Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are typically trained on hundreds of millions to billions of activation tokens, yet little work has tested whether this scale is necessary. We study how much activation data SAEs need by training four SAE architectures on three language models with budgets ranging from 5M tokens to a 500M-token reference. We measure two notions of convergence: functional behavior on standard evaluations and one-to-one reproducibility of learned features. Functional data requirements are strongly metric-dependent: reconstruction often approaches the full-data reference at substantially smaller budgets, whereas feature reproducibility continues to improve with data. For Gemma-2-2B BatchTopK, the fraction of strictly matched features rises from 2% at 5M tokens to 29% at 50M. Data selection also matters: random sampling better preserves the original activation distribution and generally favors reconstruction, whereas diversity-based sampling frequently improves AutoInterp. A theoretical analysis separates statistical consistency of subsampled training from the stronger identifiability and optimization conditions required for one-to-one feature recovery. Our results show that SAE training can often be made far more data-efficient when budgets are matched to the goal, and feature-level claims are backed by explicit reproducibility checks, paving the way toward cheaper and more reliable SAE research.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Functional data scaling for a BatchTopK SAE with 16 k latents. SAEBench metrics are reported for SAEs trained with {5M, 25M, 50M, 500M} activation tokens. While smaller activation budgets approaches the 500M reference for reconstruction, probing, AutoInterp, and intervention-metrics (e, h) exhibit heterogeneous, non-monotonic dependence on activation exposure.
Figure 2: Functional data scaling for a standard ReLU SAE with 65 k latents. SAEBench metrics are reported for SAEs trained with {5M, 25M, 50M, 500M} activation tokens. Reconstruction remains close to the 500 M reference at smaller activation budgets, whereas feature-level metrics show metric-dependent and frequently non-monotonic responses to increasing activation exposure.
Figure 3: Random sampling (RS) vs. FPS for a BatchTopK SAE with 16 k latents. At each activation budget, paired bars compare FPS and RS, while the green dashed line denotes the corresponding 500 M reference. Selection strategy induces metric-dependent tradeoffs: RS better preserves reconstruction and several intervention metrics, whereas FPS often improves AutoInterp.
Selected vs. 500M stream
Model
Selection
Coreset
Δ mean norm (%)
KL (bits)
Mean-dir. cosine
Gemma-2-2B
FPS
5M
+28.8±0.9
2.28
0.941±0.003
25M
+22.7±0.3
1.51
0.954±0.001
50M
+18.9±0.2
1.11
0.961±0.001
Random
5M
0.0±0.4
0.000
1.000±0.000
25M
0.0±0.2
0.000
1.000±0.000
Table 1: FPS reshapes the training-data distribution; random selection does not. * Random selection is distribution-neutral at every budget (KL ≤0.0003 bits); FPS-induced divergence grows with subset selectivity. Results for Qwen3-8B and Pythia-160M are in Table 24 in the appendix
Model
SAE
Budget
Counterpart (%)
Shared, τ≥0.7 (%)
Gemma-2-2B
ReLU
5M
76.15
28.42
25M
83.06
41.13
50M
85.28
47.26
BatchTopK
5M
66.61
2.20
25M
80.15
16.94
50M
83.47
28.86
Table 2: Counterpart agreement and strict feature correspondence. Enc.-dec. agree is the fraction of features for which independently computed encoder and decoder Hungarian matchings select the same 500 M reference latent. Shared additionally requires both encoder and decoder cosine similarities to exceed τ=0.7 . We find a similar observation for both Qwen3-8b and Pythia-160m, shown in Table 25 in the appendix.
Regime
Mean alignment
5M SAE feature
500M matched feature
low
0.0–0.2
The word average and surrounding mathematical or statistical expressions
Mathematical formatting, LaTeX code, variable subscripts, or mathematical expressions
Medium
0.4–0.6
Words related to medical topics, particularly cancer, diseases, and research
Mathematical expressions, code snippets, formatting symbols, or sequential lists
high
0.8–1.0
Comparative adjectives and adverbs, often followed by than or as
Comparative adjectives and adverbs, often followed by words such as than or more
Table 3: Representative matched Gemma-2-2B ReLU features between the 5 M SAE and the 500 M reference across increasing mean encoder-decoder alignment. The matched latents are ( 2782↔2782 ), ( 411↔2629 ),( 1507↔1507 ).
Appendix figures & tables23 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.993
0.959
0.703
0.253
0.029
0.756
0.657
0.006
1400.2
FPS
0.985
0.974
0.703
0.194
0.021
0.750
0.639
0.009
1298.8
25M
Random
0.995
0.974
0.704
0.261
0.031
0.787
0.653
0.002
1353.2
FPS
0.992
0.983
0.718
0.223
0.022
0.802
0.634
0.004
1265.1
50M
Random
0.995
0.979
0.715
0.264
0.030
0.797
0.656
0.009
1346.5
FPS
0.993
0.955
0.712
0.230
0.024
0.772
0.625
0.004
1204.0
Appendix
Table 4: SAE evaluation across activation budgets and selection strategies for Gemma-2-2B, ReLU (16k). Random and FPS are compared at 5M,25M, and 50M activation budgets against the corresponding 500M baseline.
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
6
5M
Random
0.995
0.902
0.648
0.191
0.011
0.775
0.690
0.024
1700.5
FPS
0.988
0.894
0.663
0.125
0.008
0.792
0.664
0.013
1439.5
25M
Random
0.995
0.865
0.669
0.192
0.012
0.811
0.685
0.011
1932.7
FPS
0.993
0.758
0.695
0.155
0.009
0.805
0.665
0.009
1686.4
50M
Random
0.997
0.819
0.673
0.183
0.012
0.813
0.685
0.021
1987.0
FPS
0.995
0.729
0.702
0.159
0.009
0.812
0.681
0.051
1678.4
Appendix
Table 5: Per-trainer SAE evaluation — Gemma-2-2B, ReLU (64K). Each row is one trainer run. Missing evaluations shown as “–”.
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.979
0.947
0.815
0.352
0.047
0.732
0.555
0.041
79.8
FPS
0.951
0.928
0.819
0.243
0.025
0.733
0.517
0.063
50.9
25M
Random
0.985
0.928
0.833
0.366
0.043
0.787
0.540
0.101
80.6
FPS
0.974
0.891
0.845
0.268
0.025
0.724
0.535
0.024
55.2
50M
Random
0.985
0.950
0.835
0.356
0.050
0.729
0.578
0.024
79.7
FPS
0.979
0.844
0.853
0.285
0.032
0.739
0.573
0.045
57.6
Appendix
Table 6: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Gemma-2-2B, BatchTopK (16K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.980
0.899
0.785
0.330
0.052
0.793
0.556
0.048
79.6
FPS
0.954
0.900
0.848
0.255
0.022
0.769
0.536
0.095
53.4
25M
Random
0.987
0.896
0.826
0.327
0.038
0.789
0.589
0.056
80.7
FPS
0.977
0.666
0.863
0.231
0.028
0.721
0.585
0.102
57.4
50M
Random
0.987
0.883
0.838
0.339
0.028
0.739
0.566
0.102
80.6
FPS
0.984
0.660
0.857
0.242
0.019
0.738
0.576
0.091
59.9
Appendix
Table 7: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Gemma-2-2B, BatchTopK (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.977
0.910
0.825
0.365
0.047
0.736
0.523
0.015
83.4
FPS
0.949
0.910
0.828
0.232
0.034
0.695
0.511
0.094
54.3
25M
Random
0.982
0.895
0.811
0.383
0.043
0.715
0.577
0.043
83.0
FPS
0.972
0.842
0.844
0.290
0.029
0.691
0.542
0.079
57.3
50M
Random
0.985
0.914
0.813
0.374
0.053
0.733
0.573
0.030
82.7
FPS
0.979
0.802
0.849
0.277
0.031
0.729
0.567
0.026
60.3
Appendix
Table 8: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Gemma-2-2B, JumpReLU (16K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.977
0.873
0.809
0.369
0.044
0.733
0.561
0.069
83.5
FPS
0.956
0.757
0.835
0.196
0.014
0.694
0.539
0.071
55.5
25M
Random
0.987
0.827
0.835
0.328
0.029
0.765
0.567
0.081
82.9
FPS
0.975
0.717
0.867
0.246
0.027
0.725
0.581
0.092
59.0
50M
Random
0.987
0.834
0.825
0.308
0.039
0.737
0.572
0.084
82.8
FPS
0.984
0.663
0.852
0.264
0.020
0.741
0.582
0.221
62.0
Appendix
Table 9: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Gemma-2-2B, JumpReLU (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.979
0.948
0.845
0.404
0.107
0.755
0.561
0.028
79.5
FPS
0.941
0.967
0.863
0.295
0.053
0.724
0.526
0.015
49.1
25M
Random
0.984
0.966
0.844
0.455
0.104
0.743
0.549
0.006
80.0
FPS
0.969
0.953
0.884
0.340
0.092
0.760
0.545
0.090
54.4
50M
Random
0.984
0.982
0.851
0.460
0.130
0.776
0.562
0.041
79.5
FPS
0.975
0.975
0.863
0.373
0.106
0.734
0.569
0.056
57.4
Appendix
Table 10: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Gemma-2-2B, Matryoshka (16K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Unlearning ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.975
0.925
0.772
0.399
0.086
0.756
0.543
0.026
79.5
FPS
0.949
0.967
0.873
0.266
0.074
0.760
0.540
0.086
50.6
25M
Random
0.985
0.992
0.832
0.393
0.106
0.783
0.602
0.017
80.1
FPS
0.975
0.958
0.885
0.339
0.048
0.756
0.612
0.038
55.1
50M
Random
0.987
0.974
0.829
0.428
0.101
0.767
0.610
0.043
79.9
FPS
0.980
0.961
0.881
0.325
0.086
0.772
0.581
0.079
57.9
Appendix
Table 11: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Gemma-2-2B, Matryoshka (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.975
0.944
0.676
0.123
0.035
0.725
0.499
1208.2
FPS
0.955
0.942
0.680
0.105
0.021
0.735
0.499
1000.0
25M
Random
0.980
0.907
0.688
0.142
0.033
0.712
0.500
1200.3
FPS
0.960
0.942
0.689
0.120
0.029
0.727
0.501
1074.3
50M
Random
0.978
0.913
0.697
0.146
0.034
0.719
0.501
1180.7
FPS
0.962
0.918
0.702
0.127
0.030
0.724
0.502
1117.9
Appendix
Table 12: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, ReLU (16K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
6
5M
Random
0.972
0.892
0.659
0.099
0.012
0.719
0.499
1861.4
FPS
0.944
0.878
0.666
0.076
0.008
0.719
0.495
1371.2
25M
Random
0.976
0.800
0.671
0.088
0.014
0.714
0.500
2002.8
FPS
0.964
0.784
0.679
0.090
0.010
0.706
0.499
1646.3
50M
Random
0.977
0.809
0.671
0.093
0.014
0.730
0.499
2012.6
FPS
0.967
0.728
0.674
0.083
0.012
0.718
0.498
1758.5
Appendix
Table 13: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, ReLU (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.946
0.902
0.733
0.189
0.245
0.707
0.492
142.6
FPS
0.916
0.845
0.744
0.216
0.163
0.707
0.490
106.3
25M
Random
0.954
0.911
0.755
0.183
0.222
0.704
0.492
137.5
FPS
0.940
0.852
0.776
0.196
0.163
0.697
0.489
108.2
50M
Random
0.953
0.914
0.774
0.027
0.224
0.697
0.491
135.3
FPS
0.949
0.840
0.768
0.175
0.183
0.698
0.488
118.1
Appendix
Table 14: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, BatchTopK (16K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.945
0.886
0.692
0.229
0.248
0.708
0.492
352.4
FPS
0.916
0.836
0.703
0.189
0.210
0.704
0.488
294.7
25M
Random
0.961
0.862
0.717
0.200
0.260
0.697
0.492
330.6
FPS
0.946
0.769
0.763
0.196
0.215
0.710
0.483
276.4
50M
Random
0.961
0.857
0.736
-0.084
0.235
0.709
0.490
315.7
FPS
0.952
0.635
0.746
0.180
0.145
0.691
0.488
282.9
Appendix
Table 15: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, BatchTopK (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.946
0.857
0.732
0.240
0.229
0.696
0.491
139.5
FPS
0.909
0.809
0.747
0.131
0.210
0.691
0.491
106.7
25M
Random
0.955
0.907
0.742
0.246
0.213
0.686
0.486
141.6
FPS
0.942
0.832
0.763
0.161
0.175
0.686
0.490
111.9
50M
Random
0.957
0.908
0.753
0.208
0.246
0.695
0.492
141.5
FPS
0.948
0.828
0.766
0.214
0.186
0.680
0.488
115.6
Appendix
Table 16: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, JumpReLU (16K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.950
0.833
0.703
0.147
0.211
0.698
0.494
297.4
FPS
0.909
0.739
0.714
0.125
0.165
0.665
0.490
255.9
25M
Random
0.958
0.818
0.727
0.244
0.238
0.698
0.494
309.8
FPS
0.944
0.654
0.733
0.163
0.168
0.722
0.487
266.2
50M
Random
0.961
0.780
0.725
0.218
0.205
0.676
0.492
315.0
FPS
0.957
0.635
0.747
0.207
0.184
0.690
0.494
272.5
Appendix
Table 17: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, JumpReLU (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.934
0.902
0.758
0.136
0.244
0.727
0.486
132.5
FPS
0.914
0.892
0.755
0.182
0.223
0.693
0.490
107.5
25M
Random
0.952
0.907
0.791
-0.040
0.277
0.720
0.493
126.6
FPS
0.931
0.938
0.795
-0.086
0.238
0.699
0.493
101.8
50M
Random
0.949
0.890
0.803
-0.302
0.213
0.697
0.489
120.6
FPS
0.941
0.952
0.800
0.037
0.232
0.714
0.490
107.5
Appendix
Table 18: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, Matryoshka (16K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
RAVEL Disent. ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.948
0.891
0.687
0.120
0.214
0.717
0.490
340.3
FPS
0.923
0.877
0.690
0.209
0.214
0.717
0.490
314.7
25M
Random
0.954
0.939
0.712
-0.259
0.251
0.714
0.492
330.7
FPS
0.945
0.941
0.734
-0.035
0.192
0.704
0.489
283.3
50M
Random
0.954
0.967
0.744
-0.085
0.219
0.694
0.489
300.2
FPS
0.951
0.942
0.747
0.011
0.173
0.710
0.489
270.7
Appendix
Table 19: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Pythia-160M, Matryoshka (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
0
5M
Random
0.993
0.959
0.823
0.178
0.155
0.732
1337.0
FPS
0.984
0.970
0.808
0.116
0.057
0.732
1199.0
25M
Random
0.993
0.894
0.833
0.147
0.101
0.726
1835.8
FPS
0.991
0.860
0.812
0.137
0.065
0.732
1638.7
50M
Random
0.995
0.815
0.815
0.151
0.090
0.780
1944.7
FPS
0.991
0.755
0.793
0.125
0.054
0.737
1703.2
Appendix
Table 20: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Qwen3-8B, ReLU (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.984
0.974
0.852
0.282
0.303
0.703
85.6
FPS
0.968
0.962
0.878
0.189
0.258
0.679
63.4
25M
Random
0.986
0.951
0.867
0.264
0.303
0.692
86.1
FPS
0.977
0.983
0.882
0.202
0.296
0.671
66.9
50M
Random
0.986
0.944
0.867
0.258
0.289
0.692
85.8
FPS
0.982
0.943
0.877
0.236
0.313
0.698
69.6
Appendix
Table 21: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Qwen3-8B, BatchTopK (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.980
0.990
0.857
0.336
0.226
0.652
87.4
FPS
0.968
0.943
0.860
0.192
0.106
0.700
68.5
25M
Random
0.984
0.932
0.869
0.270
0.229
0.664
87.3
FPS
0.982
0.965
0.884
0.212
0.098
0.677
67.7
50M
Random
0.986
0.962
0.876
0.257
0.198
0.671
87.4
FPS
0.982
0.909
0.868
0.242
0.151
0.662
70.1
Appendix
Table 22: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Qwen3-8B, JumpReLU (64K).
Trainer
Budget
Selection
Loss Recovered ↑
1− Abs. Fraction ↑
AutoInterp ↑
SCR Top-20 ↑
TPP Top-20 ↑
Sparse Probe Top-1 ↑
Sparsity (L0) ↓
2
5M
Random
0.980
0.982
0.848
0.290
0.342
0.662
85.3
FPS
0.962
0.998
0.892
0.238
0.286
0.726
58.3
25M
Random
0.984
0.990
0.863
0.268
0.325
0.708
85.5
FPS
0.978
0.986
0.894
0.296
0.298
0.672
62.6
50M
Random
0.986
0.986
0.857
0.365
0.311
0.691
85.9
FPS
0.980
0.978
0.894
0.312
0.299
0.704
65.7
Appendix
Table 23: Per-trainer SAE evaluation for Qwen3-8B, Matryoshka (64K).
Selected vs. 500M stream
Model
Selection
Coreset
Δ mean norm (%)
KL (bits)
Mean-dir. cosine
Qwen3-8B
FPS
5M
+33.8±1.3
4.02
0.889±0.007
25M
+21.4±0.4
2.08
0.952±0.002
50M
+16.4±0.3
1.35
0.970±0.001
Random
5M
+0.1±0.2
0.000
1.000±0.000
25M
0.0±0.1
0.000
1.000±0.000
Appendix
Table 24: FPS distribution shift for Qwen3-8B and Pythia-160M. * Metrics are defined as in Table 1 . The Gemma-2-2B pattern holds across model families: random selection is distribution-neutral at every budget, while FPS shifts the selected subset toward higher-norm activations, with divergence growing as the subset shrinks.
Counterpart (%)
Shared features (%)
Model
SAE
Budget
Enc.–dec. agree
τ≥0.3
τ≥0.5
τ≥0.7
Qwen3-8B
ReLU
5M
69.85
33.07
22.90
18.58
25M
79.47
51.16
36.23
25.19
50M
82.49
61.70
41.41
29.51
BatchTopK
5M
66.06
34.16
7.34
1.14
25M
81.05
65.56
35.63
8.83
Appendix
Table 25: Feature correspondence under increasingly strict alignment criteria. Encoder-decoder agreement is the fraction of features for which independently computed encoder and decoder Hungarian matchings select the same reference latent. Shared features additionally require both encoder and decoder cosine similarities to exceed the specified threshold τ . Results are reported for Qwen3-8B, and Pythia-160M.
ReLU
BatchTopK
Metric
5M
25M
50M
5M
25M
50M
A. 500M vs. Random
Loss Rec.
+.005/<.001∗∗∗
+.002/.002∗∗
+.002/.014∗
+.007/.006∗∗
+.002/.015∗
+.002/.092
Sparse Probe
+.018/.008∗∗
+.016/.005∗∗
+.004/.363
−.022/.355
−.036/.050
−.006/.769
1-Abs.
−.098/<.001∗∗∗
−.053/<.001∗∗∗
−.030/<.001∗∗∗
−.032/.516
−.047/.252
−.055/.135
AutoInterp
+.020/<.001∗∗∗
+.014/<.001∗∗∗
+.006/.085
+.032/.039∗
+.008/.365
+.003/.734
Appendix
Table 26: Paired statistical tests for Gemma-2-2B ReLU and BatchTopK. Panel A compares the 500 M reference with Random subsets ( Δ=500M−Random ); Panel B compares FPS with Random at matched budgets ( Δ=FPS−Random ). Each entry reports Δ/p from a paired two-sided t -test across matched SAE configurations.
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 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.
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 large language models by decomposing activations into sparse, human-understandable features, but scaling to large dictionaries exposes fundamental challenges. Systematic studies reveal pervasive feature splitting that fragments coherent concepts into non-atomic latents and widespread feature absorption that creates arbitrary exceptions in general features, severely compromising latent reliability. These issues stem from inconsistent latent assignment across samples: without cross-sample constraints, per-sample optimization often allows a single underlying concept to be inconsistently distributed across multiple redundant or interfering latents. To address this, we introduce C2R (Cross-sample Consistency Regularization). C2R explicitly encourages that each semantic feature is consistently represented by a unified latent across the batch by penalizing the co-activation of directionally similar latents. Comprehensive evaluation demonstrates that C2R effectively mitigates both splitting and absorption while, crucially, preserving reconstruction fidelity, providing a principled solution that enhances latent interpretability without degrading model performance. Source code is available at https://github.com/hr-jin/Cross-sample-Consistency-Regularization.
Haoran Jin, Xiting Wang, Shijie Ren +2
University of Science and Technology of China · State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China