# Reproducible Evaluation of MoE Expert Caching: Replay Semantics, Workload Contamination, and Operating Regimes

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07911 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.07911/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Efficient MoE training and inference systems, one of 12 directions in Mixture-of-experts.
- Builds on 14 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- Mixture-of-experts / [Efficient MoE training and inference systems](https://mlsanity.com/moe/efficient-moe-training-and-inference-systems/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.06538/) (2017)
- [Switch Transformers: Scaling to Trillion Parameter Models with Simple and Efficient Sparsity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.03961/) (2021)
- [LongBench: A Bilingual, Multitask Benchmark for Long Context Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14508/) (2023)
- [OLMoE: Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02060/) (2024)
- [Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.07763/) (2024)
- [Pre-gated MoE: An Algorithm-System Co-Design for Fast and Scalable Mixture-of-Expert Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12066/) (2023)
- [Fast Inference of Mixture-of-Experts Language Models with Offloading](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.17238/) (2023)
- [HOBBIT: A Mixed Precision Expert Offloading System for Fast MoE Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.01433/) (2024)
- [MoE-Infinity: Efficient MoE Inference on Personal Machines with Sparsity-Aware Expert Cache](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14361/) (2024)
- [Fate: Fast Edge Inference of Mixture-of-Experts Models via Cross-Layer Gate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12224/) (2025)
- [SP-MoE: Speculative Decoding and Prefetching for Accelerating MoE-based Model Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.10302/) (2025)
- [MoE-Beyond: Learning-Based Expert Activation Prediction on Edge Devices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17137/) (2025)
- [SpecMD: A Comprehensive Study On Speculative Expert Prefetching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03921/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models have outgrown accelerator memory, and offloading expert weights to host memory is now standard. This makes expert cache management an attractive lever: a policy that raised the hit rate would cut expert traffic per token. Evaluating that is a measurement problem, and we find the measurement fragile. With a trace-driven, event-atomic simulator over three MoE models (40, 64, 128 experts), we isolate three evaluation axes that change conclusions, not just numbers. Replay semantics: under a fused-event traffic contract, an inconsistent per-access replay inflates recency-based policies by 27-29% while leaving frequency-based and static ones within 4%, inverting the policy ranking. Workload contamination: probe sets using one instruction template per category produce verbatim-identical generation prefixes; a matched-pair rendering intervention moves the measured early-window effect by 19.4-31.9 points and reverses which workloads look most cache-friendly. Operating regimes: normalized miss fractions do not transfer across models, so the per-step expert union relative to per-layer capacity must be reported -- yet permuting only the temporal order of an identical event stream moves the offline-optimal gap from 44.9% to 30.8%, so it is not sufficient. Corrected, a stable gap to the offline optimum remains (44.2-45.9% over 13 frozen workload compositions). A forced-admission oracle attributes 84.3-96.6% of it to knowing which resident expert is used furthest in the future. A causal next-use predictor, used as an eviction rule, recovers -11.4% of the gap; it picks an optimal victim 3.4% of the time, against 2.4% for a random resident block and 20.6-22.1% for LRU and LFRU. Our position is narrow: in our evaluated settings a large offline-optimal gap substantially overstates the gains recovered by representative lightweight causal mechanisms.