# Higher-order pruning of experts in mixture-of-experts language models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18916 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18916/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 15 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)
- Mixture-of-experts / [MoE large language models](https://mlsanity.com/moe/moe-large-language-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.06538/) (2017)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12793/) (2024)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08568/) (2023)
- [SWE-Bench Pro: Can AI Agents Solve Long-Horizon Software Engineering Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.16941/) (2025)
- [REAP the Experts: Why Pruning Prevails for One-Shot MoE compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13999/) (2025)
- [Finding Fantastic Experts in MoEs: A Unified Study for Expert Dropping Strategies and Observations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05586/) (2025)
- [Domain-Specific Pruning of Large Mixture-of-Experts Models with Few-shot Demonstrations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.06792/) (2025)
- [How to Score Experts for One-Shot MoE Expert Pruning: A Unified Formulation and Selection Principle](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15716/) (2026)
- [FLAME-MoE: A Transparent End-to-End Research Platform for Mixture-of-Experts Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20225/) (2025)
- [Collaborative Compression for Large-Scale MoE Deployment on Edge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25689/) (2025)
- [Modeling Expert Interactions in Sparse Mixture of Experts via Graph Structures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.16411/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [DIET: Deletion-response Expert Trimming for Video Diffusion Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37829/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models suffer from large parameter counts, which create a significant memory bottleneck. Expert pruning is the most direct approach for reducing this parameter count, yet existing methods make pruning decisions for each expert independently, and assume experts' contributions are purely additive. In reality, expert usage in MoEs is inherently cooperative. We derive HOPE (Higher-Order Pruning of Experts), a second-order pruning objective which provably minimizes an upper bound on the error resulting from pruning. We show that REAP (a state-of-the-art first-order pruning method) is a special case of HOPE where interaction terms are ignored. Across three frontier MoE models (up to 122B parameters), two distinct calibration sets, and multiple benchmarks (including math, instruction following, coding, and an agentic suite), we demonstrate that HOPE produces better pruning decisions than existing methods, and its advantage is most pronounced at high pruning rates and on challenging agentic workloads. At 50% pruning, HOPE outperforms all baselines and achieves an average rank of 1.58 out of 5 methods (versus 2.42 for the next-best method, REAP), with gains of up to +6.1% on agentic coding. Over all conditions, HOPE again achieves the best average rank and surpasses every other method in the majority of head-to-head comparisons. By preserving cooperative expert structure that first-order methods ignore, HOPE enables aggressive compression with minimal degradation, particularly on complex tasks where diverse expert combinations are invoked over long sequences.