Interpreting Video Representations with Spatio-Temporal Sparse Autoencoders
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Interpreting vision and multimodal models
Abstract (arXiv)
We present the first systematic study of Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) on video representations. Standard SAEs decompose video into interpretable, monosemantic features but destroy temporal coherence: hard TopK selection produces unstable feature assignments across frames, reducing autocorrelation by 36%. We propose spatio-temporal contrastive objectives and Matryoshka hierarchical grouping that recover and even exceed raw temporal coherence. The contrastive loss weight controls a tunable trade-off between reconstruction and temporal coherence. A systematic ablation on two backbones and two datasets shows that different configurations excel at different goals: reconstruction fidelity, temporal coherence, action discrimination, or interpretability. Contrastive SAE features improve action classification by +3.9 pp over raw features and text-video retrieval by up to 2.8 x R@1. A cross-backbone analysis reveals that standard monosemanticity metrics contain a backbone-alignment artifact: both DINOv2 and VideoMAE produce equally monosemantic features under an independent (CLIP) similarity space. Targeted feature ablation shows that contrastive training concentrates the probe's predictive signal into a small number of identifiable features. Supplementary material, code, configurations and evaluation scripts are available at https://github.com/atahandokme/spatio-temporal-sparse-autoencoders-video.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Interpreting vision and multimodal models, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 15 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Apr 2026.
Builds on
15 of 23 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Steering CLIP's vision transformer with sparse autoencoders11 Apr
- 2025Interpretable and Testable Vision Features via Sparse Autoencoders10 Feb
- 2024Sparse autoencoders reveal selective remapping of visual concepts during adaptation6 Dec
Other references · 12
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2018Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 7,777
- 2020RAFT: Recurrent All-Pairs Field Transforms for Optical Flowcited by 2,415
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2022VideoMAE: Masked Autoencoders are Data-Efficient Learners for Self-Supervised Video Pre-Trainingcited by 1,322
- 2017The "something something" video database for learning and evaluating visual common sensecited by 1,103
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 300
- 2019Sparse Sequence-to-Sequence Modelscited by 170
- 2021TCLR: Temporal Contrastive Learning for Video Representationcited by 136
- 2021Contrastive Spatio-Temporal Pretext Learning for Self-supervised Video Representationcited by 11
- 2024STAA: Spatio-Temporal Attention Attribution for Real-Time Interpreting Transformer-based Video Modelscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Explaining How Visual, Textual and Multimodal Encoders Share Concepts
- 2025Probing the Representational Power of Sparse Autoencoders in Vision Models
- 2025Interpreting CLIP with Hierarchical Sparse Autoencoders
- 2025Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders: From Shallow Design to Matching Pursuit
- 2025From Flat to Hierarchical: Extracting Sparse Representations with Matching Pursuit
- 2026Learning Compact Video Representations for Efficient Long-form Video Understanding in Large Multimodal Models
- 2026Beyond Semantics: Disentangling Information Scope in Sparse Autoencoders for CLIP
- 2025Sparsification and Reconstruction from the Perspective of Representation Geometry