mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Feature Hedging: Correlated Features Break Narrow Sparse Autoencoders

arXiv 2505.11756 ↗First posted 16 May 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 16

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

It is assumed that sparse autoencoders (SAEs) decompose polysemantic activations into interpretable linear directions, as long as the activations are composed of sparse linear combinations of underlying features. However, we find that if an SAE is more narrow than the number of underlying "true features" on which it is trained, and there is correlation between features, the SAE will merge components of correlated features together, thus destroying monosemanticity. In LLM SAEs, these two conditions are almost certainly true. This phenomenon, which we call feature hedging, is caused by SAE reconstruction loss, and is more severe the narrower the SAE. In this work, we introduce the problem of feature hedging and study it both theoretically in toy models and empirically in SAEs trained on LLMs. We suspect that feature hedging may be one of the core reasons that SAEs consistently underperform supervised baselines. Finally, we use our understanding of feature hedging to propose an improved variant of matryoshka SAEs. Importantly, our work shows that SAE width is not a neutral hyperparameter: narrower SAEs suffer more from hedging than wider SAEs.

Key facts. Cited by 16 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 16 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 May 2025.

Builds on

16 of 29 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Learning Multi-Level Features with Matryoshka Sparse Autoencoders21 Mar
  2. 2024Decomposing The Dark Matter of Sparse Autoencoders18 Oct
  3. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 29 Aug
  4. 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep

Other references · 12

  1. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
  2. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  3. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
  4. 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 435
  5. 2023Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probingcited by 334
  6. 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 300
  7. 2025AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoderscited by 218
  8. 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 212
  9. 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 160
  10. 2024BatchTopK Sparse Autoencoderscited by 130
  11. 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 124
  12. 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probingcited by 115

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 12.

16 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025SplInterp: Improving our Understanding and Training of Sparse Autoencoders
  2. 2026Unstable Features, Reproducible Subspaces: Understanding Seed Dependence in Sparse Autoencoders
  3. 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?
  4. 2025Position: Mechanistic Interpretability Should Prioritize Feature Consistency in SAEs
  5. 2024Adaptive Sparse Allocation with Mutual Choice & Feature Choice Sparse Autoencoders
  6. 2025Taming Polysemanticity in LLMs: Provable Feature Recovery via Sparse Autoencoders
  7. 2026Improving Robustness In Sparse Autoencoders via Masked Regularization
  8. 2025Understanding sparse autoencoder scaling in the presence of feature manifolds