q-bio.NCJun 1, 2026

How Optimality Structures Sparse Dictionaries: A Theory for Understanding SAE Representations

Authors: William Dorrell

Organizations: Kempner Institute · Harvard University

Abstract

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have found success parsing neural representations into interpretable concepts, providing a basis for understanding and control. However, what exactly SAEs extract, and, correspondingly, the scientific conclusions we can draw from them, are not obvious. Empirically, the proof is in the pudding: SAEs learn interpretable features. Theoretically, we lack a clear account of what properties a 'concept' must satisfy for an SAE to extract it. There has been extensive identifiability work studying the conditions under which sparse coding recovers ground-truth features; however, these approaches tends to focus on simple data-generating models (e.g. sparse independent features) which poorly approximate the internet-swallowing language-model representations on which SAEs are trained. Here, avoiding data-generating models, we ask simply what properties any dictionary learning optimum must satisfy. Concretely, we extend local optimality analyses (Gribonval & Schnass, 2010) to the nonnegative joint-optimisation problem that vanilla SAEs approximate, and derive constraints relating optimal SAE features to their distributions. We use these constraints to explain a range of observed SAE behaviours - hierarchical splitting & absorption, the structure of residuals, and dense antipodal features - each reflecting how L1+nonnegativity interact with data to structure optimal dictionaries. Finally, we construct a novel large-dictionary convex problem and explore the wide atom-per-datapoint limit. In sum, we hope to tease model assumptions from unexpected observations, letting us learn more from SAEs' successes and provide principles for designing their successors.

Explore similar work

May 29, 2026cs.LG

Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders

Recently, sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have emerged as an attractive tool for interpreting and interacting with representations in practical neural networks. While it is common empirical folklore, we also show theoretically that SAEs are highly unstable: different training runs are likely to produce different concept dictionaries and sparse codes. We characterize the model properties that hinder the stability of real-world SAEs, and address each of these problems through minimal changes to the architecture and training procedure. Together, these changes yield two versions of an \textbf{i}dentifiable SAE (iSAE), a variant of the standard TopK SAE with lower reconstruction error and improved stability. We explain this improvement theoretically by connecting SAEs with traditional dictionary learning approaches, and show that the dictionaries learned in practice satisfy an approximate restricted isometry condition, rendering the corresponding sparse codes in those models near-identifiable.
Walter Nelson, Theofanis Karaletsos, Francesco Locatello
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
May 14, 2026cs.LG

The Rate-Distortion-Polysemanticity Tradeoff in SAEs

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) that can accurately reconstruct their input (minimizing distortion) by making efficient use of few features (minimizing the rate) often fail to learn monosemantic representations (highly interpretable), limiting their usefulness for mechanistic interpretability. In this paper, we characterise this tension in learning faithful, efficient, and interpretable explanations, introducing the Rate-Distortion-Polysemanticity tradeoff in SAEs. Under toy-modeling assumptions, we theoretically and empirically show that restricting the SAE to be monosemantic necessarily comes with an increase in rate and distortion. Assuming a generative model behind the input observations, we further demonstrate that the degree of polysemanticity of optimal SAEs is determined by the training data distribution, especially by the probability of features to co-occur. Finally, we extend the analysis to real-world settings by deriving necessary conditions that a polysemanticity measure should satisfy when the data-generating process is unknown, and we benchmark existing proxy metrics on SAEs trained on Large Language Models. Taken together, our findings show that polysemanticity is a data problem that should be accounted for when addressing it at the architectural and optimization level.
Tommaso Mencattini, Francesco Montagna, Francesco Locatello