Features that Make a Difference: Leveraging Gradients for Improved Dictionary Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) are a promising approach for extracting neural network representations by learning a sparse and overcomplete decomposition of the network's internal activations. However, SAEs are traditionally trained considering only activation values and not the effect those activations have on downstream computations. This limits the information available to learn features, and biases the autoencoder towards neglecting features which are represented with small activation values but strongly influence model outputs. To address this, we introduce Gradient SAEs (g-SAEs), which modify the k-sparse autoencoder architecture by augmenting the TopK activation function to rely on the gradients of the input activation when selecting the k elements. For a given sparsity level, g-SAEs produce reconstructions that are more faithful to original network performance when propagated through the network. Additionally, we find evidence that g-SAEs learn latents that are on average more effective at steering models in arbitrary contexts. By considering the downstream effects of activations, our approach leverages the dual nature of neural network features as both textitrepresentations, retrospectively, and textitactions, prospectively. While previous methods have approached the problem of feature discovery primarily focused on the former aspect, g-SAEs represent a step towards accounting for the latter as well.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Nov 2024.
Builds on
11 of 23 references.
References · 11
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
- 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,009
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 673
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 283
- 2023Attribution Patching Outperforms Automated Circuit Discoverycited by 196
- 2024Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoderscited by 171
- 2024Identifying Functionally Important Features with End-to-End Sparse Dictionary Learningcited by 64
- 2024Measuring Progress in Dictionary Learning for Language Model Interpretability with Board Game Modelscited by 51
- 2024Evaluating Synthetic Activations composed of SAE Latents in GPT-2cited by 3
- 2024Investigating Sensitive Directions in GPT-2: An Improved Baseline and Comparative Analysis of SAEscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probingcited by 109
- 2025Dialogue Is Not Enough to Make a Communicative BabyLM (But Neither Is Developmentally Inspired Reinforcement Learning)cited by 10
- 2025Low-Rank Adapting Models for Sparse Autoencoderscited by 6
- 2026When Do Concepts Become Functionally Sufficient During Language-Model Training?cited by 1
- 2026Gradient Atoms: Unsupervised Discovery, Attribution and Steering of Model Behaviors via Sparse Decomposition of Training Gradientscited by 0
- 2026When Do Concepts Become Functionally Sufficient During Language-Model Training?15 Aug 2026
- 2026Gradient Atoms: Unsupervised Discovery, Attribution and Steering of Model Behaviors via Sparse Decomposition of Training Gradients15 Mar 2026
- 2025Dialogue Is Not Enough to Make a Communicative BabyLM (But Neither Is Developmentally Inspired Reinforcement Learning)23 Oct 2025
- 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probing23 Feb 2025
- 2025Low-Rank Adapting Models for Sparse Autoencoders31 Jan 2025