Evaluating and Designing Sparse Autoencoders by Approximating Quasi-Orthogonality
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are widely used in mechanistic interpretability research for large language models; however, the state-of-the-art method of using k-sparse autoencoders lacks a theoretical grounding for selecting the hyperparameter k that represents the number of nonzero activations, often denoted by ℓ0. In this paper, we reveal a theoretical link that the ℓ2-norm of the sparse feature vector can be approximated with the ℓ2-norm of the dense vector with a closed-form error, which allows sparse autoencoders to be trained without the need to manually determine ℓ0. Specifically, we validate two applications of our theoretical findings. First, we introduce a new methodology that can assess the feature activations of pre-trained SAEs by computing the theoretically expected value from the input embedding, which has been overlooked by existing SAE evaluation methods and loss functions. Second, we introduce a novel activation function, top-AFA, which builds upon our formulation of approximate feature activation (AFA). This function enables top-k style activation without requiring a constant hyperparameter k to be tuned, dynamically determining the number of activated features for each input. By training SAEs on three intermediate layers to reconstruct GPT2 hidden embeddings for over 80 million tokens from the OpenWebText dataset, we demonstrate the empirical merits of this approach and compare it with current state-of-the-art k-sparse autoencoders. Our code is available at: https://github.com/SewoongLee/top-afa-sae.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 18 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2025.
Builds on
18 of 33 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysis7 Feb
- 2024Decomposing The Dark Matter of Sparse Autoencoders18 Oct
- 2024Evaluating Open-Source Sparse Autoencoders on Disentangling Factual Knowledge in GPT-2 Small5 Sep
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 29 Aug
- 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep
Other references · 13
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 716
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
- 2023Emergent Linear Representations in World Models of Self-Supervised Sequence Modelscited by 319
- 2013k-Sparse Autoencoderscited by 215
- 2024Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoderscited by 179
- 2024Llama Scope: Extracting Millions of Features from Llama-3.1-8B with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 143
- 2024BatchTopK Sparse Autoencoderscited by 130
- 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 124
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different Featurescited by 93
- 2025Rethinking Evaluation of Sparse Autoencoders through the Representation of Polysemous Wordscited by 18
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 5.
8 papers.
- 2025Sparse but Wrong: Incorrect L0 Leads to Incorrect Features in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 14
- 2025AdaptiveK: Complexity-Driven Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretable Language Model Representationscited by 4
- 2025Enforcing Orderedness to Improve Feature Consistencycited by 1
- 2026Feature Starvation as Geometric Instability in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 0
- 2026A Survey on the Linear Representation Hypothesiscited by 0
- 2026Interference Beyond Geometry in Concept Extractioncited by 0
- 2026ClasSAE: Class-Aligned Sparse Autoencoders via Differentiable Feature-Class Affinitycited by 0
- 2026Sparse Autoencoders for Mechanistic Interpretability in NLP: A Critical Survey of Recoverability, Interpretability, and Utilitycited by 0
- 2026Sparse Autoencoders for Mechanistic Interpretability in NLP: A Critical Survey of Recoverability, Interpretability, and Utility14 Oct 2026
- 2026ClasSAE: Class-Aligned Sparse Autoencoders via Differentiable Feature-Class Affinity2 Oct 2026
- 2026Interference Beyond Geometry in Concept Extraction28 Sep 2026
- 2026A Survey on the Linear Representation Hypothesis19 Sep 2026
- 2026Feature Starvation as Geometric Instability in Sparse Autoencoders6 May 2026
- 2025Enforcing Orderedness to Improve Feature Consistency1 Dec 2025
- 2025AdaptiveK: Complexity-Driven Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretable Language Model Representations24 Aug 2025
- 2025Sparse but Wrong: Incorrect L0 Leads to Incorrect Features in Sparse Autoencoders22 Aug 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025SplInterp: Improving our Understanding and Training of Sparse Autoencoders
- 2026Are Sparse Autoencoder Benchmarks Reliable?
- 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?
- 2026Subspace-Aware Sparse Autoencoders for Effective Mechanistic Interpretability
- 2024Compute Optimal Inference and Provable Amortisation Gap in Sparse Autoencoders
- 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probing
- 2026Discovering Millions of Interpretable Features with Sparse Autoencoders
- 2025A Survey on Sparse Autoencoders: Interpreting the Internal Mechanisms of Large Language Models