Abstract
Sparse autoencoder (SAE) features are increasingly used to interpret language models, with auto-generated natural-language labels serving as the primary interface for understanding what each feature represents. We ask whether these labels generalize: does a feature labeled for a concept actually track that concept across languages and scripts? Using Serbian digraphia as a controlled testbed--the same language written in both Latin and Cyrillic via deterministic transliteration--we first find that SAE feature sets activated by the same content in different languages, scripts, and wordings share substantial overlap (mean Jaccard 0.39 vs. 0.13 random baseline, peaking at 0.57), suggesting genuine cross-lingual semantic features. We then test whether auto-interpretation labels keep pace. They often do not: features whose labels describe semantic content miss the same meaning in Serbian up to 4x more often thanwithin English, and miss Serbian Cyrillic more than Serbian Latin--two scripts that are deterministic transliterations of each other--suggesting the failures align with how well each form is represented in training. The gap grows with network depth, yet the labels give no indication that they fail. These results suggest that auto-interpretation labels may reflect a feature's behavior on well-represented inputs rather than the concept itself.
Explore similar work
May 13, 2026cs.LG
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are now standard tools for decomposing language model activations into interpretable features, and automated interpretability pipelines routinely assign each feature a short natural-language explanation. Existing critiques of this practice focus on polysemanticity -- one feature with many meanings -- or on whether explanations predict activations. We identify a complementary, structurally distinct problem we call descriptive collision: many distinct SAE features admit the same explanation. Reanalyzing the largest publicly-available dataset of human-annotated SAE features (Marks et al., 2025), comprising 722 annotated features across Gemma 2 2B and Pythia 70M, we find that the mean annotation string is reused across 3.07 features; 82.1% of features share their annotation with at least one other feature; and the single most common annotation string ("plural nouns") labels 101 distinct features spanning 18 layers and four model components. Information-theoretically, the average annotation resolves only 70% of feature identity. We formalize a property called discrimination, prove that current detection-style auto-interpretability scoring is invariant to collision, and propose two complementary corrective metrics -- collision-adjusted detection and discrimination scoring -- that explicitly penalize explanations that fail to distinguish a feature from its neighbors. The collision problem is independent of, and additive with, previously identified failure modes of auto-interpretability; ignoring it inflates reported feature interpretability by a quantity equal to roughly one-third of the bits required to identify a feature.
Jordan F. McCann
Jun 1, 2026cs.LG
Dictionary learning with sparse autoencoders (SAEs) produces overcomplete bases from neural network activations that are often interpretable and reduces polysemanticity. However, features from SAEs vary substantially across random seeds -- a problem known as instability. Archetypal SAEs (Fel et al., 2025) were proposed as a general dictionary-learning intervention for more reliable concept extraction, and report more stable dictionaries at the end of training. We demonstrate that the stability claimed by archetypal SAEs is a result of setting identical initialization across multiple runs. Through our analyses, we attempt to clarify two distinct notions in mechanistic interpretability that may be ambiguously used: stability is agreement between two independently trained models, whereas stabilization is the convergence of independently initialized runs toward a common solution. This distinction is critical for mechanistic interpretability of natural language processing (NLP), where feature stability is increasingly used as evidence that SAE features are reusable units of analysis. Experiments from archetypal SAEs share a deterministic k-means decoder initialization, setting inter-run dictionary distance to zero before training begins. When this initialization is removed, the archetypal constraint provides no stabilization advantage in our setting. We further identify a preprocessing-dependent cosine geometry issue that complicates interpretation of endpoint stability metrics. Overall, our study supports the value of studying SAEs within the larger dictionary-learning tradition while showing that stability claims require trajectory diagnostics and initialization ablations.
Michał Brzozowski, Neo Christopher Chung
Aug 13, 2026cs.CL
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are proposed to extract numerous features from large language model (LLM) representations, yet explaining these features still relies primarily on external observation. This reliance leads to superficial explanations inferred from observed model behavior and computational inefficiency from collecting such behavioral evidence at scale. We introduce SAEVerbalizer, a framework that injects SAE decoder directions into an LLM's representations and fine-tunes the LLM's downstream layers to generate natural-language explanations of the injected features. Once trained, the resulting verbalizer explains SAE features directly from decoder directions, addressing both limitations. Our experiments show that the learned verbalization capability generalizes to unseen features, transfers across separately trained SAE dictionaries, and, with a lightweight adapter, extends to SAE features from different LLMs. Intervention experiments show that injecting multiple directions yields an explanation combining their meanings, while reversing individual directions produces corresponding meaning shifts.
Weihan Meng, Hongzhu Guo, Yi Jing +5