arXiv:2606.22798cs.CL2026-06被引 1

发现相同词元不等于相同路由状态,提出无需答案字符串的路由选择新方法。

Does the Same Token Mean the Same State? MoE Routing as Signal for Reasoning Control

论文配图:Does the Same Token Mean the Same State? MoE Routing as Signal for Reasoning Control
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 利用专家路由状态差异实现推理控制,定位关键锚点处的路由模式。
  • 在数学、代码等6个数据集上,性能与主流投票法相当,且在无答案串场景有效。
  • 适用于无法用字符串投票的场景,如代码生成和代理任务中的补丁选择。

在稀疏的混合专家语言模型中,相同的词元是否意味着相同的路由器状态和专家输出?固定重复锚点的输出词元后发现:产生该词元的专家仍能区分任务上下文、轨迹历史和推理努力模式。这种残差结构支持测试时控制:在边界锚点(最终响应转换)和分隔符锚点(如\boxed{}或代码块标记)处,仅通过标记读取即可对齐最终答案区域,且在答案开启时路由一致性最强。我们将其转化为RAD(路由一致解码)——一种无需解析、归一化、执行或投票答案字符串的多轮次选择器:它定位固定锚点,以锚点窗口内的MoE路由状态表示每条轨迹,返回加权杰卡德最密集的K-NN路由盆地中心。在10种稀疏MoE配置(gpt-oss, Qwen3-MoE)和6个涵盖数学、GPQA、代码的数据集上,RAD性能与多数投票法持平(如RAD 73.9,RAD+DC 74.2,多数投票73.6),且在无答案串场景表现优异。其价值在于接口统一:同一选择器可直接用于代码的pass@1评估,且重新锚定至代理边界后,显著提升SWE-bench Verified中最佳16个补丁的选择效果,优于随机采样。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

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.

MoE路由推理控制代码生成无字符串投票

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。