Batch Prioritized Routing Overview

• Batch prioritized routing is a technique that processes multiple routing requests together to optimize throughput, latency, and resource allocation in systems like SDNs and MoE models.
• The methodology involves candidate computation, prioritization, and allocation, exemplified by Opportunistic Expert Activation which reduces memory latency by up to 39% in MoE inference.
• Practical implementations leverage heuristic and ILP approaches in SDNs and graph routing to balance trade-offs between throughput, fairness, and scalability.

Batch Prioritized Routing refers to a set of methodologies that optimize resource allocation, path selection, or expert activation in large-scale routing problems by considering multiple requests, flows, or tokens as a batch, and then prioritizing decisions within that batch to optimize throughput, latency, or other system-level metrics. This concept arises prominently in networking (notably in Software Defined Networks, SDNs), graph-based routing schemes, and high-efficiency inference in large Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) neural models.

1. Foundational Concepts and Formal Definitions

Batch prioritized routing generalizes classical routing by operating on a batch of demands—network flows, token activations, or path requests—rather than one at a time. Each individual demand may be associated with a priority (e.g., bandwidth request, importance, or router score). Unlike independent routing, batch prioritized algorithms explicitly acknowledge resource contention between simultaneously processed requests and aim for global (or Pareto-efficient) trade-offs.

Formally, consider a set of demands $\{d_1, \dots, d_k\}$, each described by source, destination, constraints, and priority parameters. The task is to assign, for as many as feasible, feasible routes or resource allocations to the demands such that overall objectives are optimized:

• In SDN: maximize total admitted priority or total bandwidth without exceeding link capacities (López et al., 2020, Xu et al., 2019).
• In MoE inference: minimize the number of unique expert modules activated per batch step, subject to quality preservation constraints (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025).
• In metric routing: maintain best-possible stretch, label size, or routing table size for prioritized destinations within a batch (Elkin et al., 2015).

Batch prioritized routing typically entails three core stages: candidate computation, prioritization or sorting, and allocation or selection. The process is explicitly batch-aware, leveraging information at the batch level to improve efficiency and global utility.

2. Algorithmic Methodologies across Domains

2.1 Mixture-of-Experts (MoE): Opportunistic Expert Activation

Recent scaling of MoE LLMs has driven batch-aware routing strategies to mitigate memory bottlenecks. In these models, each token in a batch independently selects top-$k$ experts via a router and activates only those, but naive independent selection leads to a high number of unique experts loaded into memory, dominating latency. Batch-prioritized routing—specifically, Opportunistic Expert Activation (OEA)—modifies the per-token selection to preferentially "piggyback" on already-loaded experts, reducing overall memory bandwidth without significant quality loss.

The OEA algorithm (simplified) (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025):

1. Baseline Expert Selection: For each token $i$, select the top-$k_0$ experts ($k_0<k$) as a quality-ensuring baseline.
2. Batch Union: Compute the union $S^{\mathrm{base}} = \cup_i S_i^{\mathrm{base}}$; these experts are guaranteed to be loaded.
3. Opportunistic Piggybacking: For each token, greedily fill the remaining $k-k_0$ slots with the highest-scoring experts among those in $S^{\mathrm{base}}$.
4. Renormalization: Router outputs are renormalized over the selected subset.

This approach is computationally efficient—additional overhead is linear in batch size and $N$—and achieves substantial reductions in memory-bound latency. For example, Qwen3-30B with $k_0=3$, batch size 16, showed a 39% reduction in unique experts activated (from 48.8 to 25.1) and similar reductions in wall-clock latency, with no statistically significant downstream loss for $k_0 \ge 5$ (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025).

2.2 SDN and Graph Routing: Priority-Driven Batch Algorithms

In large SDNs, batch prioritized routing deals with thousands of simultaneous flow requests, each with constraints (bandwidth, delay, hop count) and priorities. Algorithms typically proceed as follows (Xu et al., 2019, López et al., 2020):

• Path Computation: For each demand, enumerate feasible paths via, e.g., hop-bounded bidirectional BFS (Phase 1).
• Batch Sorting and Prioritization: Use rules such as bandwidth-first, hop-count-first, or bandwidth-per-hop to sort demands; the order is critical for maximizing throughput in the presence of resource contention.
• Path Selection: For each prioritized demand, select a path (typically minimizing inverses of residual capacities along candidate paths), fix the allocation, and update residual resources.

Variants include both heuristic and exact (ILP-based) approaches. ILP can yield optimal batch routing, but is practical only for moderate network sizes ($|V|\leq 30$); scalable heuristics (e.g., prioritized greedy plus path candidate enumeration or genetic algorithms) achieve 90–98% of optimal solutions in orders-of-magnitude less time (López et al., 2020, Xu et al., 2019).

2.3 Prioritized Metric Routing

Batch prioritized routing can also refer to data structures and routing schemes in which destinations or nodes are assigned a priority ranking, and the routing algorithm ensures better stretch, label size, or routing table size for higher-priority vertices (Elkin et al., 2015). For a batch of routing requests directed to high-priority nodes, these prioritized schemes provide systematically improved guarantees (e.g., stretch 1 on trees and $O(\log j)$ label size for the $j$th priority node). Parallel batch processing is accommodated with minimal aggregate overhead.

3. Theoretical and Practical Trade-Offs

Batch prioritized routing exposes fundamental trade-offs:

• Latency vs. Quality: In MoE OEA, the $k_0$ hyperparameter governs the trade-off; smaller $k_0$ yields fewer active experts (thus lower latency) but may risk quality under low batch diversity. As batch size grows, batch-sharing saturates and gain diminishes as more top-$k$ experts overlap (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025).
• Throughput vs. Fairness: In SDN, prioritizing by bandwidth per hop, or primal-dual-inspired rules, may increase global throughput at the expense of low-priority demand satisfaction. Candidate sorting rules (bandwidth-first, hop-first, etc.) induce different aggregate utility profiles (Xu et al., 2019, López et al., 2020).
• Optimality vs. Scalability: Exact (ILP) batch prioritized routing is tractable only for small batch sizes/topologies, while heuristics achieve high near-optimality with vastly improved runtime.
• Header/Table Size vs. Stretch: In prioritized metric routing, trade-offs exist between the size of routing labels/tables and the stretch experienced by different priority ranks (Elkin et al., 2015).

4. Complexity Analysis and Scalability

Performance across batch prioritized routing methodologies is domain-specific but follows related principles:

• MoE batch routing (OEA) introduces negligible per-batch overhead relative to expert matrix multiplications; memory usage is dominated by tracking baselines and selected sets ($O(N)$ and $O(Bk)$, respectively) (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025).
• Network heuristics scale linearly in the number of nodes, edges, and candidate paths per demand; most steps (notably path computation and filtering) are embarrassingly parallel (Xu et al., 2019).
• In prioritized metric schemes, batch routing of $k$ queries incurs $O(k)$ work, and per-node storage depends on the rank $j$ (in both label size and routing table) (Elkin et al., 2015).

Empirical results demonstrate strong scalability. For SDN topologies with up to $10^4$ nodes and $10^4$ demands, batch-prioritized heuristics routinely admitted over 92% of total requested bandwidth with runtimes under 6 seconds, outperforming k-shortest-path and one-by-one greedy baselines by large margins both in speed and throughput (Xu et al., 2019).

5. Extensions, Generalizations, and Open Directions

Batch prioritized routing frameworks admit generalizations:

• Constraint Generalization: Path selection phases can be adjusted for additional constraints (must-visit, avoid-sets, multi-objective criteria such as jitter or cost), typically by modifications to Path Computation or Path Selection steps (Xu et al., 2019).
• Dynamic Batch Sizing: Adaptive control of batch size or the prioritization hyperparameters (e.g., $k_0$ in MoE) based on real-time measurements can further optimize trade-offs (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025).
• Metaheuristics: Genetic algorithms, particle swarm, and other metaheuristics provide robust, parallelizable alternatives to greedy assignment (López et al., 2020).
• Multicast/Group Routing: Prioritized metric routing schemes support simultaneous batch queries via group pivoting/multicast or by aggregating headers, potentially optimizing for shared path segments (Elkin et al., 2015).
• Hardware-Aware Tuning: As batch-level performance is increasingly limited by hardware characteristics (e.g., memory bandwidth in MoE), batch-prioritized routing strategies are critical for optimal utilization.

Potential open directions highlighted include efficient batch-aware multipoint routing (Steiner trees under prioritized constraints), approximate algorithms with provable bounds in SDN, and integrating batch-awareness in multi-device parallel regimes (Elkin et al., 2015, Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025).

6. Empirical Benchmarks and Real-World Impact

Empirical evidence from large SDN deployments and LLM inference demonstrates the efficacy of batch prioritized routing:

• MoE LLMs: Up to 39% reduction in memory latency at fixed accuracy on Qwen3-30B, with comparable results on Qwen3-235B (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025).
• SDN: Batch-prioritized heuristics achieve 90–95.6% of aggregate bandwidth in under 10 seconds for $10^4$-node networks, winning over classic algorithms by both speed and throughput (Xu et al., 2019).
• Optimality Gaps: Heuristic approaches (greedy, GA) maintain solution quality within 97–99% of ILP-based optima in priority admission and routing (López et al., 2020).

The batch prioritized routing paradigm systematically improves efficiency by leveraging global batch information for decision making, thus optimizing resource usage and overall service quality in both AI systems and large-scale networked environments.

---

Key References:

• Opportunistic Expert Activation: Batch-Aware Expert Routing for Faster Decode Without Retraining (Oncescu et al., 4 Nov 2025)
• Multiple Constrained Routing Algorithms in Large-Scaled Software Defined Networks (Xu et al., 2019)
• Priority Flow Admission and Routing in SDN: Exact and Heuristic Approaches (López et al., 2020)
• Prioritized Metric Structures and Embedding (Elkin et al., 2015)