Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are the standard for decomposing superposed neural representations into interpretable features, and evaluation relies predominantly on correlational recovery metrics -- cosine similarity between ground-truth directions and decoder atoms. We show this conflates two distinct claims: decoder-geometry alignment and encoder-activation behavior. We reproduce the superposition phase diagram of Elhage et al. (2022), identifying a convergence artifact at high sparsity and an under-described diffuse sharing regime at extreme overcompleteness. We reproduce the TopK-versus-L1 comparison of Gao et al. (2024), with direct evidence of L1 shrinkage. Our central result is causal: subjecting every recovered feature to ablation and steering, we find up to 77% of features passing a recovery bar (cosine >= 0.90) in a degraded SAE -- and 9% in a well-trained one -- are causally inert: the matched atom never fires when the feature is present, including matches at cosine ~1.000. We package the method as sae-causal-audit, a model-agnostic instrument with a deterministic pipeline. Re-auditing refines the finding: inertness decomposes by cause into structural inertness (antipodal-pair geometry, present in good SAEs) and competitive inertness (a TopK pathology of degraded SAEs), and by direction into read- and write-inertness, which five antipodal pairs dissociate completely -- unmonitorable yet steerable through the same atom, with steering specificities of 143-310 attached to zero ablation effects. We document why byte-exact reproducibility is unavailable by construction, and propose reporting it as a stack of claims with explicit scopes. Applying the instrument to a production SAE reproduces the pattern at small scale (14% inert) and surfaces an atom-collision signal: a handful of atoms recur as the nearest match for dozens of unrelated concepts, replicated across three batches.
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are widely used to interpret neural network representations, but their utility depends on whether the learned features are reproducible across training runs. We study this question through \emph{feature stability}: for each SAE feature, we estimate the probability that a similar feature reappears in an independently trained SAE. This yields a scalable per-feature signal that separates stable from unstable features. In a large-scale study across seeds, models, layers, dictionary sizes, and SAE variants, we find a pronounced functional asymmetry: stable features carry most of the reconstruction- and prediction-relevant signal, while unstable features have weak marginal impact and are dominated by low-frequency surface-form triggers in both activation statistics and automatic explanations. Geometrically, unstable features are individually non-reproducible but concentrate in reproducible lower-rank subspaces, suggesting that seed dependence often reflects basis ambiguity within a shared region of activation space rather than pure noise. A controlled synthetic model makes this mechanism explicit, showing that low-rank ground-truth features can be recovered at the subspace level while remaining non-identifiable as individual SAE latents across seeds. Finally, by pooling unique cross-seed features, we construct more stable SAEs while preserving explained variance in this setting. Together, these results show that unstable features are not merely failed or noisy latents: they have weak individual functional impact, but reflect reproducible low-dimensional structure that standard SAEs resolve differently across seeds.
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.
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.