Measuring Monosemanticity in Sparse Autoencoders via Latent Activation Coherence

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly used to extract interpretable concepts from vision and vision language models, yet existing evaluation methods largely rely on proxy metrics or qualitative inspection rather than measuring semantic correspondence. We present a human-grounded evaluation framework that quantifies alignment between SAE latents and human-annotated concepts, without requiring user studies, and validate this matching through targeted attribute perturbations. To enable this intervention-style evaluation in vision, we construct synCUB and synCOCO, synthetic benchmarks of paired images that differ in exactly one attribute. We introduce Fully-Binary Matching Pursuit (FBMP), a coalition-based matching procedure that supports many-to-one mappings between SAE latents and annotated concepts, and consistently outperforms one-to-one baselines. For functional validation, we propose a Targeted Attribute Perturbation Alignment Score (TAPAScore), which tests whether matched concepts respond selectively and in the expected direction under targeted image-level attribute perturbations. Under sanity checks, our matching and TAPAScore are the only evaluated metrics that reliably distinguish trained SAEs from untrained ones. Across SAEs trained on CLIP and DINOv2 embeddings, we find that increased overcompleteness can reduce perturbation alignment, indicating a reduction in interpretability. Our evaluation framework suggests that moderate dictionary sizes provide the best trade-off, yielding the most interpretable SAEs. Code and datasets are available at https://github.com/JonasKlotz/sae-concept-eval.

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.

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are a core interpretability tool for large language models, and progress on SAE architectures depends on benchmarks that reliably distinguish better SAEs from worse ones. We audit the SAE quality metrics in SAEBench, the de-facto standard SAE evaluation suite, through three complementary lenses: reseed noise on a fixed SAE, ground-truth correlation on synthetic SAEs, and discriminability across training trajectories. We find that two of these metrics, Targeted Probe Perturbation (TPP) and Spurious Correlation Removal (SCR), fail multiple lenses at their canonical settings and should not be used to evaluate SAEs. The other metrics show higher reseed noise and lower discriminability than the field assumes. The sae-probes variant of $k$-sparse probing is the most reliable metric we tested, but even sae-probes struggles to separate variants of the same SAE architecture. Our results show the field needs better SAE benchmarks.