cs.LGJun 9, 2026

From Observation to Intervention: A Causal Audit of Expert Importance in Mixture-of-Experts Models

Authors: Leonard Engmann, Christian Medeiros Adriano, Holger Giese

Abstract

Interpretability methods routinely use population-level summary statistics over observed model behaviour to license claims about the effects of targeted interventions on specific computations; in Pearl's terms, they treat rung-1 associational evidence as if it supported rung-2 interventional conclusions, a move whose validity is rarely tested. We examine one concrete instance: the use of routing statistics in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) pruning, where utilization rates, activation norms, and routing weight distributions are treated as predictors of which experts can be removed without functional cost. A token-level interventional audit across three high-redundancy MoE architectures (OLMoE-1B-7B-0924, Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B, DeepSeek-V2-Lite) finds no observational metric predicts causal expert importance in any model: across all 60 metric-layer combinations effect sizes stay below Cohen's d=0.23d = 0.23, and no metric is reliably positive under our corrected, dual-test criterion. A per-token routing weight control, run with identical nn, rules out insufficient power, recovering a signal whose CI excludes zero at OLMoE's final MoE layer (d=+0.231d = +0.231, 95% CI [+0.09,+0.37][+0.09, +0.37], p=0.0013p = 0.0013). Existing pruning methods succeed in this regime not by identifying dispensable experts but because early-layer redundancy renders most selection criteria interchangeable. Our results provide an explicit counterexample to the common inferential step from population-level observational summaries to token-level interventional claims about expert importance, and illustrate how interventional audits can calibrate the evidential standards for interpretability claims.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 23, 2026cs.LG

How Modular Is a Frontier Mixture-of-Experts? A Pre-registered Causal Test in Which Apparent Expert Modularity Mostly Dissolves

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models route each token to a few of many experts, inviting the hypothesis that experts form functional modules tied to capabilities or languages. We test this causally on Command A+, a frontier open-weights MoE (218B total / 25B active; 128 experts, 8 active, +1 shared). We build a routing-mass atlas, pre-register six family-to-axis hypotheses before any intervention, and ablate each family at inference time against a size-matched random-expert null, measuring whether it selectively breaks its own axis (worst off-target effect at most one third of on-target). Crucially, we test the same families under four metrics and a held-out, independent-corpus run with bootstrap confidence intervals. Our finding is cautionary: robust functional modularity is rare and measurement-dependent. Of six pre-registered families, only one, the Arabic-language family, is a clean selective module that survives an independent corpus and a conservative statistical bar (1/6; a more permissive pre-registered point rule admits 3/6, but that count is threshold-sensitive). Every other family has a real causal effect yet fails selectivity, and its apparent modularity flips with the measurement: with the corpus, the metric, and the statistical bar. A positive control on Qwen3-30B-A3B recovers its published disjoint structure, confirming the method detects modularity when present. The verdict reproduces on the un-quantized BF16 model, ruling out a 4-bit quantization artifact. We conclude that ablation-based modularity verdicts are not safe unless the corpus, metric, and statistical bar are controlled. We release the atlas and ablation data.
Tony Salomone, Deep Gandhi, Ali Asaria
Modern Mixture-Of-ExpertsAblationModular FrameworkText ModalityCorpusRandom+1
AskPDF
May 8, 2026cs.LG

When Are Experts Misrouted? Counterfactual Routing Analysis in Mixture-of-Experts Language Models

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models route each token to a small subset of experts, but whether the routes selected by a trained top-kk router are good ones is rarely evaluated directly. Holding the model fixed, we compare each standard route against sampled equal-compute alternatives for the same token and score each by the next-token probability it assigns to the realized token in a verified reasoning trajectory. The result is sharply token-conditional: the standard router is well-aligned with route utility on confident tokens but uninformative on the fragile tokens that drive hard reasoning, where lower-loss equal-compute routes consistently exist inside the frozen model but are not selected. The same pattern holds across Qwen3-30B-A3B, GPT-OSS-20B, DeepSeek-V2-Lite, and OLMoE-1B-7B, and follows structurally from how standard top-kk training evaluates routing decisions: the language modeling loss scores only the executed route, and load balancing depends only on aggregate routing statistics. A minimal router-only update to the final-layer router, leaving every expert and every other router frozen, is sufficient to shift pass@K on AIME 2024+2025 and HMMT 2025 for both Qwen3-30B-A3B and GPT-OSS-20B, suggesting that at least part of the failure reflects router-reachable misallocation rather than expert capacity alone.
Youngsik Yoon, Siwei Wang, Wei Chen +1
Mixture-Of-Expert RoutingExpertsDeepseek-R1Loss Function
AskPDF
Sep 16, 2026cs.LG

Higher-order pruning of experts in mixture-of-experts language models

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models suffer from large parameter counts, which create a significant memory bottleneck. Expert pruning is the most direct approach for reducing this parameter count, yet existing methods make pruning decisions for each expert independently, and assume experts' contributions are purely additive. In reality, expert usage in MoEs is inherently cooperative. We derive HOPE (Higher-Order Pruning of Experts), a second-order pruning objective which provably minimizes an upper bound on the error resulting from pruning. We show that REAP (a state-of-the-art first-order pruning method) is a special case of HOPE where interaction terms are ignored. Across three frontier MoE models (up to 122B parameters), two distinct calibration sets, and multiple benchmarks (including math, instruction following, coding, and an agentic suite), we demonstrate that HOPE produces better pruning decisions than existing methods, and its advantage is most pronounced at high pruning rates and on challenging agentic workloads. At 50% pruning, HOPE outperforms all baselines and achieves an average rank of 1.58 out of 5 methods (versus 2.42 for the next-best method, REAP), with gains of up to +6.1% on agentic coding. Over all conditions, HOPE again achieves the best average rank and surpasses every other method in the majority of head-to-head comparisons. By preserving cooperative expert structure that first-order methods ignore, HOPE enables aggressive compression with minimal degradation, particularly on complex tasks where diverse expert combinations are invoked over long sequences.
Alex M. Tseng, Prannay Kaul, Luca Zancato +2
Topic pending
AskPDF