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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09887 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09887/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability.
- Builds on 19 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.

## Placed in

- Mechanistic interpretability / [Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/sparse-autoencoder-training-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.07843/) (2016)
- [Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08600/) (2023)
- [Toy Models of Superposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.10652/) (2022)
- [The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.03658/) (2023)
- [Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04093/) (2024)
- [Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05147/) (2024)
- [Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.14435/) (2024)
- [Intrinsic dimension of data representations in deep neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.12784/) (2019)
- [Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.06992/) (2018)
- [Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linear](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14860/) (2024)
- [The Geometry of Categorical and Hierarchical Concepts in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01506/) (2024)
- [The geometry of hidden representations of large transformer models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00294/) (2023)
- [The Geometry of Concepts: Sparse Autoencoder Feature Structure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.19750/) (2024)
- [The Origins of Representation Manifolds in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18235/) (2025)
- [When Models Manipulate Manifolds: The Geometry of a Counting Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04480/) (2026)
- [Decomposing The Dark Matter of Sparse Autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14670/) (2024)
- [Understanding sparse autoencoder scaling in the presence of feature manifolds](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.02565/) (2025)
- [Latent Semantic Manifolds in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22301/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [SFT Leaves a Reproducible Signature in Activation Geometry: Calibrating Post-Training Interpretability Against Run-to-Run Noise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17093/) (2026)

## 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.