Organizations: State Key Lab of General Artificial Intelligence, School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University · Meituan · Amazon AGI SF Lab · Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peking University
In recent years, pre-trained large language models have achieved remarkable success across diverse tasks. Besides the pivotal role of self-supervised pre-training, their effectiveness in downstream applications also depends critically on the post-training process, which adapts models to task-specific data and objectives. However, this process inevitably introduces model shifts that can influence performance in different domains, and how such shifts transfer remains poorly understood. To open up the black box, we propose the SAE-based Transferability Score (STS), a new metric that leverages sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to forecast post-training transferability. Taking supervised fine-tuning as an example, STS identifies shifted dimensions in SAE representations and calculates their correlations with downstream domains, enabling reliable estimation of transferability before fine-tuning. Extensive experiments across multiple models and domains show that STS accurately predicts the transferability of supervised fine-tuning, achieving Pearson correlation coefficients above 0.7 with actual performance changes. Beyond this, we take an initial step toward extending STS to reinforcement learning. We believe that STS can serve as an {\color{black} interpretable} tool for guiding post-training strategies in LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/PKU-ML/STS.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Analysis of feature shifts induced by supervised fine-tuning (SFT). We fine-tune Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct on the LIMO (a mathematical reasoning dataset) and examine shifts of SAE features on the residual stream at layer 25. Figure (a) shows the distribution of shift magnitudes while Figure (b) shows accuracy on Math-LightEval when progressively zeroing the dimensions with the largest shifts. The results indicate that SFT primarily affects a small subset of SAE dimensions tied to specific model capabilities.
Figure 2: Overlap between estimated dimensions and the training task. Figure (a) demonstrates that the SAE shifted dimensions predicted by ICL substantially overlap with the actual shifted dimensions identified after SFT, whereas applying the same method directly on raw dimensions is less effective. Figure (b) further shows that raw model dimensions, prior to applying SAE, are influenced more uniformly by the SFT process, thereby limiting the ability to identify crucial shifted dimensions.
Figure 3: The Pearson correlation ( ρ ) between STS and actual absolute performance shifts on MMLU-Pro induced by SFT on LIMO. Each experiment is repeated three times, and we report the mean and standard deviation of ρ ; the fitted line shown corresponds to one of the runs. We extract SAE features from Llama3-8B-Instruct, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, and Gemma2-9B-Instruct. During the evaluation process, we select four MMLU-Pro domains with the largest and smallest performance shifts under SFT. The detailed performance shifts can be found in Appendix A.
Training Domain
Correlations between Actual Performance Shifts and STS ICL
Overlap between Top 100 Estimated and Actual Shifted Dims
Code
0.77 ± 0.01
62
Health
0.71 ± 0.02
57
Table 1: Verification on a code dataset ( Verifiable-Coding-Problems-Python-10k-Dataset ) and a clinical reasoning dataset ( CoT_Reasoning_Mens_Mental_Health ). The Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct model is trained on each dataset, and we evaluate: (1) the correlation between ICL feature shifts and SFT, and (2) the correlation between actual performance shifts and our proposed metric.
Figure 4: Ablation studies on the implementation of our metric. We evaluate (a) SAEs with varying hidden dimensions in the representation space, (b) SAEs trained on different layers of the pre-trained model, (c) different ranges of top-shifted dimensions, (d) different sparsity in SAE representations, e) the comparison between STS and directly using activations.
Figure 5: Comparison of data mixture strategies in the SFT process. We focus on the domains with the largest (engineering) and smallest (law) performance shifts induced by SFT of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct on LIMO. In total, 220 extra examples from a mixture of engineering and law data are added. Figure (a) reports engineering performance with varying amounts of engineering data, while Figure (b) reports law performance with varying amounts of law data. Figure (c) compares the downstream performance without additional data and with additional data mixed according to the ratio of their corresponding STS values.
Figure 6: The explorations on extending STS metric to the RL scenarios. We optimize Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct on Math-LightEval using GRPO. Figure (a) shows that the identified dimensions in RL show smaller overlap with the actual shifted dimensions compared to SFT, which limits the accuracy of the metric. Figure (b) shows that when the estimated shifted dimensions are replaced with the actual ones, the correlation between STS and downstream performance changes becomes much stronger.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
engineering
physics
chemistry
law
Performance Change (%)
-11.97
-5.7
-5.39
-3.72
philosophy
other
health
computer science
Performance Change (%)
-2.61
-2.49
-1.1
-0.97
economics
math
psychology
biology
Performance Change (%)
-0.95
-0.89
-0.63
-0.42
history
business
Appendix
Table 2: Performance change on different domains of MMLU-Pro (Llama3-8B-Instruct fine-tuned on LIMO).
engineering
chemistry
physics
computer science
Performance Change (%)
-9.8
-6.36
-5.24
-4.88
business
health
math
economics
Performance Change (%)
-4.43
-2.93
-2.89
-2.61
philosophy
biology
other
psychology
Performance Change (%)
-2.4
+1.53
-1.3
-0.37
history
law
Appendix
Table 3: Performance change on different domains of MMLU-Pro (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct fine-tuned on LIMO).
engineering
computer science
other
law
Performance Change (%)
-9.29
-3.66
-2.05
-1.73
health
math
business
history
Performance Change (%)
-1.47
+1.41
-1.27
-0.79
economics
chemistrcy
biology
physics
Performance Change (%)
-0.71
-0.62
-0.56
-0.54
psychology
philosophy
Appendix
Table 4: Performance change on different domains of MMLU-Pro (Gemma2-9B-Instruct fine-tuned on LIMO).
Feature Activations
Representation Similarity between Downstream Domains and Training Domain
Representation Similarity between Models before and after SFT
STS
Uses Model after SFT
No
No
Yes
No
Coefficient
0.03
0.11
0.61
0.79
Appendix
Table 5: Correlation coefficient between actual performance shifts (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct tuned on LIMO) and different baselines.
Metric / Model
LLaMA3-8B
Qwen2.5-7B
Gemma2-9B
STSact
0.71 ± 0.01
0.90 ± 0.02
0.60 ± 0.03
STSICL
0.81 ± 0.01
0.78 ± 0.01
0.77 ± 0.01
Appendix
Table 6: The Pearson correlation coefficient between STS and actual performance shifts on MMLU-Pro induced by SFT on LIMO.
Selected Dimensions
50
100
200
89%
93%
92%
Appendix
Table 7: The percentage of the estimated shifted dimensions that are explained as the math dimension.
Annotation
Math
Code
Recall
63%
7%
Appendix
Table 8: Proportion of 100 annotated dimensions recalled among the top 500 estimated shifted dimensions.
Metric / Model
LLaMA3-8B
Qwen2.5-7B
Gemma2-9B
STSact
0.50 ± 0.01
0.80 ± 0.04
0.36 ± 0.03
STSICL
0.66 ± 0.01
0.61 ± 0.02
0.60 ± 0.02
Appendix
Table 9: R² between STS and actual performance shifts on MMLU-Pro induced by SFT on LIMO.
Before SFT
SFT on LIMO
SFT on STS-Guided Data
74.7
81.3 (+6.6)
80.1 (+5.4)
Appendix
Table 10: Test accuracy (%) of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct before and after SFT on LIMO.
Figure 7: Selective Finetuning Different Models on Estimated Shifted Dimensions
Selected Dims
Before SFT
SFT on Random Dimensions
SFT on Estimated Shifted Dimensions
1000
74.7
74.2
75.6
3000
74.7
74.0
76.9
Appendix
Table 11: Test accuracy (%) of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct after selectively fine-tuning.
L0
13
22
37
63
109
Correlation
0.78
0.77
0.72
0.75
0.65
Appendix
Table 12: Pearson correlation coefficients between STS and actual performance shifts on MMLU-Pro induced by fine-tuning Gemma2-9B-Instruct on LIMO. STS is computed using SAEs with different L0 norms.
Raw Feature Activations
SAE Feature Activations
STS
Correlation Coefficient
0.03
0.08
0.79
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison between STS and predictions based on model activations.
The general-purpose nature of Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a significant challenge for domain-specific applications, often leading to out-of-domain (OOD) interactions that undermine the provider's intent. Existing methods for detecting such scenarios treat the LLM as an uninterpretable black box and overlook the internal processing of inputs. In this work we show that layer transitions provide a promising avenue for extracting domain-specific signature. Specifically, we present several lightweight ways of learning on internal dynamics encoded using a sparse autoencoder (SAE) that exhibit great capability in distinguishing OOD texts. Building on top of SAEs representation transitions enables us to better interpret the LLM internal evolution of input processing and shed light on its decisions. We provide a comprehensive analysis of the method and benchmark it with the gemma-2 2B and 9B models. Our results emphasize the efficacy of the internal process in capturing fine-grained input-related details.
Elias Shaheen, Avi Mendelson
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have been seen as a promising avenue for exploring the internals of Large Language Models (LLMs) and for steering model output generation. When AxBench - a model steering benchmark - was introduced in Wu et al. (2025), SAEs did not seem to live up to their original hype due to poor steering performance relative to a set of simple baselines. This work serves as a partial rebuttal for Sparse Autoencoders and suggests that the results of Wu et al. (2025) did not do them full justice. We find that Sparse Autoencoders can, in fact, perform close to on par with the reference LoRA performance on the AxBench benchmark, when features are selected and labelled with our supervised pipeline. We also find that our pipeline selects features that are surprisingly causal of their identified labels when using only its interpretability-based components. Lastly, we present evidence that high sparsity (low l0) may not be crucial for successful steering based on interpretability, which is in contrast to the earlier findings in Wang et al. (2025).
Reinforcement learning (RL) is widely utilized in large language model training to improve targeted capabilities, yet how RL reshapes a model remains poorly understood. Prior attempts to explain how RL works largely offer behavioral perspectives, leaving open what RL gives a model at the representation level: can RL create genuinely novel features, and which existing features does it enhance or suppress? Recent developments in mechanistic interpretability suggest sparse autoencoders (SAEs) as a promising lens to decompose internal activations into human-interpretable features; however, they cannot be directly applied to tracking change across training. In this work, we introduce Fixed-SAE Track, a framework that trains one shared SAE per considered layer on activations pooled across the base model and all RL checkpoints, holding every feature direction fixed so that representation shifts are rigorously defined through the activations of interpretable SAE latents, including the detection of emerging novel features. Validated across multiple datasets and RL algorithms, we find that RL-induced drift is small, gradual, concept specific, and concentrated in late layers, mainly enhancing the sampling rates of a small set of ladder tokens, formatting scaffolding such as step breaks and answer delimiters, rather than reshaping problem content. Steering these features into the base model recovers around 80% of RL's performance gain, suggesting that RL primarily elicits capabilities the model already possesses, much as steering does. We further design a synthetic benchmark with features known by construction to test whether RL can instill genuinely novel features. We believe Fixed-SAE Track provides a principled approach to tracking representation shifts and offers representational evidence for understanding how reinforcement learning changes the inner representation of LLMs.
Lingheng Du, Yiming Tang, Xufeng Duan +1
Peking University · National University of Singapore · The Chinese University of Hong Kong