mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Constructing Interpretable Features from Compositional Neuron Groups

arXiv 2506.10920 ↗First posted 12 Jun 2025cs.CL cs.LGcited by 5

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → SAE features and their applications

Abstract (arXiv)

A central goal for mechanistic interpretability has been to identify the right units of analysis in large language models (LLMs) that causally explain their outputs. While early work focused on individual neurons, evidence that neurons often encode multiple concepts has motivated a shift toward analyzing directions in activation space. A key question is how to find directions that capture interpretable features in an unsupervised manner. Current methods rely on dictionary learning with sparse autoencoders (SAEs), commonly trained over residual stream activations to learn directions from scratch. However, SAEs often struggle in causal evaluations and lack intrinsic interpretability, as their learning is not explicitly tied to the computations of the model. Here, we tackle these limitations by directly decomposing MLP activations with semi-nonnegative matrix factorization (SNMF), such that the learned features are (a) sparse linear combinations of co-activated neurons, and (b) mapped to their activating inputs, making them directly interpretable. Experiments on Llama 3.1, Gemma 2 and GPT-2 show that SNMF derived features outperform SAEs and a strong supervised baseline (difference-in-means) on causal steering, while aligning with human-interpretable concepts. Further analysis reveals that specific neuron combinations are reused across semantically-related features, exposing a hierarchical structure in the MLP's activation space. Together, these results position SNMF as a simple and effective tool for identifying interpretable features and dissecting concept representations in LLMs.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 36 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2025.

Builds on

36 of 65 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoders28 Jan
  2. 2024Llama Scope: Extracting Millions of Features from Llama-3.1-8B with Sparse Autoencoders27 Oct
  3. 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoders22 Sep
  4. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models15 Sep

Other references · 32

  1. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  2. 2020Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memoriescited by 1,336
  3. 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,085
  4. 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
  5. 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
  6. 2022Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Build Predictions by Promoting Concepts in the Vocabulary Spacecited by 532
  7. 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 435
  8. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
  9. 2021Pay Attention to MLPscited by 368
  10. 2023Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probingcited by 334
  11. 2023Emergent Linear Representations in World Models of Self-Supervised Sequence Modelscited by 319
  12. 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 212
20 more
  1. 2023Finding Alignments Between Interpretable Causal Variables and Distributed Neural Representationscited by 209
  2. 2022CRAFT: Concept Recursive Activation FacTorization for Explainabilitycited by 178
  3. 2020Compositional Explanations of Neuronscited by 172
  4. 2015Visualizing and Understanding Recurrent Networkscited by 160
  5. 2022Deep Spectral Methods: A Surprisingly Strong Baseline for Unsupervised Semantic Segmentation and Localizationcited by 150
  6. 2022Natural Language Descriptions of Deep Visual Featurescited by 137
  7. 2018What Is One Grain of Sand in the Desert? Analyzing Individual Neurons in Deep NLP Modelscited by 124
  8. 2021Transformer visualization via dictionary learning: contextualized embedding as a linear superposition of transformer factorscited by 108
  9. 2021An Interpretability Illusion for BERTcited by 97
  10. 2019The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language modelscited by 94
  11. 2024RAVEL: Evaluating Interpretability Methods on Disentangling Language Model Representationscited by 79
  12. 2024Recurrent Neural Networks Learn to Store and Generate Sequences using Non-Linear Representationscited by 47
  13. 2025Enhancing Automated Interpretability with Output-Centric Feature Descriptionscited by 41
  14. 2024Evaluating Open-Source Sparse Autoencoders on Disentangling Factual Knowledge in GPT-2 Smallcited by 34
  15. 2024Language Models Encode Numbers Using Digit Representations in Base 10cited by 32
  16. 2022PandA: Unsupervised Learning of Parts and Appearances in the Feature Maps of GANscited by 20
  17. 2024Analyzing (In)Abilities of SAEs via Formal Languagescited by 17
  18. 2023COCKATIEL: COntinuous Concept ranKed ATtribution with Interpretable ELements for explaining neural net classifiers on NLP taskscited by 16
  19. 2023The Importance of Prompt Tuning for Automated Neuron Explanationscited by 12
  20. 2025NeurFlow: Interpreting Neural Networks through Neuron Groups and Functional Interactionscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Sparse Shift Autoencoders for Identifying Concepts from Large Language Model Activations
  2. 2025A Survey on Sparse Autoencoders: Interpreting the Internal Mechanisms of Large Language Models
  3. 2024Quantifying Feature Space Universality Across Large Language Models via Sparse Autoencoders
  4. 2024Interpreting Attention Layer Outputs with Sparse Autoencoders
  5. 2025Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders for Monosemantic Representation
  6. 2024Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Models
  7. 2025Position: Mechanistic Interpretability Should Prioritize Feature Consistency in SAEs
  8. 2026Beyond Activation Patterns: A Weight-Based Out-of-Context Explanation of Sparse Autoencoder Features