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

Large language models are typically deployed as monolithic systems, requiring the full model even when applications need only a narrow subset of capabilities, e.g., code, math, or domain-specific knowledge. Mixture-of-Experts (MoEs) seemingly offer a potential alternative by activating only a subset of experts per input, but in practice, restricting inference to a subset of experts for a given domain leads to severe performance degradation. This limits their practicality in memory-constrained settings, especially as models grow larger and sparser. We introduce EMO, an MoE designed for modularity-the independent use and composition of expert subsets-without requiring human-defined priors. Our key idea is to encourage tokens from similar domains to rely on similar experts. Since tokens within a document often share a domain, EMO restricts them to select experts from a shared pool, while allowing different documents to use different pools. This simple constraint enables coherent expert groupings to emerge during pretraining using document boundaries alone. We pretrain a 1B-active, 14B-total EMO on 1T tokens. As a full model, it matches standard MoE performance. Crucially, it enables selective expert use: retaining only 25% (12.5%) of experts incurs just a 1% (3%) absolute drop, whereas standard MoEs break under the same setting. We further find that expert subsets in EMO specialize at semantic levels (e.g., domains such as math or code), in contrast to the low-level syntactic specialization observed in standard MoEs. Altogether, our results demonstrate a path toward modular, memory-efficient deployment of large, sparse models and open new opportunities for composable architectures.

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 $d = 0.23$, and no metric is reliably positive under our corrected, dual-test criterion. A per-token routing weight control, run with identical $n$, rules out insufficient power, recovering a signal whose CI excludes zero at OLMoE's final MoE layer ($d = +0.231$, 95% CI $[+0.09, +0.37]$, $p = 0.0013$). 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.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models route each token to a small subset of experts, but whether the routes selected by a trained top-$k$ 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-$k$ 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.