Compressed Computation under L^4 Loss is likely Computation in Superposition

We study whether the Compressed Computation (CC) toy model (Braun et al., 2025) is an instance of computation in superposition. The CC model appears to compute 100 ReLU functions with just 50 neurons, achieving a better loss than expected from only representing 50 ReLU functions. We show that the model mixes inputs via its noisy residual stream, corresponding to an unintended mixing matrix in the labels. Splitting the training objective into the ReLU term and the mixing term, we find that performance gains scale with the magnitude of the mixing matrix and vanish when the matrix is removed. The learned neuron directions concentrate in the subspace associated with the top 50 eigenvalues of the mixing matrix, suggesting that the mixing term governs the solution. Finally, a semi-non-negative matrix factorization (SNMF) baseline derived solely from the mixing matrix reproduces the qualitative loss profile and improves on prior baselines, though it does not match the trained model. These results suggest CC is not a suitable toy model of computation in superposition.

One of the major difficulties in the mechanistic interpretability of neural networks is the occurrence of polysemanticity, which suggests that each neuron is typically responsible for multiple different tasks, impeding a clean interpretation of their function. The seminal paper of Elhage et al. (2022) argues that this occurs due to superposition, a phenomenon where the neural network represents distinct features as non-orthogonal directions in a lower-dimensional space, a strategy that allows much greater compression of the data without sacrificing fidelity due to the feature sparsity of input vectors. Elhage et al. (2022) empirically validates these hypotheses in a rather natural and simple autoencoder with sparse inputs. The contribution of the present work is to analyze the mathematical basis for the occurrence and optimality of superposition, while rigorously corroborating some of their findings. In particular, we provide upper and lower bounds for the L2 reconstruction loss, tight in the very sparse regime, for power activation functions. A short list of interesting open problems are also included at the end.

Comparing internal representations is a central goal in neuroscience and machine learning, but standard linear alignment metrics (Representational Similarity Analysis, Centered Kernel Alignment, and linear regression) are frequently applied to neural activity coordinates rather than on the underlying features. We show this matters when neural systems operate in superposition, encoding more features than they have neurons via linear compression. Closed-form derivations prove that these metrics depend on the Gram matrices of each system's projection, not on the latent features themselves: alignment thus combines what a system represents with how it is encoded. For those interested in what features two systems share, this is a problem: Two networks can have identical feature content yet appear more dissimilar than networks exhibiting partial feature overlap. This apparent misalignment need not reflect lost information as compressed sensing guarantees sparse features remain recoverable from the compressed activity. We confirm this by training supervised TopK sparse autoencoders that realize solvable compressed sensing by construction, finding alignment on recovered latents restored even when raw-activation alignment remains deflated. We extend the result to unsupervised SAEs trained without ground-truth latents, and to pretrained vision and language model SAEs, where SAE-latent alignment exceeds raw-activation alignment, consistent with superposition in real systems.