cs.LGMay 11, 2026

The Geometric Wall: Manifold Structure Predicts Layerwise Sparse Autoencoder Scaling Laws

Authors: Eslam Zaher, Maciej Trzaskowski, Quan Nguyen, Fred Roosta

Organizations: ARC Training Centre for Information Resilience (CIRES) · School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland · Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland · Profenso · QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute

Abstract

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) operationalise the linear representation hypothesis: they reconstruct model activations as sparse linear combinations of interpretable dictionary atoms, on the implicit assumption that activation space is well approximated by a globally linear structure. Their reconstruction error varies sharply across layers in ways that existing scaling laws, fitted at single layers, do not explain. We argue that this variation is the empirical trace of a geometric mismatch: where the activation manifold is curved and its intrinsic dimension varies across layers, no sparse linear dictionary can match it uniformly, and the SAE's width-sparsity scaling becomes a layer-dependent function of manifold structure rather than a single universal law. We conduct the first cross-layer SAE scaling study, fitting and regressing on 844 residual-stream Gemma Scope SAE checkpoints across 68 layers of Gemma 2 2B and 9B. Stage 1 fits a per-layer scaling-law surface; Stage 2 regresses the fitted parameters and the derived per-layer width exponents on four layerwise geometric summaries. We find that manifold geometry predicts the per-layer width exponent in both models, and that the same regression coefficients learnt on one model predict the other model's per-layer exponents under cross-model transfer, indicating a transferable geometric law. At the showcase layers where richer width grids permit identification of the asymptotic floor, we find that the fitted floor tracks the layerwise geometric ordering: higher curvature and intrinsic dimension correspond to higher floor, consistent with the irreducible second-order residual that any sparse linear approximation of a curved manifold must leave behind. SAEs thus encounter not a finite-resource ceiling but a geometry-dependent wall, set by the manifold they are trying to reconstruct.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 12, 2026cs.LG

Decompose Sparsely Where You Should, Absorb Densely Where You Should No

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are typically trained to reconstruct the \textbf{entire} residual stream through a sparse dictionary, implicitly assuming that all activation content is amenable to sparse, monosemantic decomposition. We question this assumption and hypothesize that activations contain a low-rank, dense component that is computationally important to the model yet inherently unsuitable for sparse representation, which serves as a major source of the persistent dense latents widely observed in trained SAEs. To test this, we add a small rank-rr linear bottleneck in parallel with standard SAEs (BatchTopK and Matryoshka), allowing dense structure to be absorbed before sparse reconstruction. On Gemma-2-2B layer 12, a rank-24 bottleneck reduces dense latent count by up to 84% while improving sparse probing and targeted probe perturbation on both architectures at matched sparsity. The absorbed component is (i) \textbf{structurally identifiable} as the top principal components and outlier dimensions; (ii) \textbf{causally necessary}, with removing it raising next-token cross-entropy by 7.5×\times, far exceeding the 2.8×\times from removing the geometrically near-identical top-24 PCA directions; and (iii) \textbf{redundantly encoded by sparse dictionaries}, with ablating 787 maximally aligned sparse features raising cross-entropy by only 2.9×\times and ablating 2,048 topic-aligned features leaving MMLU topic classification virtually unchanged, whereas removing the scaffold drops it from 98.7% to chance. Together, our findings identify a compact, semantically informative and causally important component of residual stream activations (which we term a \textbf{computational scaffold}) that standard sparse dictionaries represent inefficiently, suggesting that the scope of sparsity-based interpretability methods warrants careful re-examination.
Ruixuan Deng, Zehao Jin, Zekun Wang +1
Improving Sparse AutoencodersSparsityLatent StructureMmlu-Pro
AskPDF
Apr 30, 2026cs.LG

Do Sparse Autoencoders Capture Concept Manifolds?

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are widely used to extract interpretable features from neural network representations, often under the implicit assumption that concepts correspond to independent linear directions. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that many concepts are instead organized along low-dimensional manifolds encoding continuous geometric relationships. This raises three basic questions: what does it mean for an SAE to capture a manifold, when do existing SAE architectures do so, and how? We develop a theoretical framework that answers these questions and show that SAEs can capture manifolds in two fundamentally different ways: globally, by allocating a compact group of atoms whose linear span contains the entire manifold, or locally, by distributing it across features that each selectively tile a restricted region of the underlying geometry. Empirically, we find that SAEs suboptimally recover continuous structures, mixing the global subspace and local tiling solutions in a fragmented regime we call dilution. This explains why manifold structure is rarely visible at the level of individual concepts and motivates post-hoc unsupervised discovery methods that search for coherent groups of atoms rather than isolated directions. More broadly, our results suggest that future representation learning methods should treat geometric objects, not just individual directions, as the basic units of interpretability.
Usha Bhalla, Thomas Fel, Can Rager +9
Manifold Learning MethodManifoldsModel Interpretability
AskPDF
May 9, 2026cs.LG

SMIXAE: Towards Unsupervised Manifold Discovery in Language Models

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have been used widely to decompose and interpret neural network activations, especially those of transformer language models. One key issue with SAEs is their inability to directly model multidimensional features. Instead, SAEs may tile such features by a set of independent directions that must be grouped together after the SAE training phase, impeding discoverability and interpretation of learned feature representations. We begin to address this issue by introducing the Sparse MIXture of Autoencoders (SMIXAE) architecture. Empirically, we provide evidence that SMIXAE models have success both in directly learning previously identified manifold structures, as well as finding novel structures, within the open source Gemma 2 2B and 9B models. Finally, we discuss several limitations and point towards areas for future work.
Collin Francel
Sparse Autoencoder FeaturesNeural ArchitecturesRepresentation LearningManifold Learning MethodManifolds
AskPDF