Mixture of Experts (MoE) layers are used as an alternative to dense Feed-Forward Networks (FFNs) in neural architectures. A primary architectural decision when working with MoE layers involves determining their placement and frequency. Replacing every FFN with an MoE is a possible strategy, but it is often suboptimal. This approach significantly increases a model's parameter count and can introduce substantial communication overhead in distributed settings without a proportional performance improvement. Therefore, the strategic placement of MoE layers is an important design choice that balances model capacity, computational cost, and training dynamics.
This decision involves two primary axes: the frequency of MoE layers (e.g., in every block, every other block) and their location within the network's depth (e.g., concentrated in the early, middle, or late stages).
The most common and empirically successful strategy is to replace the FFNs in an alternating pattern. For example, you might use an MoE layer in every second or every fourth Transformer block, while the other blocks retain their standard dense FFNs. This approach is a heuristic that provides a good balance between increasing model capacity and managing computational and communication costs.
Architectures like Google's Switch Transformer and GLaM adopted this "every other layer" pattern. The primary motivation is to moderate the all-to-all communication overhead required for expert parallelism. During training, each device sends the tokens destined for a specific expert to the device holding that expert's weights. This is a network-intensive operation. By alternating MoE layers with standard FFNs, which do not require such communication, the overall communication-to-computation ratio remains manageable.
The diagram below illustrates three potential frequency strategies for a 6-layer Transformer. The alternating pattern is often the most practical starting point.
Three different MoE placement strategies in a 6-layer model. The alternating pattern (Strategy 2) is a common and effective baseline.
The depth at which MoE layers are placed influences the type of specialization they learn. In a standard Transformer, earlier layers tend to capture more general, syntactic, or low-level features, while later layers learn more abstract, semantic, and task-specific representations.
This leads to a compelling hypothesis: MoE layers may be more effective in the later stages of a network. The reasoning is that token representations become more distinct and semantically rich in deeper layers, making the routing decision more meaningful. For instance, in a late layer, the router can more reliably distinguish between tokens related to "physics" versus "finance" and route them to experts specialized in those domains. In an early layer, such distinctions may not have fully emerged from the raw embeddings, making it harder for the gating network to learn a useful routing policy.
Conversely, an argument can be made for placing MoE layers early to encourage diverse feature pathways from the start. However, empirical evidence often points to greater benefits from specialization in the middle-to-late layers.
Ultimately, the optimal placement is an empirical question. The goal is to find the sweet spot that maximizes model performance for a given computational budget. The chart below shows a performance curve based on placement strategy, illustrating that uniform or slightly late-biased placement often yields the best results.
Relationship between the location of MoE layers and model performance. A uniform or alternating placement often provides the best trade-off.
When designing your MoE architecture, consider the following points:
Start with an Alternating Pattern: For most applications, replacing the FFN in every other Transformer block is a baseline. It effectively increases model capacity while keeping communication costs in check.
Analyze the Task: If your task requires significant high-level reasoning and specialization (e.g., a multi-domain question-answering system), placing MoEs in the middle-to-late layers where semantic representations are richer may be beneficial. For tasks that might benefit from early feature differentiation, experimenting with earlier placement is worthwhile.
Consider Model Depth: For exceptionally deep models (e.g., 100+ layers), an every-other-layer strategy might still be too frequent. In such cases, a sparser placement, such as one MoE layer every three or four blocks, might be more appropriate to avoid excessive communication overhead.
Fine-Tuning Implications: During fine-tuning, the later layers of a model are often the most important for adapting to a new task. If you are fine-tuning a pre-trained MoE model, you may find that only training the MoE layers, particularly those in the latter half of the network, is an efficient and effective strategy.
The optimal placement strategy is not universal. It depends on the specific model architecture, the nature of the task, and the constraints of your hardware environment. The principles and patterns discussed here provide a strong starting point for making informed architectural decisions, which should then be refined through experimentation.
Was this section helpful?
© 2026 ApX Machine LearningAI Ethics & Transparency•