChartQA benchmarks under varying batch sizes?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims15
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Quality Tier

TierQuarantine candidate
BasisReview score is below 5.0; source-level inspection is required before relying on the synthesis.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength LOW
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status MEDIUM

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL3, Claim aggregate record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordNot registered
Claim lineage15 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.