mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

MoRFI: Monotonic Sparse Autoencoder Feature Identification

arXiv 2604.26866 ↗First posted 29 Apr 2026cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) acquire most of their factual knowledge during the pre-training stage, through next token prediction. Subsequent stages of post-training often introduce new facts outwith the parametric knowledge, giving rise to hallucinations. While it has been demonstrated that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on new knowledge may exacerbate the problem, the underlying mechanisms are still poorly understood. We conduct a controlled fine-tuning experiment, focusing on closed-book QA, and identify latent directions causally implicated in this degradation. Specifically, we fine-tune Llama 3.1 8B, Gemma 2 9B and Mistral 7B v03 on seven controlled mixtures of a single QA dataset, controlling for the percentage of new knowledge and number of training epochs. By measuring performance on the test set, we validate that incrementally introducing new knowledge increases hallucinations, with the effect being more pronounced with prolonged training. We leverage pre-trained sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to analyze residual stream activations across various checkpoints for each model and propose Monotonic Relationship Feature Identification (MoRFI) for capturing causally relevant latents. MoRFI filters SAE features that respond monotonically to controlled fine-tuning data mixtures of a target property. Our findings are consistent with exposure to unknown facts disrupting the model's ability to retrieve stored knowledge along a set of directions in the residual stream. Our pipeline reliably discovers them across distinct models, partially recovering lost knowledge through single-latent interventions.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 34 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.

Builds on

34 of 48 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Putting a Face to Forgetting: Continual Learning meets Mechanistic Interpretability29 Jan
  2. 2025CorrSteer: Generation-Time LLM Steering via Correlated Sparse Autoencoder Features18 Aug
  3. 2025SAEs Are Good for Steering -- If You Select the Right Features26 May
  4. 2024Llama Scope: Extracting Millions of Features from Llama-3.1-8B with Sparse Autoencoders27 Oct
  5. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models15 Sep

Other references · 29

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  3. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  4. 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,936
  5. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  6. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
  7. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  8. 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
  9. 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
  10. 2023Dissecting Recall of Factual Associations in Auto-Regressive Language Modelscited by 528
  11. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
  12. 2023The False Promise of Imitating Proprietary LLMscited by 263
17 more
  1. 2024Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?cited by 232
  2. 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 212
  3. 2021Simple Entity-Centric Questions Challenge Dense Retrieverscited by 140
  4. 2024Do I Know This Entity? Knowledge Awareness and Hallucinations in Language Modelscited by 115
  5. 2024Unfamiliar Finetuning Examples Control How Language Models Hallucinatecited by 87
  6. 2025Persona Features Control Emergent Misalignmentcited by 86
  7. 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometrycited by 61
  8. 2025Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 58
  9. 2025Understanding (Un)Reliability of Steering Vectors in Language Modelscited by 47
  10. 2025Steering Out-of-Distribution Generalization with Concept Ablation Fine-Tuningcited by 39
  11. 2025Narrow Finetuning Leaves Clearly Readable Traces in Activation Differencescited by 28
  12. 2025Reasoning-Finetuning Repurposes Latent Representations in Base Modelscited by 26
  13. 2024Representation Shattering in Transformers: A Synthetic Study with Knowledge Editingcited by 19
  14. 2026Empty Shelves or Lost Keys? Recall Is the Bottleneck for Parametric Factualitycited by 12
  15. 2026Why Fine-Tuning Encourages Hallucinations and How to Fix Itcited by 7
  16. 2025Crosscoding Through Time: Tracking Emergence & Consolidation Of Linguistic Representations Throughout LLM Pretrainingcited by 6
  17. 2026Towards Understanding Steering Strengthcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026A Mechanistic Investigation of Supervised Fine Tuning
  2. 2025SAFE: A Sparse Autoencoder-Based Framework for Robust Query Enrichment and Hallucination Mitigation in LLMs
  3. 2025Measuring and Guiding Monosemanticity
  4. 2026Unsupervised Identification and Removal of Spurious Correlations During Fine-Tuning
  5. 2026Stick to What You Know: A Study of Knowledge-Aligned Supervised Fine-Tuning
  6. 2025Sparse Shift Autoencoders for Identifying Concepts from Large Language Model Activations
  7. 2026Mechanistic Knobs in LLMs: Retrieving and Steering High-Order Semantic Features via Sparse Autoencoders
  8. 2025Don't Forget It! Conditional Sparse Autoencoder Clamping Works for Unlearning