@inproceedings{hyeon-do-2026-beyond,
title = "Beyond Retraining-Free {M}o{E} Compression: A Cost-Normalized Study of Post-Compression Adjustment",
author = "Hyeon, Sieun and
Do, Jaeyoung",
editor = "Lee, Hung-Yi and
Dev, Sunipa and
Li, Jessy and
Elliott, Desmond",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
month = oct,
year = "2026",
address = "Budapest, Hungary",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-main.1463/",
pages = "33444--33479",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-459-0",
abstract = "Retraining-free MoE compression reduces deployment memory by pruning or merging experts, but often treats the compressed checkpoint as the final artifact. We argue that this view is incomplete: compressed MoE checkpoints are better understood as compressed initializations that benefit from a tiny post-compression adjustment stage. Across two MoE LLM backbones, four pruning/merging methods, three expert-retention ratios, and 28 benchmarks, we compare LM fine-tuning and teacher-based KD under matched small-data budgets and measured GPU costs. Using only 3,000 C4 examples and a single epoch of adjustment, Full FT recovers 37.3{\%} of the original-to-compressed performance gap on average. Moreover, LM fine-tuning is more cost-effective than standard token-level KD, and full-parameter adjustment gives the strongest cost{--}recovery trade-off among the tested scopes. These results suggest that retraining-free compression should be paired with small post-compression adjustment to recover a substantial portion of the performance lost during compression."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="hyeon-do-2026-beyond">
<titleInfo>
<title>Beyond Retraining-Free MoE Compression: A Cost-Normalized Study of Post-Compression Adjustment</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sieun</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hyeon</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jaeyoung</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Do</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-10</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Hung-Yi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lee</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sunipa</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Dev</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jessy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Li</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Desmond</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Elliott</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Budapest, Hungary</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-459-0</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Retraining-free MoE compression reduces deployment memory by pruning or merging experts, but often treats the compressed checkpoint as the final artifact. We argue that this view is incomplete: compressed MoE checkpoints are better understood as compressed initializations that benefit from a tiny post-compression adjustment stage. Across two MoE LLM backbones, four pruning/merging methods, three expert-retention ratios, and 28 benchmarks, we compare LM fine-tuning and teacher-based KD under matched small-data budgets and measured GPU costs. Using only 3,000 C4 examples and a single epoch of adjustment, Full FT recovers 37.3% of the original-to-compressed performance gap on average. Moreover, LM fine-tuning is more cost-effective than standard token-level KD, and full-parameter adjustment gives the strongest cost–recovery trade-off among the tested scopes. These results suggest that retraining-free compression should be paired with small post-compression adjustment to recover a substantial portion of the performance lost during compression.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">hyeon-do-2026-beyond</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-main.1463/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-10</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>33444</start>
<end>33479</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Beyond Retraining-Free MoE Compression: A Cost-Normalized Study of Post-Compression Adjustment
%A Hyeon, Sieun
%A Do, Jaeyoung
%Y Lee, Hung-Yi
%Y Dev, Sunipa
%Y Li, Jessy
%Y Elliott, Desmond
%S Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
%D 2026
%8 October
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Budapest, Hungary
%@ 979-8-89176-459-0
%F hyeon-do-2026-beyond
%X Retraining-free MoE compression reduces deployment memory by pruning or merging experts, but often treats the compressed checkpoint as the final artifact. We argue that this view is incomplete: compressed MoE checkpoints are better understood as compressed initializations that benefit from a tiny post-compression adjustment stage. Across two MoE LLM backbones, four pruning/merging methods, three expert-retention ratios, and 28 benchmarks, we compare LM fine-tuning and teacher-based KD under matched small-data budgets and measured GPU costs. Using only 3,000 C4 examples and a single epoch of adjustment, Full FT recovers 37.3% of the original-to-compressed performance gap on average. Moreover, LM fine-tuning is more cost-effective than standard token-level KD, and full-parameter adjustment gives the strongest cost–recovery trade-off among the tested scopes. These results suggest that retraining-free compression should be paired with small post-compression adjustment to recover a substantial portion of the performance lost during compression.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-main.1463/
%P 33444-33479
Markdown (Informal)
[Beyond Retraining-Free MoE Compression: A Cost-Normalized Study of Post-Compression Adjustment](https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-main.1463/) (Hyeon & Do, EMNLP 2026)
ACL