Chi Zhang
Publications
MMOE: Modernizing Diffusion Transformers with Efficient Expert Design
Modern large language models scale successfully by pairing capacity growth with efficiency, keeping per-token and deployment costs under control as capacity grows. AIGC Foundation Models (AFMs), especially diffusion-transformer backbones, have begun to adopt sparse experts, but recent efforts mostly enlarge total parameter counts and sparsity ratios without importing the efficiency mechanisms that made LLM scaling practical, so generation quality is seldom balanced against training and deployment cost. This raises a natural question: can the architectural principles behind efficient LLM scaling be adapted to AFMs in a more balanced way? We introduce ModernMOE (MMOE), a modernization of SiT-style diffusion transformers that systematically adapts routed experts, shared and lightweight experts, gate-residual routing, and attention-residual information reuse to AIGC generation. Rather than treating MoE as a single plug-in replacement, MMOE studies how different modern expert components affect convergence, efficiency, and generation quality when composed inside a diffusion transformer. Every experiment in this paper is trained on a single eight-GPU H100 node with batch size 256 for 400k steps, an accessible single-machine budget. Under matched training and sampling protocols and at this budget, MMOE reaches lower FID at every recorded checkpoint, that is, it converges faster per training step, than dense and intermediate sparse-expert baselines, and among the sparse variants it attains the best quality-cost balance. Routing analysis further shows stable expert specialization across depth, substantial use of lightweight routes, and modest step-to-step routing changes during denoising. These results suggest that AFMs can follow the balanced scaling path of LLMs by importing proven efficiency designs, rather than by simply increasing total parameters and sparsity ratios.
Are LLMs Vulnerable to Preference-Undermining Attacks (PUA)? A Factorial Analysis Methodology for Diagnosing the Trade-off between Preference Alignment and Real-World Validity
Large Language Model (LLM) training often optimizes for preference alignment, rewarding outputs that are perceived as helpful and interaction-friendly. However, this preference-oriented objective can be exploited: manipulative prompts can steer responses toward user-appeasing agreement and away from truth-oriented correction. In this work, we investigate whether aligned models are vulnerable to Preference-Undermining Attacks (PUA), a class of manipulative prompting strategies designed to exploit the model's desire to please user preferences at the expense of truthfulness. We propose a diagnostic methodology that provides a finer-grained and more directive analysis than aggregate benchmark scores, using a factorial evaluation framework to decompose prompt-induced shifts into interpretable effects of system objectives (truth- vs. preference-oriented) and PUA-style dialogue factors (directive control, personal derogation, conditional approval, reality denial) within a controlled $2 \times 2^4$ design. Surprisingly, more advanced models are sometimes more susceptible to manipulative prompts. Beyond the dominant reality-denial factor, we observe model-specific sign reversals and interactions with PUA-style factors, suggesting tailored defenses rather than uniform robustness. These findings offer a novel, reproducible factorial evaluation methodology that provides finer-grained diagnostics for post-training processes like RLHF, enabling better trade-offs in the product iteration of LLMs by offering a more nuanced understanding of preference alignment risks and the impact of manipulative prompts.