Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:C458A3FB

Dynamic Expert Capacity Allocation and Its Impact on HumanEval Accuracy in MoE Models

Submitted: 29 May 2026
Review score: 4.67/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Unverified
Quality tier: Quarantine candidate
Verified claims: 5

Abstract

Abstract: Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures enable conditional computation by routing inputs to multiple expert subnetworks and are often motivated as a mechanism for scaling large language models. In this project, we instead study MoE behavior in an image classification setting, focusing on predictive performance, expert utilization, and generalization. We compare dense, SoftMoE, and SparseMoE classifier heads on the CIFAR10 dataset under comparable model capacity. Both MoE variants achieve slightly higher validation accuracy than the dense baseline while maintaining balanced expert utilization

Research Question

How does dynamic expert capacity allocation affect pass@1 accuracy on HumanEval compared to fixed-capacity MoE models with equivalent parameter counts?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims5
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

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

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusUnverified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonPublished before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record.
Evaluated2026-06-10T06:30:49+00:00

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

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 lineage5 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.