The Rate-Distortion-Polysemanticity Tradeoff in SAEs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) that can accurately reconstruct their input (minimizing distortion) by making efficient use of few features (minimizing the rate) often fail to learn monosemantic representations (highly interpretable), limiting their usefulness for mechanistic interpretability. In this paper, we characterise this tension in learning faithful, efficient, and interpretable explanations, introducing the Rate-Distortion-Polysemanticity tradeoff in SAEs. Under toy-modeling assumptions, we theoretically and empirically show that restricting the SAE to be monosemantic necessarily comes with an increase in rate and distortion. Assuming a generative model behind the input observations, we further demonstrate that the degree of polysemanticity of optimal SAEs is determined by the training data distribution, especially by the probability of features to co-occur. Finally, we extend the analysis to real-world settings by deriving necessary conditions that a polysemanticity measure should satisfy when the data-generating process is unknown, and we benchmark existing proxy metrics on SAEs trained on Large Language Models. Taken together, our findings show that polysemanticity is a data problem that should be accounted for when addressing it at the architectural and optimization level.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.
Builds on
22 of 30 references.
References · 22
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2018Understanding disentangling in β-VAEcited by 332
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 283
- 2019Rethinking Lossy Compression: The Rate-Distortion-Perception Tradeoffcited by 207
- 2024Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoderscited by 171
- 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 148
- 2025Learning Multi-Level Features with Matryoshka Sparse Autoencoderscited by 136
- 2018Recent Advances in Autoencoder-Based Representation Learningcited by 130
- 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 118
10 more
- 2024Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language Modelscited by 106
- 2022Polysemanticity and Capacity in Neural Networkscited by 74
- 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometrycited by 58
- 2024Interpretability as Compression: Reconsidering SAE Explanations of Neural Activations with MDL-SAEscited by 22
- 2024Compute Optimal Inference and Provable Amortisation Gap in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 17
- 2025Rethinking Evaluation of Sparse Autoencoders through the Representation of Polysemous Wordscited by 17
- 2025Feature Hedging: Correlated Features Break Narrow Sparse Autoencoderscited by 15
- 2025Sparse but Wrong: Incorrect L0 Leads to Incorrect Features in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 11
- 2018Information Theory: A Tutorial Introductioncited by 7
- 2026SynthSAEBench: Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders on Scalable Realistic Synthetic Datacited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.