Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China · Kuaishou Technology, Beijing, China · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Reinforcement learning (RL) has equipped LLM agents with a strong ability to solve complex tasks. However, existing RL methods normally use a single policy network, causing simplicity bias where simple tasks occupy most parameters and dominate gradient updates, leaving insufficient capacity for complex tasks. A plausible remedy could be employing the Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture in the policy network, as MoE allows different parameters (experts) to specialize in different tasks, preventing simple tasks from dominating all parameters. However, a key limitation of traditional MoE is its token-level routing, where the router assigns each token to specialized experts, which fragments phase-consistent patterns into scattered expert assignments and thus undermines expert specialization. In this paper, we propose Phase-Aware Mixture of Experts (PA-MoE). It first features a lightweight phase router that learns latent phase boundaries directly from the RL objective without pre-defining phase categories. Then, the phase router allocates temporally consistent assignments to the same expert, allowing experts to preserve phase-specific expertise. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed PA-MoE.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Single-Policy Networks vs. Our PA-MoE. (a) Single-policy networks exhibit severe simplicity bias: simple tasks (pick_and_place) occupy 75% of parameters while complex tasks (heat/cool/clean requiring multi-step tool interaction) receive only 5%. Parameter occupancy is measured as the fraction of training batches where each task category contributes > 50% of the batch loss. (b) PA-MoE achieves balanced parameter allocation ( ∼ 30% per expert) and uniformly high performance across all task difficulties (96%-92%-98%).
Figure 2: Routing Granularity Comparison. (a) Expert switches per episode across routing strategies. Token-level MoE causes excessive fragmentation (45 switches), while trajectory-level MoE is overly coarse (3 switches). PA-MoE strikes a balance with 8 switches per episode. (b) Visualization of phase-level expert assignment showing semantic coherence: the same expert (indicated by color) is maintained within each contiguous behavioral phase, with switches occurring only at phase boundaries.
Figure 3: PA-MoE Architecture. Upper panel: Phase-Aware Router (Sec. 3 ) processes observation ot and goal g via cross-attention, and action history ht via LSTM, to select expert k∗=argmaxpi . Balance loss Lbal ensures uniform expert utilization. Lower panel: Phase-Aware MoE Execution shows agent-environment interaction. The router selects expert k∗ from K LoRA-based experts sharing a frozen base model (gray). The selected expert generates action via policy πexpk∗(at∣st,ht,g) . Training optimizes both router and experts jointly via RL loss LRL and diversity loss Ldiv (Sec. 3 ).
Type
Method
ALFWorld
WebShop
Pick
Look
Clean
Heat
Cool
Pick2
All
Score
Succ.
Closed-Source Model ‡
Prompting
GPT-4o †
75.3
60.8
31.2
56.7
21.6
49.8
48.0
31.8
23.7
Prompting
Gemini-2.5-Pro †
92.8
63.3
62.1
69.0
25.4
58.7
60.3
42.5
35.9
Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct
Prompting
Qwen2.5 †
5.9
5.5
3.3
9.7
4.2
0.0
4.1
23.1
5.2
Table 1: Performance comparison on ALFWorld and WebShop benchmarks. For ALFWorld, we report the average success rate (%) for each subtask as well as the overall result. For WebShop, we report both the average score and the average success rate (%). We report mean and standard deviation over 3 random seeds for RL methods. Prompting results are deterministic single runs. “GiGPO w/o std” refers to variants without advantage standardization, respectively.
K
Pick
Pick2
Look
Heat
Cool
Clean
All
0
94.3
87.5
62.5
94.4
89.5
83.3
88.3
2
97.1
91.7
62.5
100.0
73.7
100.0
91.4
4 (ours)
97.1
91.7
75.0
100.0
89.5
95.8
93.8
6
91.4
70.8
62.5
100.0
84.2
91.7
85.9
Table 2: Ablation on number of experts ( K ). K=0 uses a single shared LoRA adapter without routing. All six ALFWorld task types shown. Bold indicates best per column; underline indicates ties with best. We report the average success rate (%) for each subtask as well as the overall result. See Appendix F for K=3,5 results and standard deviations.
Routing
Pick(%)
Heat(%)
All(%)
Token-level
88.6
86.1
85.7
Trajectory-level
94.3
91.7
88.5
Phase-level (ours)
97.1
100.0
93.8
Table 3: Comparison of routing granularities. Switches denotes average expert switches per episode, measured at the environment step level (i.e., ∑t1[zt=zt+1] ). Trajectory-level assigns one expert per episode at t=0 based on initial observation, with minimal within-episode adaptation. See Appendix C for token-level baseline details.
Router Configuration
Success Rate (%)
w/o action history
89.2
w/o goal attention
90.5
w/o both
86.8
Full router (ours)
93.8
Table 4: Ablation on router components.
E1
E2
E3
E4
Role
Explore
Manipulate
Navigate
Recover
Action (%)
73
82
64
71
Table 5: Emergent expert specialization on ALFWorld (role and activation frequency).
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Gradient conflict analysis. (a) Phase-specific gradients projected onto top-2 principal components show pairwise conflicts: Explore and Interact gradients form angles exceeding 90°, and no two phases produce aligned gradients. (b) Gradient conflict score throughout training, defined as the average negative cosine similarity between phase gradients. Single policy maintains high conflict ( >0.4 ) while PA-MoE reduces conflict to near-zero by epoch 50. (c) Pareto analysis of simple vs. complex task performance. PA-MoE achieves Pareto optimality while GiGPO baseline suffers degraded complex task performance.
Figure 5: Entropy mismatch analysis. All entropy values reported in bits (log base 2). (a) Policy entropy across phases: optimal phase-specific entropy (blue), single policy entropy (coral), and PA-MoE entropy (green). (b) Action distribution modality for exploration (diffuse, H=3.5 bits), interaction (peaked, H=0.5 bits), and single policy (intermediate, H=2.3 bits). (c) Entropy evolution over episode timesteps. (d) Absolute entropy deviation from optimal by phase.
Configuration
Success(%)
Δ
Full (both losses)
93.8 ±2.4
–
w/o Ldiv
88.3 ±3.1
−5.5
w/o Lbal
87.5 ±2.8
−6.3
w/o both
86.5 ±3.5
−7.3
Appendix
Table 6: Impact of regularization terms on ALFWorld. Mean ± std over 3 seeds.
Method
Success(%)
Δ
GiGPO (baseline)
86.1 ±4.7
–
+ PCGrad
87.3 ±3.9
+1.2
+ GradNorm
86.8 ±4.2
+0.7
+ CAGrad
87.9 ±3.6
+1.8
GiGPO + PA-MoE
93.8 ±2.4
+7.7
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison with gradient surgery methods. Mean ± std over 3 seeds.
K
Pick
Look
Heat
Cool
Clean
Pick2
All
0
94.3 ±1.8
62.5 ±5.1
94.4 ±3.2
89.5 ±4.1
83.3 ±4.8
87.5 ±3.9
88.3 ±2.1
2
97.1 ±1.2
62.5 ±4.8
100 ±0.0
73.7 ±5.6
100 ±0.0
91.7 ±3.4
91.4 ±1.9
3
95.7 ±1.5
83.3 ±5.2
97.9 ±2.1
85.1 ±4.3
94.6 ±3.1
87.5 ±4.2
91.7 ±2.0
4
97.1 ±1.4
75.0 ±3.2
100 ±0.0
89.5 ±4.4
95.8 ±6.4
91.7 ±4.1
93.8 ±2.4
5
94.8 ±1.6
70.8 ±4.1
98.2 ±1.8
87.3 ±4.8
93.4 ±5.2
89.6 ±3.8
91.2 ±2.2
6
91.4 ±2.1
62.5 ±5.4
100 ±0.0
84.2 ±5.1
91.7 ±4.9
70.8 ±5.8
85.9 ±2.8
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation on number of experts ( K ). Mean ± std over 3 seeds. We report the average success rate (%) for each subtask as well as the overall result.
Architecture
Heat(%)
Cool(%)
All(%)
MLP only
83.3
68.4
84.2
GRU + CrossAttn
97.9
87.4
92.8
LSTM + CrossAttn
100
89.5
93.8
Transformer + CrossAttn
98.6
88.1
93.2
Bi-LSTM + CrossAttn
99.3
89.2
93.7
Appendix
Table 9: Router architecture comparison
Expert
Phase
Activation
Entropy (bits)
Expert 1
Exploration
73.2%
3.5
Expert 2
Manipulation
81.7%
0.5
Expert 3
Navigation
64.1%
1.5
Expert 4
Recovery
71.3%
2.0
Appendix
Table 10: Emergent expert specialization. Entropy in bits.
Subtask
Freq.
Baseline
PA-MoE
Δ
Simple search
32%
84.3%
91.2%
+6.9%
Multi-attribute
28%
62.1%
78.6%
+16.5%
Option selection
25%
71.4%
84.9%
+13.5%
Price comparison
15%
49.2%
73.8%
+24.6%
Overall
100%
67.4%
82.3%
+14.9%
Appendix
Table 11: WebShop performance by subtask type
Algorithm
Task
Baseline
PA-MoE
Δ
PPO
Clean
57.1%
50.0%
−7.1 %
PPO
Cool
46.4%
36.8%
−9.6 %
PPO
Pick2
47.4%
37.5%
−9.9 %
RLOO
Pick
88.3%
74.3%
−14.0 %
GRPO
Cool
59.7%
50.0%
−9.7 %
GRPO
Pick2
53.5%
45.8%
−7.7 %
Appendix
Table 12: Task-algorithm combinations with performance variations
λs
Val SR(%)
Sw/Ep
0.00
85.2
∼ 36
0.01
90.6
∼ 20
0.05 (ours)
93.8
∼ 8
0.10
91.4
∼ 5
0.20
87.5
∼ 3
Appendix
Table 13: Sensitivity of PA-MoE to the switching penalty coefficient λs . Sw/Ep denotes average expert switches per episode.
Statistic
Value
Episodes exhibiting A→B→A recurrence
85.4%
Average expert switches per episode
8.4
Average expert revisitations per episode
2.8
Average phase (segment) length
4.8 steps
Appendix
Table 14: Phase recurrence and segmentation statistics over 500 ALFWorld validation episodes ( λs=0.05 , K=4 ). A revisitation occurs when an episode contains a pattern Ei→Ej→Ei with j=i .
Configuration
LoRA Params
Val SR(%)
Vanilla GiGPO
0
86.1 ±4.7
Single LoRA r=32 ( K=0 )
1 ×
88.3 ±2.1
Single LoRA r=128
4 ×
91.4 ±1.6
PA-MoE ( K=4 , r=32 )
4 ×
93.8 ±0.8
Appendix
Table 15: Capacity-matched comparison on ALFWorld. “Params” is the LoRA parameter budget relative to a single r=32 adapter.
Task
Phases
Single r=128 (%)
PA-MoE(%)
Pick (single-phase)
1
97.1
97.1
Heat (multi-phase)
3+
94.4
100.0
Cool (multi-phase)
3+
78.9
89.5
Look (multi-phase)
2+
50.0
75.0
Appendix
Table 16: Per-task comparison between capacity-matched single LoRA ( r=128 ) and PA-MoE ( K=4 , r=32 ) on ALFWorld. PA-MoE’s advantage concentrates on multi-phase tasks.
Routing strategy
Sw/Ep
Val SR(%)
Token-level MoE
∼ 45
85.7
Trajectory-level MoE
∼ 3
88.5
Random switching ( p=0.21 )
∼ 8.4
90.6
Fixed-interval ( N=5 )
∼ 8
92.2
PA-MoE (learned phases)
∼ 8.4
93.8
Appendix
Table 17: Frequency-matched routing baselines on ALFWorld. “Fixed-interval” switches expert every N=5 steps. “Random ( p )” switches at each step independently with probability p , set to match PA-MoE’s average frequency. Sw/Ep is average expert switches per episode.
Config
Description
Routing
Regularization
Sw/Ep
Val SR(%)
A
Token MoE (baseline)
token
none
∼ 45
85.7
B
Token + switching penalty
token
Lswitch only
∼ 20
87.5
C
Token + all PA-MoE reg.
token
all
∼ 15
88.2
D
Phase routing, no penalty ( λs=0 )
phase
all except Lswitch
∼ 36
85.2
E
PA-MoE (full)
phase
all
∼ 8
93.8
Appendix
Table 18: Controlled decomposition of routing granularity and regularization on ALFWorld. All regularization terms ( Lswitch , Lbal , Ldiv , temperature annealing) are included or excluded uniformly across configurations.
Gradient Estimator
Val SR(%)
REINFORCE + STE (ours)
93.8
REINFORCE + Gumbel-Softmax ( τ=0.5 )
93.6
Appendix
Table 19: Comparison of gradient estimators for the switching indicator. The primary expert-selection gradient is REINFORCE in both cases; only the estimator for the indicator term differs.
Router Input
Val SR(%)
Full (observation + goal + history)
93.8
Observation + goal only
92.2
History only
91.4
Observation only
88.7
Appendix
Table 20: Router input stream ablation on ALFWorld. Each row keeps the indicated input streams active and zero-pads the others.
Component
Per-step cost
Router forward (LSTM + cross-attention + MLP)
1.3 ms
LoRA expert switch (pointer swap)
0.007 ms
LLM generation ( ∼ 50 tokens for one action)
438 ms
Total overhead vs. LLM generation
0.30% wall-clock
Appendix
Table 21: Per-step inference overhead breakdown. “LoRA switch” is the cost of swapping the active LoRA adapter via a pointer swap; weights are pre-loaded.
Configuration
Bypass rate
Val SR(%)
Router latency
Always run router
0%
93.8
1.3 ms/step
Bypass at θ=0.9
72%
93.8
0.85 ms/step ( − 35%)
Appendix
Table 22: Confidence-thresholded inference bypass on ALFWorld. Bypass rate is the fraction of steps that skip the router forward; latency reduction is measured relative to always running the router.
Measurement
Within-segment
Across-segment
Uniform reference
Top-1 expert switching rate (consecutive tokens)
93%
—
98.3% (59/60)
Per-segment routing entropy (bits)
4.1 (out of 5.9)
5.0 (out of 5.9)
5.9
Fraction of uniform entropy
70%
85%
100%
Appendix
Table 23: Token-level routing fragmentation in Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B (24 MoE layers, 60 experts, top-4). “Within-segment” is computed inside a single semantic unit (e.g., one reasoning step or one function body). “Across-segment” is computed across segment boundaries.
Reinforcement learning studies how agents learn sequential decisions from rewards and interaction, balancing exploration, performance, safety, and adaptation.
Long-horizon LLM agents are frequently implemented using sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) models, yet the co-design of agentic behavior and MoE structures remains underexplored. In this work, we comprehensively study the connections between agentic post-training and MoE expert selection. In off-the-shelf MoE models, we observe expert selection exhibits a specialized structure that naturally aligns with agentic trajectories. Specifically, expert routing overlaps more between turns where the agent performs semantically similar operations (e.g., READ, UPDATE) than between turns with differing operations. However, standard RL algorithms ignore this specialization, allowing the MoE routing to go uncontrolled during training, which empirically limit task performance and inference efficiency. To address this, we introduce a hierarchical routing control framework for agentic tasks. We explicitly encourage turn-level expert selections to align with agentic operations while regularizing token-level expert selections to maintain local consistency. To resolve stability issues that arise during post-training with the proposed methods, we further introduce an entropy-gated control mechanism. Overall, our routing control framework achieves over 10-point improvements in success rate on all evaluated benchmarks. These results demonstrate that agentic trajectory structure provides an effective signal for optimizing MoE capacity during RL post-training.
Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to post-training of large language models. Recent advances in RL for Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models have primarily focused on improving optimization stability and training efficiency, while treating the expert selection as a fixed component. Since routing determines the sparse computation paths that induce output distributions, expert selection offers an additional source of rollout diversity. Through empirical analysis, we find that perturbing expert routing effectively alters model output and increases rollout diversity, which is similar to increasing the decoding temperature. However, direct perturbation can activate unsuitable experts and substantially degrade rollout quality. Motivated by these observations, we introduce Expert-Space Exploration Reinforcement Learning (ESRL), an architecture-aware framework that explicitly explores the expert-routing space of MoE models. ESRL preserves high-confidence experts as anchors, and restricts stochastic routing to a plausible candidate pool, thereby retaining reliable computation paths. The perturbation strength is further adapted according to router entropy to avoid over-perturbation. To mitigate the routing mismatch introduced by perturbation, ESRL records the expert paths used during rollout and replays them during policy optimization. Experiments demonstrate that ESRL achieves the best performance across MoE backbones with top-K, top-1, and shared-expert routing, as well as across mathematics, science, and code tasks without additional sampling or computational cost. Specifically, ESRL on Qwen3-30B-A3B achieves the best among all compared methods, improving average Pass@1 and Pass@8 over GRPO by 3.2 and 4.5 percentage points, respectively. Further analyses of expert utilization and training dynamics provide insights into how exploiting MoE-specific routing structure benefits RL training.
Mixture-of-experts vision-language models (MoE-VLMs) increase model capacity with sparse expert activation, yet deployment requires storing the full expert pool. Training-free expert merging reduces this burden, and many routing-based methods aggregate routing statistics across all tokens to determine merge compatibility. However, MoE-VLM inference is phase-structured: image-context tokens carry visual content, question tokens specify the query, and answer tokens produce the output, with different counts and routing distributions. Because image-context tokens are far more numerous, global aggregation can overemphasize image-context processing and obscure phase-conditioned expert roles, making experts serving different phases appear interchangeable and degrading model performance. We therefore argue that MoE-VLM expert merging should preserve phase-conditioned expert roles, judging compatibility by how experts serve different phases rather than globally aggregated routing statistics. Based on this view, we propose RoleMerge, a training-free method that constructs each expert's Routing Role Profile (RRP) from phase-normalized routing statistics, capturing its relative phase preference. Guided by expert-phase information loss, RoleMerge merges experts with compatible profiles and their corresponding router entries while preserving answer-decoding expert distinctions. Experiments on three models and multiple benchmarks show that RoleMerge preserves more of the full model's performance than alternative expert-merging methods at matched expert-retention ratios, with relative improvements of up to 9.6 percent in six-task macro-average performance. These results validate phase-conditioned expert roles as a more effective basis than global routing aggregation for MoE-VLM expert merging.
Hongyu Zhang, Cheng Yan, Xiang Xia +1
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China