Active Budget Can Kill Sensitivity: Diagnosing and Repairing TopK Sparse Autoencoder Reliability

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have become a leading tool for interpreting the representations of vision foundation models, decomposing their polysemantic activations into a larger set of sparse, more monosemantic features. The Top-$k$ SAE, a now-standard variant, enforces sparsity architecturally through its activation function, retaining only the $k$ most active latents per input. Because it was designed precisely to avoid the $\ell_1$ penalty used by earlier SAEs and its known drawbacks, it has not been combined with an explicit sparsity regularizer. Yet the Top-$k$ SAE retains limitations of its own, and we hypothesize that a sparsity penalty acting before the selection could sharpen each latent's selectivity and make the code more interpretable, without reintroducing the drawbacks of the $\ell_1$ penalty. We introduce two sparsity regularizers compatible with the Top-$k$ architecture, both acting on the activations before the Top-$k$ selection: an $\ell_1$ penalty on the unselected (off-support) units, and a scale-invariant $\ell_1/\ell_2$-ratio penalty that concentrates the code onto fewer effective units. Both penalties are applied only to the batch-active units, those selected by the Top-$k$ operator at least once within the batch. Across two datasets, three vision foundation models, and a range of $k$, both regularizers consistently improve monosemanticity at no cost to reconstruction quality. The $\ell_1/\ell_2$ penalty further concentrates information into fewer latents, making reconstruction more robust to the inference-time choice of $k$ and improving small-budget linear probing. Our central finding is that hard architectural sparsity and soft sparsity regularization are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

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.

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.