Half the Experts, All the Code: One-Shot Domain Pruning of Mixture-of-Experts LLMs for Coding

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.

Fine-grained mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures have become a mainstream design for open-weight LLMs, with hundreds of experts and increasingly many selected per token. This shift makes dynamic expert pruning an attractive route to cheaper inference. Yet existing evidence comes largely from coarser architectures and likelihood-scored multiple-choice benchmarks, leaving three central questions open in the fine-grained regime: how redundant per-token expert selection is, how effectively existing pruning methods exploit that redundancy, and what governs a model's sensitivity to pruning. We fill this gap with a systematic empirical study of twelve fine-grained MoE checkpoints spanning nine architecture families, with a core suite of eleven benchmarks covering knowledge QA, mathematics, code generation, and general reasoning. We find that expert selection is far more redundant than the field's operating points assume: uniformly retaining about two thirds of the selected experts preserves 98.8% of unpruned performance on average, requiring only a one-integer change and delivering 1.2-1.7x measured speedup across two serving backends. This simple baseline leaves little room for dynamic allocation at conservative budgets: even the best published rules differ from it by under 1% at matched expert budgets. Their value emerges under aggressive pruning, where the best rules recover up to 3.0% over uniform truncation, with gains concentrated in the generative tasks that suffer the sharpest degradation. Sensitivity to aggressive pruning also depends on the model: larger and thinking models are more resilient, whereas multimodal models are more vulnerable. Together, these findings reveal how much expert computation fine-grained MoEs can dispense with, and establish when dynamic allocation earns its complexity, informing both practical deployment and future pruning methods.

Sparsely activated Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models contain substantial structured redundancy among routed experts, but pruning them without downstream calibration data remains challenging. Existing expert-pruning methods typically rely on a single aggregated importance score, which can bias the retained set toward experts favored by dominant calibration patterns. We propose \textbf{Generic TB-Coverage}, a coverage-aware expert pruning method that uses only generic text corpora (WikiText2 and C4) for calibration. Instead of collapsing expert utility into one score, our method profiles per-expert utility separately on each corpus and enforces a fixed-budget coverage rule that preserves high-utility experts from each corpus before constructing the final pruning mask. Across Qwen1.5-MoE-A2.7B and DeepSeek-MoE-16B-Base at 25%, 50%, and 75% retention budgets, our method improves average accuracy on six common zero-shot benchmarks over random pruning, REAP, and ExpertSparsity, while also reducing perplexity degradation on WikiText2 and C4. The gains are largest under aggressive pruning (25% and 50% retain), suggesting that preserving cross-corpus expert coverage is an effective generic-data prior for MoE pruning. Our improvements hold with fixed pruning budgets and no downstream calibration data.