Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
38 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Efficient Expert Pruning for Sparse Mixture-of-Experts Language Models: Enhancing Performance and Reducing Inference Costs (2407.00945v1)

Published 1 Jul 2024 in cs.LG

Abstract: The rapid advancement of LLMs has led to architectures with billions to trillions of parameters, posing significant deployment challenges due to their substantial demands on memory, processing power, and energy consumption. Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (SMoE) architectures have emerged as a solution, activating only a subset of parameters per token, thereby achieving faster inference while maintaining performance. However, SMoE models still face limitations in broader deployment due to their large parameter counts and significant GPU memory requirements. In this work, we introduce a gradient-free evolutionary strategy named EEP (Efficient Expert P}runing) to enhance the pruning of experts in SMoE models. EEP relies solely on model inference (i.e., no gradient computation) and achieves greater sparsity while maintaining or even improving performance on downstream tasks. EEP can be used to reduce both the total number of experts (thus saving GPU memory) and the number of active experts (thus accelerating inference). For example, we demonstrate that pruning up to 75% of experts in Mixtral $8\times7$B-Instruct results in a substantial reduction in parameters with minimal performance loss. Remarkably, we observe improved performance on certain tasks, such as a significant increase in accuracy on the SQuAD dataset (from 53.4% to 75.4%), when pruning half of the experts. With these results, EEP not only lowers the barrier to deploying SMoE models,but also challenges the conventional understanding of model pruning by showing that fewer experts can lead to better task-specific performance without any fine-tuning. Code is available at https://github.com/imagination-research/EEP.

Efficient Expert Pruning for Sparse Mixture-of-Experts LLMs: An Analysis

The paper presents a novel approach to improve the efficiency of Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (SMoE) LLMs by addressing the challenges associated with their large parameter sets and the resulting high computational and memory demands. The technique, termed Efficient Expert Pruning (EEP), proposes an evolutionary strategy that refines expert pruning and optimizes the use of SMoE architectures, which have become increasingly prevalent due to their ability to maintain performance while decreasing computational costs.

Key Contributions

The primary contribution of the paper is the introduction of Efficient Expert Pruning (EEP), which advances the pruning method in the following distinct ways:

  1. Gradient-Free Evolutionary Strategy: EEP employs an evolutionary strategy, steering clear of gradient-based optimization which is often computationally expensive. This strategy optimizes pruning and merging within the SMoE, thus conserving resources while enhancing downstream task performance.
  2. Enhanced Pruning Without Loss in Performance: A critical finding demonstrated through empirical evaluation is the capacity to prune up to 75% of the experts without significant performance degradation. Remarkably, in some cases, such as with the SQuAD dataset, performance was empirically improved, suggesting nuanced changes to the model that positively impacted its task-specific capabilities.
  3. Reduction of Inference Costs: EEP not only reduces the number of experts but also addresses inference efficiency by reducing the number of active experts. The approach cuts down on both the computing power and memory required, effectively lowering the deployment overheads associated with SMoE architectures.

Experimental Validation

The authors conduct thorough experimentation using the Mixtral 8×78\times7B-Instruct model, showing that the EEP method can significantly diminish both the number of model parameters and the count of active experts during inference. Further experimentation on more extensive datasets, such as those found in MMLU, reinforce the scalability and generalization capabilities of their method. The paper includes comparisons with other pruning strategies, such as Random, Frequency, Soft Activation, and NAEE, consistently showing EEP's superiority in maintaining or augmenting model performance post-pruning.

Theoretical Implications

The paper challenges the traditional understanding of model pruning. Contrary to the assumption that fewer parameters invariably lead to a drop in model efficacy, EEP demonstrates that strategic pruning and the merging of expert weights can potentially enhance performance on certain tasks, negating the requirement for post-pruning fine-tuning.

Future Prospects

The research opens several avenues for future exploration:

  • Hybrid Approaches: Combining the evolutionary strategy of EEP with sample-efficient gradient-based methods could further optimize SMoE performance.
  • Model Robustness: Investigating the implications of EEP on the robustness of SMoE models against adversarial inputs could provide insights into enhancing model security.
  • Applicability to Other Architectures: Extending EEP beyond LLMs to other domains such as vision or multimodal models could ascertain the versatility of the proposed pruning strategy.

The adoption of Efficient Expert Pruning as elucidated in this paper represents a significant step forward in making LLMs more accessible and deployable in real-world scenarios where resource constraints exist. It poses further questions about how we approach model optimization in the rapidly evolving field of neural network architectures. As researchers continue to seek effective methods that balance performance with efficiency, EEP’s findings will likely play a pivotal role in shaping future approaches.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (9)
  1. Enshu Liu (9 papers)
  2. Junyi Zhu (46 papers)
  3. Zinan Lin (42 papers)
  4. Xuefei Ning (52 papers)
  5. Matthew B. Blaschko (65 papers)
  6. Shengen Yan (26 papers)
  7. Guohao Dai (51 papers)
  8. Huazhong Yang (80 papers)
  9. Yu Wang (939 papers)
Citations (2)
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com