From Token Lists to Graph Motifs: Weisfeiler-Lehman Analysis of Sparse Autoencoder Features
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → SAE features and their applications
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) have become central to mechanistic interpretability, decomposing transformer activations into monosemantic features. Yet existing analyses characterise features almost exclusively through top-activating token lists or decoder weight vectors, leaving the higher-order co-occurrence structure shared across features largely unexamined. We introduce a graph-structured representation in which each SAE feature is modelled as a token co-occurrence graph: nodes are the tokens most frequent near strong activations, and edges connect pairs that co-occur within local context windows. A custom WL-style, frequency-binned graph kernel then provides a similarity measure over this structural space. Applied as a proof of concept to features from a large SAE trained on GPT-2 Small and probed with a synthetic mixed-domain corpus, our clustering recovers heuristic motif families (punctuation-heavy patterns, language and script clusters, and code-like templates) that are not recovered by clustering on decoder cosine similarity. A token-histogram baseline achieves higher overall purity, so the contribution of the graph view is complementary rather than dominant: it surfaces structural relationships that token-frequency and decoder-weight views alone do not capture. Cluster assignments are stable across graph-construction hyperparameters and random seeds.
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 11 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.
Builds on
11 of 18 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretability12 Mar
- 2025A Survey on Sparse Autoencoders: Interpreting the Internal Mechanisms of Large Language Models7 Mar
- 2024Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Models17 Oct
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoders19 Jul
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders6 Jun
- 2024Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoders24 Apr
Other references · 5
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
- 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 435
- 2024Transcoders Find Interpretable LLM Feature Circuitscited by 200
- 2018GraKeL: A Graph Kernel Library in Pythoncited by 54
- 2024The Geometry of Concepts: Sparse Autoencoder Feature Structurecited by 52
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Domain-Filtered Knowledge Graphs from Sparse Autoencoder Features
- 2026When Trees Are Not Enough: Learning Mixed-Topology Feature Graphs with Adaptive Graph Sparse Autoencoders
- 2026Descriptive Collision in Sparse Autoencoder Auto-Interpretability: When One Explanation Describes Many Features
- 2026Beyond Token Scale: Chunk-Level Sparse Autoencoders for Reliable Semantic Feature Discovery
- 2026Sparse Autoencoders for Mechanistic Interpretability in NLP: A Critical Survey of Recoverability, Interpretability, and Utility
- 2026Measuring Semantic Abstractness of SAE Features via Nonlocality
- 2025Measuring and Guiding Monosemanticity
- 2025Temporal Sparse Autoencoders: Leveraging the Sequential Nature of Language for Interpretability