Evaluating SAE interpretability without explanations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) and transcoders have become important tools for machine learning interpretability. However, measuring how interpretable they are remains challenging, with weak consensus about which benchmarks to use. Most evaluation procedures start by producing a single-sentence explanation for each latent. These explanations are then evaluated based on how well they enable an LLM to predict the activation of a latent in new contexts. This method makes it difficult to disentangle the explanation generation and evaluation process from the actual interpretability of the latents discovered. In this work, we adapt existing methods to assess the interpretability of sparse coders, with the advantage that they do not require generating natural language explanations as an intermediate step. This enables a more direct and potentially standardized assessment of interpretability. Furthermore, we compare the scores produced by our interpretability metrics with human evaluations across similar tasks and varying setups, offering suggestions for the community on improving the evaluation of these techniques.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jul 2025.
Builds on
17 of 28 references.
References · 17
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,022
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 381
- 2025SmolLM2: When Smol Goes Big -- Data-Centric Training of a Small Language Modelcited by 307
- 2020Compositional Explanations of Neuronscited by 172
- 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 148
- 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 118
- 2024Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Modelscited by 106
- 2017SPINE: SParse Interpretable Neural Embeddingscited by 55
- 2025Enhancing Automated Interpretability with Output-Centric Feature Descriptionscited by 39
- 2024The Missing Curve Detectors of InceptionV1: Applying Sparse Autoencoders to InceptionV1 Early Visioncited by 37
5 more
- 2024Interpretability as Compression: Reconsidering SAE Explanations of Neural Activations with MDL-SAEscited by 22
- 2023Scale Alone Does not Improve Mechanistic Interpretability in Vision Modelscited by 17
- 2025From superposition to sparse codes: interpretable representations in neural networkscited by 16
- 2024Learning biologically relevant features in a pathology foundation model using sparse autoencoderscited by 14
- 2025Partially Rewriting a Transformer in Natural Languagecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026ADAPT: Hybrid Prompt Optimization for LLM Feature Visualizationcited by 0
- 2026Sign-Aware Gated Sparse Autoencoders: Modeling Anticorrelated Features with Bi-Jump-ReLU Activationscited by 0
- 2026Efficient Auto-Interpretability of AI Models in Biologycited by 0
- 2026SAEScientist-Bench: Can AI Agents Conduct Autonomous SAE Interpretability Research?cited by 0
- 2026Weights Read and Write Features: Scalable Parameter Decomposition Grounded in Activation Spacecited by 0
- 2026Weights Read and Write Features: Scalable Parameter Decomposition Grounded in Activation Space29 Sep 2026
- 2026SAEScientist-Bench: Can AI Agents Conduct Autonomous SAE Interpretability Research?8 Sep 2026
- 2026Efficient Auto-Interpretability of AI Models in Biology27 Aug 2026
- 2026Sign-Aware Gated Sparse Autoencoders: Modeling Anticorrelated Features with Bi-Jump-ReLU Activations27 May 2026
- 2026ADAPT: Hybrid Prompt Optimization for LLM Feature Visualization19 Feb 2026