Approximation Rates and VC-Dimension Bounds for (P)ReLU MLP Mixture of Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) can scale up beyond traditional deep learning models by employing a routing strategy in which each input is processed by a single "expert" deep learning model. This strategy allows us to scale up the number of parameters defining the MoE while maintaining sparse activation, i.e., MoEs only load a small number of their total parameters into GPU VRAM for the forward pass depending on the input. In this paper, we provide an approximation and learning-theoretic analysis of mixtures of expert MLPs with (P)ReLU activation functions. We first prove that for every error level $\varepsilon>0$ and every Lipschitz function $f:[0,1]^n\to \mathbb{R}$, one can construct a MoMLP model (a Mixture-of-Experts comprising of (P)ReLU MLPs) which uniformly approximates $f$ to $\varepsilon$ accuracy over $[0,1]^n$, while only requiring networks of $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-1})$ parameters to be loaded in memory. Additionally, we show that MoMLPs can generalize since the entire MoMLP model has a (finite) VC dimension of $\tilde{O}(L\max\{nL,JW\})$, if there are $L$ experts and each expert has a depth and width of $J$ and $W$, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".