Half the Experts, All the Code: One-Shot Domain Pruning of Mixture-of-Experts LLMs for Coding
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Half the Experts, All the Code: One-Shot Domain Pruning of Mixture-of-Experts LLMs for Coding
Abstract:The strongest open-weight coding models are mixture-of-experts (MoE) networks: most of their size comes from large pools of "expert" subnetworks, of which only a few act on any token. That pool is why these models do not fit on the machines most developers own, yet for a user who only wants coding help, most experts encode abilities that will never be invoked. We ask how many experts can be removed, and which, by pruning two recent open-weight MoE models from different families (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and Gemma-4-26B-A4B) under five selection strategies, judged the way a user would: by whether the model still writes correct code. Half the experts can be removed from either model with no statistically detectable loss on the primary code benchmark, and the damage lands almost entirely on abilities outside coding, the intended trade. But the winning strategy flips between the two models, so a recipe validated on one family cannot be assumed to work on another. We further show that perplexity, the metric much of the pruning literature leans on, can rate a broken model above an intact one; that a lightweight fine-tune recovers about half of what aggressive pruning loses; and that against quantizing the full model to the same memory, pruning wins only where quantization would have to drop below 3 bits per weight. Five attempts to overturn that crossover, with failure criteria fixed in advance (better calibration, guarded selection, causal expert importance, failure attribution, and an agentic evaluation letting each model repair its failures from execution feedback), all leave it standing; the last shows single-shot benchmarks overstate compression penalties broadly, as one repair turn erases the 2-bit quantization penalty entirely. Expert pruning works, but it demands per-model validation on the task the model will actually serve.
| Comments: | 15 pages, 3 figures. Code and pruned checkpoints: this http URL |
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2607.16721 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2607.16721v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.16721
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Equivariant Cellular Sheaves for Molecular Electronic Structure: Bridging Sheaf Cohomology and E(3)-Equivariant Hamiltonian Learning
Aug 26
-
Data Predictability Shapes Weibull Weight-Scale Growth in Transformer Training
Aug 26
-
From Causal Plausibility to Causal Reliability: Evaluating LLMs as Calibrated Direct Causal-Edge Classifiers
Aug 26
-
Renormalization Group Flow Matching for Scalable Local Generative Modeling
Aug 26
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.