We present the first systematic study of Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) on video representations. Standard SAEs decompose video into interpretable, monosemantic features but destroy temporal coherence: hard TopK selection produces unstable feature assignments across frames, reducing autocorrelation by 36%. We propose spatio-temporal contrastive objectives and Matryoshka hierarchical grouping that recover and even exceed raw temporal coherence. The contrastive loss weight controls a tunable trade-off between reconstruction and temporal coherence. A systematic ablation on two backbones and two datasets shows that different configurations excel at different goals: reconstruction fidelity, temporal coherence, action discrimination, or interpretability. Contrastive SAE features improve action classification by +3.9 pp over raw features and text-video retrieval by up to 2.8 x R@1. A cross-backbone analysis reveals that standard monosemanticity metrics contain a backbone-alignment artifact: both DINOv2 and VideoMAE produce equally monosemantic features under an independent (CLIP) similarity space. Targeted feature ablation shows that contrastive training concentrates the probe's predictive signal into a small number of identifiable features. Supplementary material, code, configurations and evaluation scripts are available at https://github.com/atahandokme/spatio-temporal-sparse-autoencoders-video.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Contrastive pairing structures for the three spatio-temporal SAE variants. (a) Temporal : pairs the same spatial position across consecutive frames. (b) Separate : applies independent temporal (red, cross-frame) and spatial (blue, within-frame) contrastive losses. (c) Raster : serializes patches row-by-row, then across frames; at each frame boundary (orange dashed) the loss couples the last patch of frame t to the first of frame t+1 — a cross-frame boundary pair, not a same-position temporal correspondence.
Backbone
Variant
MS (own)
MS (CLIP)
DINOv2
Standard
0.365
0.681
DINOv2
Temporal
0.327
0.671
DINOv2
Separate
0.328
0.671
DINOv2
Raster
0.366
0.683
DINOv2
Temporal+M
0.326
0.670
DINOv2
Separate+M
0.317
0.668
Table 1. MonoSemanticity Score under different similarity backbones. Across all variants, VideoMAE reaches own-MS 0.969 – 0.974 against DINOv2’s 0.317 – 0.366 , a gap of roughly 2.7× ; under an independent CLIP-based similarity space every entry collapses to 0.67 – 0.68 , revealing a metric alignment artifact. Own-MS is comparable within a backbone but not across backbones.
Figure 2. SAE features on DINOv2/SSv2. (a) A scene feature activating on flat surfaces across diverse actions (holding, pushing, pouring, dropping). (b) An action-correlated feature firing on “Pushing [something] off the table,” with spatial activation concentrated on the pushing hand. (c, d) Temporal comparison: standard SAE features flicker across frames, while spatio-temporal SAE variants maintain more consistent activations.
Variant
R2↑
Lag-1 ↑
MS ↑
Probe ↑
Raw DINOv2
—
0.435
—
17.4%
Standard SAE
0.454
0.277
0.359
19.1%
Post-hoc smoothing of the standard SAE
EMA ( α=0.3 )
—
0.280
—
7.1%
EMA ( α=0.5 )
—
0.210
—
7.8%
Temporal Union
—
0.150
—
8.2%
Table 2. Balanced SAE variants on DINOv2/SSv2 (10K clips), selected from 29 configurations over λ∈{0.01,0.05,0.5} and τ∈{0.05,0.2,0.5} ; full results are in the Supplementary Material. Higher contrastive weight can further improve probe accuracy at the cost of R2 ; Separate at λ=0.5 reaches 21.3% (Table 3 ). All variants outperform raw features with zero dead features. Probe uses an 80/20 split. † Coherence-optimized: lag-1 exceeds raw DINOv2.
N
Standard
Temporal
Separate
Raster
Temp.+M
Sep.+M
Top
Rand
Top
Rand
Top
Rand
Top
Rand
Top
Rand
Top
Rand
0
19.1
20.2
21.3
19.3
18.8
19.7
10
18.1
19.2
10.9
20.4
19.6
21.1
17.8
19.3
16.4
18.9
12.9
19.7
50
16.3
19.2
13.4
20.1
16.9
21.1
13.3
19.3
13.0
18.8
11.0
19.5
100
17.4
19.2
16.1
19.9
15.9
20.9
12.8
18.5
12.9
18.6
12.4
19.1
500
17.3
18.7
14.1
17.4
14.4
19.4
8.5
14.9
10.9
17.1
10.3
16.4
Table 3. Targeted feature ablation on DINOv2/SSv2 (10K, no probe retraining, following Stevens et al. ( Stevens et al., 2025 ) ). We train a probe once, then zero the top- N features by weight magnitude and evaluate with the same weights. Baseline accuracies ( N=0 ) differ from Table 2 because each variant uses the checkpoint with the strongest ablation sensitivity (Separate: λ=0.5 , Raster: τ=0.5 , Temp.+M / Sep.+M: λ=0.01 ), not the best-probe configuration.
Model
Representation
R@1
R@5
DINOv2
Raw (768 → 512)
4.6%
15.2%
Reconstructed (768 → 512)
5.4%
16.6%
Standard SAE (6144 → 512)
13.0%
27.8%
Temporal Contr. (6144 → 512)
13.1 %
28.3 %
VideoMAE
Raw (768 → 512)
13.4%
26.6%
Reconstructed (768 → 512)
15.2%
27.6%
Table 4. Text-video retrieval on SSv2 (10K clips, 80/20 split, Ridge α=1.0 ). SAE-reconstructed (768d) controls for dimensionality. VideoMAE SAE features achieve the highest absolute R@1.
Figure 3. Qualitative text-video retrieval comparison (DINOv2/SSv2, Standard SAE). For each query, we show the top-5 retrieved clips using raw features (left) vs. SAE features (right). Green borders indicate exact template match (conservative: visually similar clips with different templates count as incorrect). SAE features retrieve 11/20 correct matches vs. 4/20 for raw features.
Goal
Variant
Achieved
Reconstruction fidelity
Raster, λ=0.01
R2=0.418
Temporal coherence
Temporal+M, τ=0.2
lag-1 =0.462
Action discrimination
Separate, λ=0.5
probe =21.3%
Interpretability (MS)
Raster, λ=0.5
MS =0.433
Table 5. Which variant to use for which goal (DINOv2/SSv2, 10K clips). No variant dominates every metric; the contrastive weight selects the operating point.
Video models have the architecture to support encoding temporal aspects of the input, i.e. concepts that require more than one frame to define, like object movement. However, because motion and appearance change are entangled, a feature that appears to encode temporal concepts like object movement may instead encode non-temporal concepts like spatial presence at different positions whose activations merely correlate with motion. To resolve this, we introduce the No-False-Positives (NFP) test, a statistical test with a formal guarantee of statistical specificity for identifying features encoding temporal concepts. Using specially designed stimuli, we apply this test to representations produced by VideoMAE, V-JEPA2, and TimeSformer, and observe that temporal features exist in each model. We validate the test first by showing it yields no temporal features for the DINOv2 image-encoder. Then, using a synthetic representation space, we show that detection rate increases with a direction's projection onto the temporal subspace, and that Sparse Autoencoder features test-flagged as temporal project much more of their norm onto the temporal subspace than unflagged features. Interventions on temporal SAE features yield mixed results across models, suggesting that intervening on temporal features may not outperform a non-temporal feature baseline.
Jianghuai Li, Andrew Ren, Greg Shakhnarovich
University of Chicago · Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago
Video representation learning has seen tremendous progress in recent years. This has been driven by many factors, including the scale of training and the success of self-supervised models trained on next-frame prediction. While these factors have pushed the boundaries of what video models can do, they also introduce their own set of limitations. First, scaling video models can reach prohibitive costs, with recent models needing hundreds of years of video to be trained. Second, learning to predict the next frame (or embedding of the frame) naturally focuses on spatial information and as a result, video models still struggle with temporal understanding. In this paper we propose a novel approach that uses motion as a modality to alleviate both of these core issues. Given the motion in a video in the form of point tracks, we mask some of the tracks and use a masked autoencoder to reconstruct the missing tracks. This allows us to learn a representation in a self-supervised manner which we call TIME (Temporally-Informed Motion Embedding), and is focused on capturing temporal information. Also, as motion is inherently appearance-invariant, TIME needs far fewer examples to generalize well. As a result, without bells and whistles, on temporal tasks TIME performs on par with state-of-the-art models, using up to 4 orders of magnitude less training data. For general tasks, TIME can be used in combination with existing representations, and we observe that it leads to a significant improvement for V-JEPA 2, RVM and VideoMAE on standard benchmarks such as SSV2, EgoExo4D and Diving48. These results point to a new promising video paradigm for both more temporally-aware as well as more scalable models.
Mantas Skackauskas, Xinyue Hao, Laura Sevilla-Lara
Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) began as an unsupervised tool for decomposing neural representations into sparse, interpretable features, and are increasingly used not only for passive analysis but also for active interventions such as unlearning, bias mitigation, and concept editing. A central challenge for these editing and steering methods is reliably matching features to target concepts; most current approaches address this by computing post-hoc scores over an already-trained, frozen dictionary. We instead introduce ClasSAE, a novel method that both automatically assigns classes to features and guides the encoder toward class-separable representations during training. Specifically, we apply a differentiable top-k operator to a trainable feature--class affinity matrix with per-feature budgets, coupling the features selected for each sample to the classes they are trained to represent. Because gradients flow through the selection of active features rather than only through their magnitudes, the encoder and the affinity matrix co-adapt rather than being fit in separate stages. The result is a dictionary that is both class-separable and class-annotated, with no need for post-hoc probing. We propose three variants for enforcing sparsity within this framework, which achieve comparable overall performance with slightly different trade-offs. Using CLIP ViT-L/14 embeddings on ImageNet, we show that the learned affinity matrix agrees closely with an independently estimated post-hoc feature-class matrix computed on held-out data. The model also supports direct class prediction from the encoder and affinity matrix alone, without a separately fitted classifier, and its more class-aligned encoder yields improved separation in Targeted Probe Perturbation evaluations. https://github.com/St0pien/ClasSAE.
Jakub Stępień, Marcin Mazur, Jacek Tabor +1
Jagiellonian University · IDEAS Research Institute