analiza aiqbench
This research challenges the assumption that routing drift in merged Mixture-of-Experts models inherently signifies failure, demonstrating instead that most expert reassignments stem from input shifts rather than parameter corruption. The authors redefine routing failure based on recoverable task loss under specific interventions and introduce a toolkit to distinguish genuine degradation from benign behavioral changes. Consequently, practitioners should evaluate corrections by their actual impact on task performance rather than relying solely on router metrics.
Routing Drift Alone Does Not Diagnose Failure in Merged MoE LLMs
arXiv:2609.32821v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Model merging efficiently combines specialized large language models (LLMs) without joint retraining, but can substantially alter expert routing in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models. Such \emph{routing drift} is often interpreted as routing failure, raising a fundamental question that remains unclear: \emph{does routing drift after MoE merging actually indicate routing failure, and what evidence should justify repair?} We investigate these questions across DeepSeekMoE, OLMoE, and Qwen3-MoE proposing a routing analysis toolkit for controlled counterfactual interventions and token-level analysis. By crossing source and merged router inputs and parameters, we attribute most expert reassignments to input shifts rather than parameter changes at the same layer. However, source-relative routing differences poorly predict next-token likelihood gains from source-route restoration, and different expert selections can produce directionally similar mixture outputs. We therefore operationalize routing failure as \textit{task loss recoverable under a specified routing intervention, with non-routing parameters fixed.} These tests detect recoverable loss under deliberate router corruption, whereas source-route restoration does not establish reliable task benefits in the evaluated merged models. Motivated by these, we propose \emph{Selective Router Repair (SRR)} as a case study, and find that source-specialist token-likelihood advantages do not reliably identify beneficial local corrections. Together, these findings show that \textbf{routing drift alone is insufficient evidence of routing failure}: source-informed corrections must be judged by their task-level intervention effects. The analysis toolkit and SRR code are released.
Abstract:Model merging efficiently combines specialized large language models (LLMs) without joint retraining, but can substantially alter expert routing in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models. Such \emph{routing drift} is often interpreted as routing failure, raising a fundamental question that remains unclear: \emph{does routing drift after MoE merging actually indicate routing failure, and what evidence should justify repair?} We investigate these questions across DeepSeekMoE, OLMoE, and Qwen3-MoE proposing a routing analysis toolkit for controlled counterfactual interventions and token-level analysis. By crossing source and merged router inputs and parameters, we attribute most expert reassignments to input shifts rather than parameter changes at the same layer. However, source-relative routing differences poorly predict next-token likelihood gains from source-route restoration, and different expert selections can produce directionally similar mixture outputs. We therefore operationalize routing failure as \textit{task loss recoverable under a specified routing intervention, with non-routing parameters fixed.} These tests detect recoverable loss under deliberate router corruption, whereas source-route restoration does not establish reliable task benefits in the evaluated merged models. Motivated by these, we propose \emph{Selective Router Repair (SRR)} as a case study, and find that source-specialist token-likelihood advantages do not reliably identify beneficial local corrections. Together, these findings show that \textbf{routing drift alone is insufficient evidence of routing failure}: source-informed corrections must be judged by their task-level intervention effects. The analysis toolkit and SRR code are released.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.32821 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.32821v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32821 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 318 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 16 oct. 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · 8 oct. 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · 12 oct. 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026