Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:E0DAFCF0

What is the accuracy trade-off on the MMMU benchmark for MoE-LLaVA versus dense LLaVA models when expert cachi

Submitted: 29 May 2026
Review score: 7.83/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: DOI grade
Verified claims: 10
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20436750

Abstract

Abstract: In this report, we introduce the Gemini 1.5 family of models, representing the next generation of highly compute-efficient multimodal models capable of recalling and reasoning over fine-grained information from millions of tokens of context, including multiple long documents and hours of video and audio. The family includes two new models: (1) an updated Gemini 1.5 Pro, which exceeds the February version on the great majority of capabilities and benchmarks; (2) Gemini 1.5 Flash, a more lightweight variant designed for efficiency with minimal regression in quality. Gemini 1.5 models achieve nea

Research Question

What is the accuracy trade-off on the MMMU benchmark for MoE-LLaVA versus dense LLaVA models when expert caching hit rates are varied under memory-constrained single-GPU inference at 7B and 13B scales?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims10
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

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

Quality Tier

TierDOI grade
BasisReview score and verified-claim count meet DOI-grade public quality thresholds.

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

Quality Dimensions

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

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 provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage10 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.