Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the behavior of sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models, revealing that identical token IDs do not consistently correspond to the same router states or expert outputs due to the influence of task context and reasoning modes. By introducing Routing Agreement Decoding (RAD), the authors demonstrate a novel approach that utilizes anchor-based routing neighborhoods to enhance reasoning control without relying on answer strings. The results show that RAD achieves competitive performance compared to traditional Majority voting methods across various datasets, while also providing a more effective interface for code-related tasks where string voting is less applicable.
Identical token IDs in sparse MoE models can lead to different expert outputs, revealing a nuanced structure that enhances reasoning control through innovative routing techniques.
In sparse Mixture-of-Experts language models, does the same token id imply the same router state and the same experts producing it? Holding the emitted token id fixed at repeated anchors, we find it does not: the experts that produce it still separate task context, trajectory history, and reasoning-effort mode. This residual structure supports test-time control: near \emph{boundary} anchors (the final-response transition) and \emph{delimiter} anchors (which open the answer, e.g.\ \texttt{\textbackslash boxed\{} or code fences), routing neighborhoods already align with final-answer basins at a marker-only readout and strongest when the routing is read at the answer opening. We operationalize this as \textbf{RAD} (Routing Agreement Decoding), an answer-string-free multi-rollout selector: it locates a fixed anchor, represents each rollout by its anchor-window MoE routing states, and returns the densest Weighted-Jaccard $K$-NN route-basin center, without parsing, normalizing, executing, or voting over answer strings. Across 10 sparse-MoE configurations (gpt-oss, Qwen3-MoE) and 6 datasets spanning math, GPQA, and code, RAD is on par with Majority where string voting is well-posed, with small positive paired deltas (RAD $73.9$ / RAD+DC $74.2$ vs.\ Majority $73.6$). Like majority voting, RAD is not a verifier: a dense \emph{wrong} basin can still win. Its value is the interface: the same selector gives direct pass@1 on code, where exact-string voting is ill-defined, and the same routing-density principle, re-anchored to the agentic boundary, improves best-of-16 patch selection on SWE-bench Verified over random, where patches have no answer string to vote on.
