mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Superposition Is Not Necessary: A Mechanistic Interpretability Analysis of Transformer Representations for Time Series Forecasting

arXiv 2605.05151 ↗First posted 6 May 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Transformer architectures have been widely adopted for time series forecasting, yet whether the representational mechanisms that make them powerful in NLP actually engage on time series data remains unexplored. The persistent competitiveness of simple linear models such as DLinear has fueled ongoing debate, but no mechanistic explanation for this phenomenon has been offered. We address this gap by applying sparse autoencoders (SAEs), a tool from mechanistic interpretability, to probe the internal representations of PatchTST. We first establish that a single-layer, narrow-dimensional transformer matches the forecasting performance of deeper configurations across commonly used benchmarks. We then train SAEs on the post-GELU intermediate FFN activations with dictionary sizes ranging from 0.5x to 4.0x the native dimensionality. Expanding the dictionary yields negligible downstream performance change (average 0.214%), with large portions of overcomplete dictionaries remaining inactive. Targeted causal interventions on dominant latent features produce minimal forecast perturbation. Across all evaluated settings, we observe no empirical evidence that the analyzed FFN representations rely on strong superposition. Instead, the representations remain sparse, stable under aggressive dictionary expansion, and largely insensitive to latent interventions. These results demonstrate that superposition is not necessary for competitive performance on standard forecasting benchmarks, suggesting they may not demand the rich compositional representations that drive transformer success in language modeling, and helping explain the persistent competitiveness of simple linear models

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.

Builds on

20 of 26 references.

References · 20

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2021RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embeddingcited by 4,581
  3. 2020Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time-Series Forecastingcited by 2,141
  4. 2022A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformerscited by 1,981
  5. 2021Autoformer: Decomposition Transformers with Auto-Correlation for Long-Term Series Forecastingcited by 1,654
  6. 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,425
  7. 2022Are Transformers Effective for Time Series Forecasting?cited by 1,400
  8. 2022FEDformer: Frequency Enhanced Decomposed Transformer for Long-term Series Forecastingcited by 1,200
  9. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
  10. 2022TimesNet: Temporal 2D-Variation Modeling for General Time Series Analysiscited by 1,030
  11. 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
  12. 2023iTransformer: Inverted Transformers Are Effective for Time Series Forecastingcited by 906
8 more
  1. 2017Modeling Long- and Short-Term Temporal Patterns with Deep Neural Networkscited by 869
  2. 2019Temporal Fusion Transformers for Interpretable Multi-horizon Time Series Forecastingcited by 748
  3. 2023TSMixer: An All-MLP Architecture for Time Series Forecastingcited by 232
  4. 2023FITS: Modeling Time Series with 10k Parameterscited by 185
  5. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Learn Monosemantic Features in Vision-Language Modelscited by 70
  6. 2025There are no Champions in Supervised Long-Term Time Series Forecastingcited by 8
  7. 2025Mechanistic Interpretability for Transformer-based Time Series Classificationcited by 3
  8. 2026Dissecting Chronos: Sparse Autoencoders Reveal Causal Feature Hierarchies in Time Series Foundation Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.