Evaluates the routing stability, robustness, and task performance of Sparse Mixture of Experts (SMoE) models enhanced with similarity or attention-aware mechanisms. It probes how token-level routing decisions affect language modeling, image classification, and downstream fine-tuning under both clean and perturbed conditions. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Wikitext-103, ImageNet-1K, ImageNet-C, ImageNet-A, ImageNet-R, ImageNet-O, SST5, SST2, Banking-77, or asks about evaluating this t...
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Moe Routing Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-moe-routing-eval)
---
name: moe-routing-eval
description: Evaluates the routing stability, robustness, and task performance of Sparse Mixture of Experts (SMoE) models enhanced with similarity or attention-aware mechanisms. It probes how token-level routing decisions affect language modeling, image classification, and downstream fine-tuning under both clean and perturbed conditions. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Wikitext-103, ImageNet-1K, ImageNet-C, ImageNet-A, ImageNet-R, ImageNet-O, SST5, SST2, Banking-77, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports perplexity, Top-1 accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2505.00792
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# moe-routing-eval
> Improving Routing in Sparse Mixture of Experts with Graph of Tokens — Tam Nguyen et al. (2025) (arXiv:2505.00792, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the routing stability, robustness, and task performance of Sparse Mixture of Experts (SMoE) models enhanced with similarity or attention-aware mechanisms. It probes how token-level routing decisions affect language modeling, image classification, and downstream fine-tuning under both clean and perturbed conditions.
## Datasets
- **Wikitext-103** — total ?; splits: val (-1), test (-1)
- **ImageNet-1K** — total ?; splits: train (-1), val (-1), test (-1)
- **ImageNet-C** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ImageNet-A** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ImageNet-R** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ImageNet-O** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SST5** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SST2** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Banking-77** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `perplexity` **(primary)** — range: other
- Exponential of the negative average log-likelihood of the ground-truth tokens: exp(-1/N * Σ log p(y_i | y_<i)). Lower values indicate better language modeling performance.
- `Top-1 accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- The proportion of correctly predicted class labels out of the total number of instances: sum(preds == gold) / N. Higher values indicate better classification or fine-tuning performance.
- `routing fluctuation rate` — range: percent
- The percentage of tokens that change their assigned expert between consecutive training epochs (specifically epochs 59 and 60). Lower values indicate more stable routing.
- `decision entropy rate` — range: other
- The average entropy of the probability distribution over experts for each token routing decision. Lower values indicate more confident and consistent expert selection.
- `load balancing score` — range: other
- Measures the uniformity of token distribution across experts, typically evaluated via variance or standard deviation of expert assignment counts. More uniform distribution indicates better load balancing.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Tokenized text sequences for language modeling and fine-tuning tasks; image patches processed through a Vision MoE (V-MoE) architecture for classification tasks.
**Output**: For LM: probability distribution over the vocabulary for the next token. For classification/fine-tuning: predicted class label.
## Scoring recipe
```python
# Perplexity
ppl = exp(-mean(log(probs[range(len(tokens)), tokens])))
# Accuracy
acc = sum(preds == gold) / len(gold)
# Fluctuation
fluct = count(tokens_changed_expert_between_epoch_59_and_60) / total_tokens
# Entropy
entropy = mean(-sum(p_expert_given_token * log(p_expert_given_token)))
```
## Common pitfalls
- Confusing clean vs. attacked dataset results when comparing perplexity scores.
- Misinterpreting lower perplexity as worse performance (it is better).
- Overlooking that routing fluctuation and entropy are internal diagnostic metrics, not task performance metrics.
- Assuming the method replaces the base MoE architecture rather than acting as a plug-and-play enhancement to baselines like GLAM, X-MoE, and SMoE-dropout.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> The models are evaluated on validation and test sets using perplexity scores (lower is better) on clean data and in adversarial scenarios, i.e. under word-swap attacks.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{nguyen2025improvingrouting,
title={Improving Routing in Sparse Mixture of Experts with Graph of Tokens},
author={Tam Nguyen et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2505.00792}
}
```
- arXiv: 2505.00792