From Data Statistics to Feature Geometry: How Correlations Shape Superposition
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A central idea in mechanistic interpretability is that neural networks represent more features than they have dimensions, arranging them in superposition to form an over-complete basis. This framing has been influential, motivating dictionary learning approaches such as sparse autoencoders. However, superposition has mostly been studied in idealized settings where features are sparse and uncorrelated. In these settings, superposition is typically understood as introducing interference that must be minimized geometrically and filtered out by non-linearities such as ReLUs, yielding local structures like regular polytopes. We show that this account is incomplete for realistic data by introducing Bag-of-Words Superposition (BOWS), a controlled setting to encode binary bag-of-words representations of internet text in superposition. Using BOWS, we find that when features are correlated, interference can be constructive rather than just noise to be filtered out. This is achieved by arranging features according to their co-activation patterns, making interference between active features constructive, while still using ReLUs to avoid false positives. We show that this kind of arrangement is more prevalent in models trained with weight decay and naturally gives rise to semantic clusters and cyclical structures which have been observed in real language models yet were not explained by the standard picture of superposition. Code for this paper can be found at https://github.com/LucasPrietoAl/correlations-feature-geometry.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Mar 2026.
Builds on
23 of 45 references.
References · 23
- 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 822
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
- 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 599
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2023Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probingcited by 328
- 2023Language Models Represent Space and Timecited by 306
- 2022Towards Understanding Grokking: An Effective Theory of Representation Learningcited by 229
- 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 201
11 more
- 2024The Geometry of Categorical and Hierarchical Concepts in Large Language Modelscited by 151
- 2022Polysemanticity and Capacity in Neural Networkscited by 74
- 2019Analogies Explained: Towards Understanding Word Embeddingscited by 63
- 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometrycited by 58
- 2024The Geometry of Concepts: Sparse Autoencoder Feature Structurecited by 52
- 2025The Origins of Representation Manifolds in Large Language Modelscited by 46
- 2025Shared Global and Local Geometry of Language Model Embeddingscited by 34
- 2024Implicit Geometry of Next-token Prediction: From Language Sparsity Patterns to Model Representationscited by 24
- 2024Representation Shattering in Transformers: A Synthetic Study with Knowledge Editingcited by 18
- 2025Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Superpositioncited by 13
- 2025Adversarial Attacks Leverage Interference Between Features in Superpositioncited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.
9 papers.
- 2026The Scaling Properties of Implicit Deductive Reasoning in Transformerscited by 1
- 2026Adversarial Concept Search: Predicting Compositional Errors From Feature Geometrycited by 0
- 2026Size Doesn't Matter: Cosine-Scored Sparse Autoencoderscited by 0
- 2026GEMS: Geometric Constraints Enable Multi-Semantic Superposition in LLMscited by 0
- 2026High-probability guarantees for linear accessibility in feature superpositioncited by 0
- 2026World Modeling in Transformerscited by 0
- 2026Abstention and Noise Filtering: Two Missing Primitives of Softmax Attentioncited by 0
- 2026Interference Beyond Geometry in Concept Extractioncited by 0
- 2026Causal and Interpretable Structures in LLM Compositional Taskscited by 0
- 2026Causal and Interpretable Structures in LLM Compositional Tasks28 Sep 2026
- 2026Interference Beyond Geometry in Concept Extraction28 Sep 2026
- 2026Abstention and Noise Filtering: Two Missing Primitives of Softmax Attention18 Sep 2026
- 2026World Modeling in Transformers18 Sep 2026
- 2026High-probability guarantees for linear accessibility in feature superposition9 Sep 2026
- 2026GEMS: Geometric Constraints Enable Multi-Semantic Superposition in LLMs18 Jun 2026
- 2026Size Doesn't Matter: Cosine-Scored Sparse Autoencoders13 Jun 2026
- 2026Adversarial Concept Search: Predicting Compositional Errors From Feature Geometry11 Jun 2026
- 2026The Scaling Properties of Implicit Deductive Reasoning in Transformers5 May 2026