cs.LGJun 4, 2026

Subspace-Aware Sparse Autoencoders for Effective Mechanistic Interpretability

Authors: Seyed Arshan DaliliMehrdad Mahdavi

Organizations: The Pennsylvania State University

Abstract

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) are widely used for mechanistic interpretability in large language models, yet their formulation assigns each latent feature a single decoder direction, implicitly assuming features to be one-dimensional. We show that this assumption mismatches with the multi-dimensional structure of model features, provably inducing feature splitting through two distinct mechanisms. Geometrically, reconstructing a feature of intrinsic dimension di2d_i \ge 2 to error ε\varepsilon with single-direction decoders forces a number of atoms that is exponential in did_i. From an end-to-end optimization perspective, this splitting is not merely possible but actively preferred. We prove that there exists a continuous path from the true did_i-dimensional basis to a strictly lower risk of the 1\ell_1-regularized SAE objective, whose descent directions drive any trained dictionary into that exponential regime. A single coherent feature is therefore fragmented across many near-collinear latents, producing spurious multiplicity and obscuring the intrinsic geometry. Motivated by this, we introduce Subspace-Aware Sparse Autoencoders (SASA), which replace single-vector decoders with learned decoder subspaces, enforce block sparsity via Top-ss group gating, and adapt each group's effective rank with a nuclear-norm regularizer. We then show that once the block size satisfies rdir \ge d_i, a single group not only can represent the entire feature slice but is the global minimizer of the SASA objective. This consolidation yields a sample complexity polynomial in did_i rather than exponential -- a decisive advantage given that every training activation costs an LLM forward pass. Empirically, on GPT-2 and Mistral-7B, SASA reduces feature splitting and absorption, improves monosemanticity and interpretability, and matches or exceeds standard SAEs while training on roughly half the token budget.

Explore similar work

Jun 29, 2026cs.LG

C^{2}R: Cross-sample Consistency Regularization Mitigates Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoders

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) are widely used to interpret large language models by decomposing activations into sparse, human-understandable features, but scaling to large dictionaries exposes fundamental challenges. Systematic studies reveal pervasive feature splitting that fragments coherent concepts into non-atomic latents and widespread feature absorption that creates arbitrary exceptions in general features, severely compromising latent reliability. These issues stem from inconsistent latent assignment across samples: without cross-sample constraints, per-sample optimization often allows a single underlying concept to be inconsistently distributed across multiple redundant or interfering latents. To address this, we introduce C2^2R (\underline{\textbf{C}}ross-sample \underline{\textbf{C}}onsistency \underline{\textbf{R}}egularization). C2^2R explicitly encourages that each semantic feature is consistently represented by a unified latent across the batch by penalizing the co-activation of directionally similar latents. Comprehensive evaluation demonstrates that C2^2R effectively mitigates both splitting and absorption while, crucially, preserving reconstruction fidelity, providing a principled solution that enhances latent interpretability without degrading model performance. Source code is available at https://github.com/hr-jin/Cross-sample-Consistency-Regularization.
Haoran Jin, Xiting Wang, Shijie Ren +2
Aug 22, 2025cs.LG

Sparse but Wrong: Incorrect L0 Leads to Incorrect Features in Sparse Autoencoders

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) extract features from LLM internal activations, meant to correspond to interpretable concepts. A core SAE training hyperparameter is L0: how many SAE features should fire per token on average. Existing work compares SAE algorithms using sparsity-reconstruction tradeoff plots, implying L0 is a free parameter with no inherently correct value aside from its effect on reconstruction. In this work we study the effect of L0 on SAEs, and show that if L0 is not set correctly, the SAE fails to disentangle the underlying features of the LLM. If L0 is too low, the SAE will mix correlated features to improve reconstruction. If L0 is too high, the SAE finds degenerate solutions that also mix features. Further, we present a proxy metric that can help guide the search for the correct L0 for an SAE on a given training distribution. We show that our method finds the correct L0 in toy models and coincides with peak sparse probing performance in LLM SAEs. We find that most commonly used SAEs have an L0 that is too low. Our work shows that practitioners must set L0 correctly to train SAEs with monosemantic features.
David Chanin, Adrià Garriga-Alonso
Jul 22, 2026cs.LG

Are Single-Token Sparse Autoencoder Features Causally Necessary? Layer-Depth and SAE-Family Effects

Sparse autoencoder (SAE) features are used to interpret and steer large language models, yet whether a feature's causal role is stable across SAE families remains untested. Single-token features that activate on one vocabulary item provide the diagnostic case where ground truth permits direct comparison. We analyze 3.9M features across six models and three SAE families using zero-ablation at full layer depth. Single-token features cluster 4.7x tighter in decoder space and concentrate in early layers (Layer 0 in GPT2-Small; L0-L4 in Gemma). Ablating them yields Benjamini-Hochberg-significant logit reductions in 178 of 208 full-layer conditions, with depth controlling whether damage cascades downstream or shapes the output directly. Cross-family causal differences exceed within-family scale effects: on the same base model, GemmaScope and BatchTopK features remain causally anchored, while LlamaScope features are locally redundant. The target token's rank recovers to within 2x baseline 96-98% of the time after the same ablation, and a controlled activation-function comparison reverses sign within the same model, leaving training recipe as the residual candidate. Cross-family interpretability claims are therefore sensitive to training methodology, not just activation function or scale.
Seonglae Cho, Zekun Wu, Kleyton Da Costa +3