cs.LGJul 19, 2026

Decoder-Preserving Sparse Autoencoders: Which Readouts Survive Sparse Compression?

Authors: Aniket Deshpande

Organizations: Department of Physics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Abstract

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) compress model activations into sparse codes, but equal reconstruction error and sparsity can preserve different linearly decodable signals. We formalize this ambiguity as a matrix-valued distortion between optimal ridge-prediction operators and train decoder-preserving SAEs by combining this distortion with reconstruction loss. In a rank relaxation, an isotropic task prior saturates per-mode omission costs without changing PCA's ordering, whereas a structured prior can change which modes are retained. A controlled sparse experiment shows that a declared prior protects held-out combinations from its task subspace. On GPT-2 small block 8, DPSAE reduces held-out decoder distortion by 10.6--11.4% across three paired runs while matching reconstruction NMSE. The same checkpoints pass an average natural-text output-KL noninferiority test, but one matched Pythia pair shows no improvement in probes restricted to a few sparse features. These results show that reconstruction quality does not determine which refitted linear readouts survive sparse compression, and that readout preservation is distinct from learning cleaner benchmark concepts or preserving every frozen-model behavior.

Explore similar work

Jul 2, 2026cs.LG

Expander Sparse Autoencoders: Parameter-Efficient Dictionaries for Mechanistic Interpretability

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) decompose internal activations of neural networks into sparse linear combinations of learned features by fitting an overcomplete dictionary WRm×n\mathbf{W}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n} with m<nm<n, and inferring a sparse code xRn\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^n from hWx\mathbf{h}\approx\mathbf{W}\mathbf{x}. This inference problem closely resembles the canonical setup of compressed sensing, but dense decoders requires O(mn)O(mn) learned values, which becomes costly at large feature counts. We introduce Expander SAEs: TopK SAEs whose decoder and tied encoder are supported on a left-dd-regular expander mask with dmd\ll m, learning only dndn decoder values while keeping the sparse-coding problem (m,n,k)(m,n,k) fixed. The same structure reduces storage and turns the matching-pursuit correlation step Wr\mathbf{W}^\top \mathbf{r} in OMP into an O(dn)O(dn) gather-and-reduce operation. Our experiments show that across Pythia-70M/160M, Qwen2.5-3B, and Llama-3.2-1B residual-stream activations, varying dd traces a consistent storage--fidelity frontier, and that at the most compressed modern-LM setting, Qwen2.5-3B with d=7d=7 uses 293×293\times fewer learned decoder values than the full dense decoder while retaining 8484% of dense CE-loss recovered. Control experiments show that the improved storage--fidelity tradeoff is driven by sparse, diverse decoder support structure rather than by fewer learned decoder values, and that when sparse and dense decoders are compared at matched parameter count, part of the remaining gap comes from encoder amortisation. On the theoretical side, we show that expansion and column flatness are sufficient for identifiability of noiseless kk-sparse codes, and we derive complementary sufficient conditions under which OMP recovers the support exactly.
Rodrigo Mendoza-Smith
Jun 12, 2026cs.LG

Decompose Sparsely Where You Should, Absorb Densely Where You Should No

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are typically trained to reconstruct the \textbf{entire} residual stream through a sparse dictionary, implicitly assuming that all activation content is amenable to sparse, monosemantic decomposition. We question this assumption and hypothesize that activations contain a low-rank, dense component that is computationally important to the model yet inherently unsuitable for sparse representation, which serves as a major source of the persistent dense latents widely observed in trained SAEs. To test this, we add a small rank-rr linear bottleneck in parallel with standard SAEs (BatchTopK and Matryoshka), allowing dense structure to be absorbed before sparse reconstruction. On Gemma-2-2B layer 12, a rank-24 bottleneck reduces dense latent count by up to 84% while improving sparse probing and targeted probe perturbation on both architectures at matched sparsity. The absorbed component is (i) \textbf{structurally identifiable} as the top principal components and outlier dimensions; (ii) \textbf{causally necessary}, with removing it raising next-token cross-entropy by 7.5×\times, far exceeding the 2.8×\times from removing the geometrically near-identical top-24 PCA directions; and (iii) \textbf{redundantly encoded by sparse dictionaries}, with ablating 787 maximally aligned sparse features raising cross-entropy by only 2.9×\times and ablating 2,048 topic-aligned features leaving MMLU topic classification virtually unchanged, whereas removing the scaffold drops it from 98.7% to chance. Together, our findings identify a compact, semantically informative and causally important component of residual stream activations (which we term a \textbf{computational scaffold}) that standard sparse dictionaries represent inefficiently, suggesting that the scope of sparsity-based interpretability methods warrants careful re-examination.
Ruixuan Deng, Zehao Jin, Zekun Wang +1
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