mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How Pruning Reshapes Features: Sparse Autoencoder Analysis of Weight-Pruned Language Models

arXiv 2603.25325 ↗First posted 26 Mar 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Weight pruning is a standard technique for compressing large language models, yet its effect on learned internal representations remains poorly understood. We present the first systematic study of how unstructured pruning reshapes the feature geometry of language models, using Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) as interpretability probes. Across three model families (Gemma 3 1B, Gemma 2 2B, Llama 3.2 1B), two pruning methods (magnitude and Wanda), and six sparsity levels (0--60%), we investigate five research questions spanning seed stability, feature survival, SAE transferability, feature fragility, and causal relevance. Our most striking finding is that rare SAE features--those with low firing rates--survive pruning far better than frequent ones, with within-condition Spearman correlations of rho = -1.0 in 11 of 17 experimental conditions. This counter-intuitive result suggests that pruning acts as implicit feature selection, preferentially destroying high-frequency generic features while preserving specialized rare ones. We further show that Wanda pruning preserves feature structure up to 3.7x better than magnitude pruning, that pre-trained SAEs remain viable on Wanda-pruned models up to 50% sparsity, and that geometric feature survival does not predict causal importance--a dissociation with implications for interpretability under compression.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 10 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2026.

Builds on

10 of 20 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models15 Sep

Other references · 9

  1. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  2. 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,262
  3. 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
  4. 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
  5. 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,160
  6. 2023SparseGPT: Massive Language Models Can Be Accurately Pruned in One-Shotcited by 1,121
  7. 2023A Simple and Effective Pruning Approach for Large Language Modelscited by 800
  8. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
  9. 2013k-Sparse Autoencoderscited by 215

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026When Pruning Meets Interpretability: Preserving Sparse Autoencoder Robustness in LLMs
  2. 2026Qwen-Scope: Turning Sparse Features into Development Tools for Large Language Models
  3. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders
  4. 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretability
  5. 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoders
  6. 2025A Survey on Sparse Autoencoders: Interpreting the Internal Mechanisms of Large Language Models
  7. 2026Sparse Autoencoders for Mechanistic Interpretability in NLP: A Critical Survey of Recoverability, Interpretability, and Utility
  8. 2023How to Prune Your Language Model: Recovering Accuracy on the "Sparsity May Cry'' Benchmark