mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Geometric Wall: Manifold Structure Predicts Layerwise Sparse Autoencoder Scaling Laws

arXiv 2605.09887 ↗First posted 11 May 2026cs.LG cs.AI math.DGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) operationalise the linear representation hypothesis: they reconstruct model activations as sparse linear combinations of interpretable dictionary atoms, on the implicit assumption that activation space is well approximated by a globally linear structure. Their reconstruction error varies sharply across layers in ways that existing scaling laws, fitted at single layers, do not explain. We argue that this variation is the empirical trace of a geometric mismatch: where the activation manifold is curved and its intrinsic dimension varies across layers, no sparse linear dictionary can match it uniformly, and the SAE's width-sparsity scaling becomes a layer-dependent function of manifold structure rather than a single universal law. We conduct the first cross-layer SAE scaling study, fitting and regressing on 844 residual-stream Gemma Scope SAE checkpoints across 68 layers of Gemma 2 2B and 9B. Stage 1 fits a per-layer scaling-law surface; Stage 2 regresses the fitted parameters and the derived per-layer width exponents on four layerwise geometric summaries. We find that manifold geometry predicts the per-layer width exponent in both models, and that the same regression coefficients learnt on one model predict the other model's per-layer exponents under cross-model transfer, indicating a transferable geometric law. At the showcase layers where richer width grids permit identification of the asymptotic floor, we find that the fitted floor tracks the layerwise geometric ordering: higher curvature and intrinsic dimension correspond to higher floor, consistent with the irreducible second-order residual that any sparse linear approximation of a curved manifold must leave behind. SAEs thus encounter not a finite-resource ceiling but a geometry-dependent wall, set by the manifold they are trying to reconstruct.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.

Builds on

19 of 35 references.

References · 19

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
  3. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
  4. 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
  5. 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
  6. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
  7. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 381
  8. 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 283
  9. 2019Intrinsic dimension of data representations in deep neural networkscited by 276
  10. 2018Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood informationcited by 246
  11. 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 201
  12. 2024The Geometry of Categorical and Hierarchical Concepts in Large Language Modelscited by 151
7 more
  1. 2023The geometry of hidden representations of large transformer modelscited by 108
  2. 2024The Geometry of Concepts: Sparse Autoencoder Feature Structurecited by 52
  3. 2025The Origins of Representation Manifolds in Large Language Modelscited by 46
  4. 2026When Models Manipulate Manifolds: The Geometry of a Counting Taskcited by 43
  5. 2024Decomposing The Dark Matter of Sparse Autoencoderscited by 42
  6. 2025Understanding sparse autoencoder scaling in the presence of feature manifoldscited by 11
  7. 2026Latent Semantic Manifolds in Large Language Modelscited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.