Reproducible recipe

Sparse mixture of experts

Increase conditional capacity while keeping active compute bounded.. A dense model lacks capacity and a true sparse execution path is available.

Status
validated with caveat
Learning path
architecture and kernels
Regression slices
5
Execution
Fresh experiment required

Target

Increase conditional capacity while keeping active compute bounded.

Failure this recipe addresses

A dense model lacks capacity and a true sparse execution path is available.

Data contract

A deterministic routing fixture plus task data and expert-load diagnostics.

Method or policy

Train a router and experts, then execute only selected experts with sparse gather/scatter or grouped matmul.

Evaluation contract

Task quality and real wall-clock/energy versus a dense parameter-matched baseline.

  • expert balance
  • router collapse
  • memory
  • wall time
  • quality

Budget and stop rule

Dense-compute smoke completed; no further project run without a real sparse kernel and a fresh target.

Stop if all experts still execute or the router collapses.

Decision rule

Treat as capacity-only until sparse execution produces a measured compute win.

Learning exercise

Calculate active versus total parameters for top-k expert routing and identify why dense execution saves nothing.

Explain the difference between sparse parameters and sparse compute.

How to read this dossier

This canonical page separates the retained repository decision from the material that informed it. A source may describe an external claim, historical measurement, local observation, or planned procedure; those evidence classes are not interchangeable. Follow the provenance links before reusing a number or method.

Status and disposition describe what PostTrainLLM retained when this record was indexed. They are not a live product promise, a newly run benchmark, or permission to restart historical work. Unknown or unmeasured fields remain unknown rather than being treated as zero.

To reuse the record, first name the exact claim you need and trace it to the linked source. Then check whether the original environment, model revision, data split, evaluator, hardware, and budget match the proposed use. If they do not, treat the record as a hypothesis or design reference and run the smallest fresh comparison that can falsify it. Preserve negative outcomes and regressions beside any improvement; a local win on one slice does not silently become a general capability claim.

Source provenance

The normalized record comes from docs/recipes/registry.json. The links below are the tracked evidence and explanatory sources preserved with the record.