mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Superposition disentanglement of neural representations reveals hidden alignment

arXiv 2510.03186 ↗First posted 3 Oct 2025cs.LGcited by 4

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The superposition hypothesis states that single neurons may participate in representing multiple features in order for the neural network to represent more features than it has neurons. In neuroscience and AI, representational alignment metrics measure the extent to which different deep neural networks (DNNs) or brains represent similar information. In this work, we explore a critical question: does superposition interact with alignment metrics in any undesirable way? We hypothesize that models which represent the same features in different superposition arrangements, i.e., their neurons have different linear combinations of the features, will interfere with predictive mapping metrics (semi-matching, soft-matching, linear regression), producing lower alignment than expected. We develop a theory for how permutation metrics are dependent on superposition arrangements. This is tested by training sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to disentangle superposition in toy models, where alignment scores are shown to typically increase when a model's base neurons are replaced with its sparse overcomplete latent codes. We find similar increases for DNN-DNN and DNN-brain linear regression alignment in the visual domain. Our results suggest that superposition disentanglement is necessary for mapping metrics to uncover the true representational alignment between neural networks.

Key facts. Cited by 4 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 29 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2025.

Builds on

29 of 50 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Learning Multi-Level Features with Matryoshka Sparse Autoencoders21 Mar
  2. 2025Archetypal SAE: Adaptive and Stable Dictionary Learning for Concept Extraction in Large Vision Models18 Feb
  3. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysis7 Feb
  4. 2024Compute Optimal Inference and Provable Amortisation Gap in Sparse Autoencoders20 Nov
  5. 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep

Other references · 24

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  4. 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
  5. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  6. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
  7. 2024The Platonic Representation Hypothesiscited by 382
  8. 2015Convergent Learning: Do different neural networks learn the same representations?cited by 220
  9. 2013k-Sparse Autoencoderscited by 215
  10. 2021Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural Representationscited by 209
  11. 2025Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 179
  12. 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 160
12 more
  1. 2021Generalized Shape Metrics on Neural Representationscited by 112
  2. 2024Universal Neurons in GPT2 Language Modelscited by 102
  3. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different Featurescited by 93
  4. 2019Brain-Like Object Recognition with High-Performing Shallow Recurrent ANNscited by 90
  5. 2022The neuroconnectionist research programmecited by 48
  6. 2024Towards Universality: Studying Mechanistic Similarity Across Language Model Architecturescited by 31
  7. 2023Performance-optimized deep neural networks are evolving into worse models of inferotemporal visual cortexcited by 18
  8. 2023Soft Matching Distance: A metric on neural representations that captures single-neuron tuningcited by 18
  9. 2025From superposition to sparse codes: interpretable representations in neural networkscited by 16
  10. 2024Universal dimensions of visual representationcited by 12
  11. 2023Identifying Interpretable Visual Features in Artificial and Biological Neural Systemscited by 9
  12. 2025Representational Similarity via Interpretable Visual Conceptscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Feature Superposition in Neural Networks: From Theory to Practice
  2. 2025Superposition as Lossy Compression: Measure with Sparse Autoencoders and Connect to Adversarial Vulnerability
  3. 2026Local Intrinsic Dimension of Representations Predicts Alignment and Generalization in AI Models and Human Brain
  4. 2025Superposition Yields Robust Neural Scaling
  5. 2026The Model Shape Behind Scaling Laws: A Gradient Superposition Perspective
  6. 2026Barycentric alignment for instance-level comparison of neural representations
  7. 2026A Flow Matching Framework for Neural Representational Dissimilarity
  8. 2026Understanding Emergent Misalignment via Feature Superposition Geometry