SpIn-ViT: Designing a Sparsity-Induced Vision Transformer That Is Mechanistically Interpretable

Despite high accuracy, Vision Transformer (ViT) predictions can be driven by spurious cues, raising the need to understand their inner workings before safe deployment. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) provide a promising lens for decomposing model representations into human-interpretable concepts, yet adapting SAE-based interpretation to ViTs remains challenging due to limited control over concept coverage and subjective, non-scalable feature interpretation. To fill the gaps, motivated by neuroscience-inspired principles, we propose ViSAE, a mechanistic interpretability toolbox for understanding ViT inner workings through concept circuits. ViSAE consists of three components: (1) A probing suite with 64K images and a 16K visually grounded concept vocabulary, improving concept coverage efficiency by 20x over ImageNet and interpretation accuracy by 28.7% over existing concept sets. (2) Top-down concept reading and Bottom-up circuit tracing algorithms that automatically recover ViT inner workings via concept circuits. (3) Applications for auditing and steering ViT behavior. Through concept editing, ViSAE improves the worst-group accuracy on WaterBirds by 48.2%, outperforming existing methods by 23.8%. Our data and code: https://github.com/deep-real/ViSAE.

Sparse neural networks are often hypothesized to be more interpretable than dense models, motivated by findings that weight sparsity can produce compact circuits in language models. However, it remains unclear whether structural sparsity itself leads to improved semantic interpretability. In this work, we systematically evaluate the relationship between weight sparsity and interpretability in Vision Transformers using DeiT-III B/16 models pruned with Wanda. To assess interpretability comprehensively, we introduce IMPACT, a multi-level framework that evaluates interpretability across four complementary levels: neurons, layer representations, task circuits, and model-level attribution. Layer representations are analyzed using BatchTopK sparse autoencoders, circuits are extracted via learnable node masking, and explanations are evaluated with transformer attribution using insertion and deletion metrics. Our results reveal a clear structural effect but limited interpretability gains. Sparse models produce circuits with approximately $2.5\times$ fewer edges than dense models, yet the fraction of active nodes remains similar or higher, indicating that pruning redistributes computation rather than isolating simpler functional modules. Consistent with this observation, sparse models show no systematic improvements in neuron-level selectivity, SAE feature interpretability, or attribution faithfulness. These findings suggest that structural sparsity alone does not reliably yield more interpretable vision models, highlighting the importance of evaluation frameworks that assess interpretability beyond circuit compactness.

Vision Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have become a popular tool in Mechanistic Interpretability due to their presumed ability to disentangle complex features learned by a model into monosemantic concepts. Despite their growing popularity, evaluating their interpretability remains an active topic of research. The bedrock motivating the adoption of SAEs is the Linear Representation Hypothesis (LRH), which claims that polysemantic features can be projected onto a (near) orthogonal basis of sparse, human-understandable representations. Yet, most current frameworks evaluate proxies such as the sparsity of SAE features or the coherence of the inferred dictionary, implicitly assuming that these reflect alignment with human perception. In this paper, we provide empirical evidence that measuring the interpretability of SAE concepts is more difficult than these proxies suggest. To this end, we adapt the Autointerpretability Score (AIS) - previously shown to align with human judgments in Natural Language Processing - to vision tasks and validate our approach in a dedicated user study. We evaluate SAE concept quality using both standard metrics and our adapted AIS. We find that established interpretability metrics for SAEs correlate neither with one another nor with AIS, indicating that no single reference-free metric, whether grounded in the LRH or not, is sufficient for verifying the interpretability of vision SAEs. We argue these findings support recent calls for more verifiable, ground-truth-anchored design and evaluation of explanation methods.