Suppressing a small set of routed experts can weaken the safety behavior of a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language model without retraining. Which experts to suppress is therefore a security question, and the usual answer is activation frequency, but frequency measures use, not influence. We test an alternative: router-gradient sensitivity, the sensitivity of the sequence loss to the gate weights that select an expert. Across five MoE architectures, we rank experts by each signal on 500 benign and 500 malicious prompts and measure refusal on 100 held-out malicious prompts under two budgets: equal expert counts and equal nominal malicious routing traffic (1%-5%). Under each of the two budgets, router-gradient selection reduces refusals more than activation in 24 of 25 conditions, and more than a ten-trial random mean in all 25. The largest effect is in OLMoE, where refusals fall from 34 to 9 of 100 prompts (73.53% relative) with no degraded outputs, indicating substantive compliance rather than broken generation. After matching expert counts in every layer, gradient selection still produces greater refusal reduction than activation in 23 of 25 conditions, with two ties. An exploratory cross-model analysis links larger malicious-versus-benign concentration gaps to greater peak gradient effects (rho = 0.90; exact two-sided p = 0.083, n = 5). Together, the results support gradient selection under the tested budgets.
Figures & tables
Model
L
E
Top- k
N
Mixtral-8x7B
32
8
2
256
Qwen1.5-MoE
24
60
4
1,440
DeepSeek-MoE
27
64
6
1,728
OLMoE-1B-7B
16
64
8
1,024
Qwen3-30B-A3B
48
128
8
6,144
TABLE I: Analyzed routed expert spaces (always-active shared experts excluded from rankings and interventions).
Model
Δk90
Eeff/E B/M
Top-10 overlap
Example layers
Mixtral
−1.95
.8999/.8900
4
L8–15
Qwen1.5
−2.22
.7454/.7455
7
L23
DeepSeek
−6.94
.6144/.5889
6
L12,25
OLMoE
−7.32
.6362/.6079
6
L3,6,14
Qwen3
−3.52
.3479/.3448
7
L6,18–19
TABLE II: Routing concentration and overlap. B/M: benign/malicious; effective-expert ratios are averaged over prompts and layers. Regions are illustrative examples, not the largest benign–malicious differences; layer indices are zero-based.
Fig. 1: Relative refusal reduction under (a) matched expert counts and (b) nominal routing-traffic targets. Each column uses the same vertical scale across rows; scales differ between models. Gradient sets and results are reused; activation and random sets are selected separately for each protocol. Random values use ten-trial mean restricted counts. Positive values indicate fewer refusals and weaker safety; lines guide the eye.
Model
q=1
q=2
q=3
q=4
q=5
Mixtral
−5.17
6.90
6.90
1.72
3.45
Qwen1.5
0.00
1.06
1.06
1.06
2.13
DeepSeek
2.44
7.32
6.10
7.32
4.88
OLMoE
−20.59
−17.65
−29.41
−23.53
−29.41
Qwen3
1.06
0.00
1.06
0.00
1.06
TABLE III: Depth-matched activation refusal reduction R (%). Settings q=1,…,5 use each model’s increasing K sequence specified in Methods, not matched traffic targets.
Sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) language models activate only a small subset of parameters for each token, making router behavior a central part of model computation. This paper studies routing behavior of Mixtral 8x7B-Instruct under benign and harmful prompts using two complementary signals: activation-based routing scores derived from expert selection frequencies and gradient-based scores derived from router-gate sensitivities. We analyze expert- and layer-level routing behavior and conduct expert-suppression interventions. The results show that activation-based expert usage is broad and long-tailed, whereas gradient-based importance is concentrated. At expert level, benign and harmful prompt groups remain close under both signals with modest separation. At layer level, activation-based routing is most selective around layers 8-15, while gradient-based importance is concentrated in final layers. Expert classification shows most experts are shared across benign and harmful prompts, though a limited subset shows clear group preference. Top-ranked expert sets show stronger benign-malicious overlap under gradient scores than activation scores, suggesting concentration on a common late-layer expert set. In intervention experiments, suppressing top five benign-dominant experts from activation scores reduces restricted responses from 24 to 14 over 100 prompts, while suppressing gradient-derived experts reduces them from 34 to 22 with fewer unintended reversals. Overall, safety-relevant routing in Mixtral is subtle, depth-dependent, and distributed rather than dominated by a fixed set of experts.
Md Nurul Absar Siddiky
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Hawai’i at M¯anoa Honolulu, HI, USA
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) LLMs rely on sparse, router-driven expert activation, yet how safety alignment interacts with routed expert specialization remains underexplored. A common intuition is that safety behavior may be controlled by routing harmful requests to distinct refusal-oriented experts. In this work, we provide empirical evidence for a different picture: routing patterns in aligned MoE LLMs are largely topic-driven, while safety behavior can be altered with little change to the model's intrinsic routing path. Motivated by this observation, we present RASET (Router-Agnostic Safety-critical Expert Tuning), a red-teaming framework that probes safety enforcement that is localized in a small subset of experts while preserving the model's intrinsic routing behavior. RASET identifies safety-critical experts via a contrastive routing-sensitivity criterion and applies parameter-efficient tuning only to the selected experts, minimizing semantic disruption relative to router-steering interventions. These results reveal a distinct MoE safety risk, highlighting the need for expert-aware alignment mechanisms.
Zhibo Zhang, Yuxi Li, Zhen Ouyang +2
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models introduce unique challenges for safety alignment due to their sparse routing mechanisms, which can enable degenerate optimization behaviors under standard full-parameter fine-tuning. In our preliminary experiments, we observe that naively applying full-parameter safety fine-tuning to MoE models can reduce attack success rates through routing or expert dominance effects, rather than by directly repairing Safety-Critical Experts. To address this challenge, we propose RASA, a routing-aware expert-level alignment framework that explicitly repairs Safety-Critical Experts while preventing routing-based bypasses. RASA identifies experts disproportionately activated by successful jailbreaks, selectively fine-tunes only these experts under fixed routing, and subsequently enforces routing consistency with safety-aligned contexts. Across two representative MoE architectures and a diverse set of jailbreak attacks, RASA achieves near-perfect robustness, strong cross-attack generalization, and substantially reduced over-refusal, while preserving general capabilities on benchmarks such as MMLU, GSM8K, and TruthfulQA. Our results suggest that robust MoE safety alignment benefits from targeted expert repair rather than global parameter updates, offering a practical and architecture-preserving alternative to prior approaches.
Jiacheng Liang, Yuhui Wang, Tanqiu Jiang +1
Department of Computer Science Stony Brook University