CoolFace
Modelpublic

Muzian/minimind-rerank-moe

sourceHugging Faceapache-2.0updated 2mo agoView on Hugging Face
0likes16downloads
Model Card

MiniMind-Rerank-MoE

<div align="center">

params MAP10

</div>

<img src="./images/banner.png" alt="MiniMind-Embedding & Rerank" width="100%">

A Mixture-of-Experts cross-encoder reranker built on the MiniMind-3-MoE backbone (198M total / 64M active). The MoE counterpart of MiniMind-Rerank-Dense.

๐Ÿ“Œ How It Works

Same pointwise yes/no design as the Dense version: given a query and document, the model predicts whether the next token is ๆ˜ฏ (relevant) or ๅฆ (irrelevant). The softmax probability of ๆ˜ฏ is the relevance score.

๐Ÿ“Š Evaluation

C-MTEB/T2Reranking (MAP@10, no data leakage)

<div align="center">

[image]

</div>

ModelMAP@10Accuracy
Rerank-Dense (64M)0.91585%
Rerank-MoE (198M-A64M)0.60488%

Key Finding: MoE classification > Dense, but ranking < Dense

๐Ÿ’ก Counterintuitive: MoE's training accuracy (88%) is higher than Dense (85%), yet its MAP@10 (0.604) is far lower (Dense: 0.915). Why? - Pointwise โ‰  Ranking: MoE excels at binary classification (yes/no), but ranking requires fine-grained discrimination between "very relevant" vs "somewhat relevant." MoE's top-1 routing fragments the sequence across experts, making it harder to form a coherent global relevance signal. - Consistent with embedding findings: just as MoE underperforms Dense on STS (0.422 vs 0.478), the MoE architecture hurts representation quality at small scales. Recommendation: for reranking, use MiniMind-Rerank-Dense โ€” smaller, faster, and scores 50% higher.

๐ŸŽ“ Training

ConfigValue
Training dataT2Reranking, 80k pairs (80/20 split, no leakage)
Epochs3
Batch size16
Learning rate1e-5 (cosine)
Final loss0.28
Final accuracy88%

๐Ÿ—๏ธ Model Details

ItemValue
ArchitectureMiniMind-3-MoE (4 experts, top-1)
Total params198M
Active params64M
Scoringpointwise yes/no
Target tokensๆ˜ฏ (357) / ๅฆ (1332)

๐Ÿ™ Acknowledgements

๐Ÿ“„ License

Apache 2.0