Spectral characteristics of autoencoder parameters as a vector representation of data

Autoencoders typically meet tight latent-memory budgets by making each latent representation smaller, sacrificing representational capacity. We ask a different question: can multiple wider latents be stored together instead? We introduce the Superposed Latent Autoencoder (SLAE), which preserves high-capacity latent representations while sharing storage through learned superposition. SLAE transforms latents into storage-friendly codes, binds them with randomized keys, superposes multiple codes into a single memory tensor, and learns to recover each latent before decoding. Under the same storage budget, SLAE replaces irreversible dimensional bottlenecks with structured interference that can be suppressed. Across CIFAR-10/100, SVHN, STL-10, Tiny ImageNet, and a wide range of memory budgets, SLAE substantially improves the reconstruction--memory tradeoff, reducing reconstruction error by up to 56% over conventional autoencoders at matched storage. Further analysis shows that SLAE's advantage comes from making wider representations usable under the same storage budget. These gains also extend beyond reconstruction: the information preserved by SLAE improves downstream classification by up to 16.79 percentage points under the same memory budget. Our results suggest a new principle for representation compression: instead of making every latent smaller, keep representations wide and let them share memory.

We study autoencoder and variational-autoencoder latent spaces through the lens of spin-glass theory. The paper has two components. First, we formalize a latent-space spin-glass dictionary: for a fixed decoder, the reconstruction term together with a hyperspherical coordinates prior induces a Hamiltonian on the latent sphere, where latent coordinates play the role of continuous spins and the prior acts as an external magnetic field. This allows us to import operational spin-glass diagnostics -- overlap distributions, susceptibility, and block-spin coarse-graining -- to detect ordered, disordered, and edge-of-stability phases in trained latent representations. Second, we show that deliberately driving the latent system toward the edge-of-stability of the topological trivialization regime has concrete downstream consequences. In generation, hyperspherical compression improves the reconstruction-generation trade-off on CIFAR-10 and CelebA64, yielding lower self-FID while preserving or improving reconstruction. In anomaly detection, the same semi-ordered latent geometry improves both fully unsupervised and conditional OOD detection, including real-world Mars Rover and Galaxy Zoo datasets, as well as CIFAR-10/100 and Imagenette-based OOD benchmarks. We therefore advocate a phase-aware evaluation paradigm for AEs/VAEs, in which spin-glass observables complement standard ML metrics and expose the latent regimes that underlie downstream success or failure in many cases.

Autoencoders are widely used for nonlinear dimensionality reduction and manifold learning. While most common implementations rely on both nonlinear encoders and decoders, we investigate the specific role of the encoder and the extent to which it can be constrained to be linear without reducing accuracy. We conduct a comparative study on four autoencoder architectures: standard fully nonlinear autoencoders (AE), linear-encoder autoencoders (Lenc-AE), linear-decoder autoencoders (Ldec-AE), and fully linear autoencoders (LAE), evaluated on synthetic manifolds, computational mechanics data sets, and real-world image data sets including MNIST. We demonstrate that imposing a linear encoder preserves most of the representational capacity of the autoencoder, provided the decoder remains nonlinear. In particular, Lenc-AE consistently outperforms both Ldec-AE and LAE, and achieves reconstruction quality comparable to fully nonlinear AE, while offering advantages in terms of parsimony and interpretability of the latent representation. These results suggest that the nonlinear decoder is the critical component for manifold learning, rather than the encoder. A geometric interpretation of this finding is developed, which identifies the precise conditions under which a linear encoder is sufficient, and the specific manifold configurations that expose its limitations.