Descriptive Collision in Sparse Autoencoder Auto-Interpretability: When One Explanation Describes Many Features
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are now standard tools for decomposing language model activations into interpretable features, and automated interpretability pipelines routinely assign each feature a short natural-language explanation. Existing critiques of this practice focus on polysemanticity -- one feature with many meanings -- or on whether explanations predict activations. We identify a complementary, structurally distinct problem we call descriptive collision: many distinct SAE features admit the same explanation. Reanalyzing the largest publicly-available dataset of human-annotated SAE features (Marks et al., 2025), comprising 722 annotated features across Gemma 2 2B and Pythia 70M, we find that the mean annotation string is reused across 3.07 features; 82.1% of features share their annotation with at least one other feature; and the single most common annotation string ("plural nouns") labels 101 distinct features spanning 18 layers and four model components. Information-theoretically, the average annotation resolves only 70% of feature identity. We formalize a property called discrimination, prove that current detection-style auto-interpretability scoring is invariant to collision, and propose two complementary corrective metrics -- collision-adjusted detection and discrimination scoring -- that explicitly penalize explanations that fail to distinguish a feature from its neighbors. The collision problem is independent of, and additive with, previously identified failure modes of auto-interpretability; ignoring it inflates reported feature interpretability by a quantity equal to roughly one-third of the bits required to identify a feature.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.
Builds on
18 of 31 references.
References · 18
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 412
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 381
- 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 148
- 2025Learning Multi-Level Features with Matryoshka Sparse Autoencoderscited by 136
- 2024Llama Scope: Extracting Millions of Features from Llama-3.1-8B with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 133
- 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probingcited by 109
- 2024Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Modelscited by 106
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different Featurescited by 86
- 2024Towards Principled Evaluations of Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability and Controlcited by 83
6 more
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysiscited by 80
- 2023Rigorously Assessing Natural Language Explanations of Neuronscited by 44
- 2025Automated Interpretability Metrics Do Not Distinguish Trained and Random Transformerscited by 30
- 2024Interpretability as Compression: Reconsidering SAE Explanations of Neural Activations with MDL-SAEscited by 22
- 2025SAGE: An Agentic Explainer Framework for Interpreting SAE Features in Language Modelscited by 10
- 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?cited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.