mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Equivariant Sparse Autoencoders: Mechanistic Interpretability of Neural Networks on Symmetric Data

arXiv 2511.09432 ↗First posted 12 Nov 2025cs.LGcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine learning (ML) models achieve remarkable performance but remain hard to interpret due to their scale and complexity. In particular, their activations entangle many concepts into fewer dimensions, a phenomenon known as superposition. Mechanistic interpretability methods such as sparse autoencoders (SAEs) can disentangle these dense activations into sparse sums of interpretable features, but SAEs suffer from unidentifiability: different explanations can fit the data equally well without necessarily being more interpretable or faithful to the underlying model. We show that this problem is exacerbated by data symmetries such as rotations that are prevalent in scientific domains. We extend the Linear Representation Hypothesis, the theory behind SAEs, to account for symmetries and show on synthetic as well as real-world scientific datasets and models that the resulting Equivariant SAEs can (1) avoid the pitfalls of existing SAEs on symmetric data and (2) discover features more useful for downstream tasks despite worse reconstructions. Our results show that incorporating the correct priors in SAEs can significantly improve their usefulness while highlighting that reconstruction quality can be inversely correlated with feature usefulness under symmetries, cautioning against its use as a key measure of interpretability. Code: https://github.com/ege-erdogan/equivariant-sae

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 17 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2025.

Builds on

17 of 37 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Archetypal SAE: Adaptive and Stable Dictionary Learning for Concept Extraction in Large Vision Models18 Feb
  2. 2024Compute Optimal Inference and Provable Amortisation Gap in Sparse Autoencoders20 Nov

Other references · 15

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
  4. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
  5. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  6. 2024Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Reviewcited by 422
  7. 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 212
  8. 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 160
  9. 2024InterPLM: Discovering Interpretable Features in Protein Language Models via Sparse Autoencoderscited by 66
  10. 2021On the Pitfalls of Analyzing Individual Neurons in Language Modelscited by 62
  11. 2021Galaxy Zoo DECaLS: Detailed Visual Morphology Measurements from Volunteers and Deep Learning for 314,000 Galaxiescited by 41
  12. 2024DinoBloom: A Foundation Model for Generalizable Cell Embeddings in Hematologycited by 27
3 more
  1. 2025CytoSAE: Interpretable Cell Embeddings for Hematologycited by 8
  2. 2024Towards scientific discovery with dictionary learning: Extracting biological concepts from microscopy foundation modelscited by 4
  3. 2025MatrixNet: Learning over symmetry groups using learned group representationscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Subspace-Aware Sparse Autoencoders for Effective Mechanistic Interpretability
  2. 2025SplInterp: Improving our Understanding and Training of Sparse Autoencoders
  3. 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometry
  4. 2024Interpreting Attention Layer Outputs with Sparse Autoencoders
  5. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysis
  6. 2025Automated Interpretability Metrics Do Not Distinguish Trained and Random Transformers
  7. 2025Position: Mechanistic Interpretability Should Prioritize Feature Consistency in SAEs
  8. 2025Sparsification and Reconstruction from the Perspective of Representation Geometry