mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Relationship Between Activation Outliers and Feature Death in Sparse Autoencoders

arXiv 2605.31518 ↗First posted 29 May 2026cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) decompose neural network activations into interpretable features, but many learned features never activate, a problem called feature death that wastes dictionary capacity and can reintroduce superposition. Death rates vary dramatically between models: near-zero on GPT-2, over 70% on AlphaFold3 with identical configurations. We find that dimension-level activation outliers (dimensions whose mean magnitude is large relative to per-token variation) cause this by shifting pre-activations at initialization based on each feature's alignment with the activation mean. Features anti-aligned with the mean receive permanently negative pre-activations and never fire. We formalize outlier severity as γ = |μ|/|σ|; it predicts initial death rates (Spearman ρ = 0.89 for dead-by-TopK, 0.82 for dead-by-ReLU) across 454 model-layer combinations spanning language, vision, protein, and genomic models. Dead features can revive during training, but recovery requires the SAE bias to learn the activation mean, a process that is prohibitively slow at high γ. Mean-centering (subtracting the activation mean) sidesteps this and eliminates outlier-induced death across all tested models, confirming the mechanism and providing a principled basis for when and why this preprocessing step is necessary.

Key facts. Cited by 2 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 24 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.

Builds on

24 of 50 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Data Whitening Improves Sparse Autoencoder Learning17 Nov
  2. 2025Dimensional Collapse in Transformer Attention Outputs: A Challenge for Sparse Dictionary Learning23 Aug
  3. 2024The Missing Curve Detectors of InceptionV1: Applying Sparse Autoencoders to InceptionV1 Early Vision6 Jun
  4. 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep

Other references · 20

  1. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
  2. 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,669
  3. 2024Scaling Rectified Flow Transformers for High-Resolution Image Synthesiscited by 4,181
  4. 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
  5. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  6. 2025DINOv3cited by 1,414
  7. 2022LLM.int8(): 8-bit Matrix Multiplication for Transformers at Scalecited by 906
  8. 2024Smarter, Better, Faster, Longer: A Modern Bidirectional Encoder for Fast, Memory Efficient, and Long Context Finetuning and Inferencecited by 554
  9. 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 300
  10. 2024Massive Activations in Large Language Modelscited by 294
  11. 2024Transcoders Find Interpretable LLM Feature Circuitscited by 200
  12. 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnetcited by 191
8 more
  1. 2022ProGen2: Exploring the Boundaries of Protein Language Modelscited by 159
  2. 2023Quantizable Transformers: Removing Outliers by Helping Attention Heads Do Nothingcited by 151
  3. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Learn Monosemantic Features in Vision-Language Modelscited by 71
  4. 2024InterPLM: Discovering Interpretable Features in Protein Language Models via Sparse Autoencoderscited by 66
  5. 2024Outlier-Efficient Hopfield Layers for Large Transformer-Based Modelscited by 38
  6. 2025Steering CLIP's vision transformer with sparse autoencoderscited by 38
  7. 2026A Unified View of Attention and Residual Sinks: Outlier-Driven Rescaling is Essential for Transformer Trainingcited by 23
  8. 2025Fast and Low-Cost Genomic Foundation Models via Outlier Removalcited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?
  2. 2026Diminishing Returns of Data in Sparse Autoencoders: Functional Behavior does not Guarantee Feature Reproducibility
  3. 2026Improving Robustness In Sparse Autoencoders via Masked Regularization
  4. 2025Understanding sparse autoencoder scaling in the presence of feature manifolds
  5. 2024Features that Make a Difference: Leveraging Gradients for Improved Dictionary Learning
  6. 2026Unstable Features, Reproducible Subspaces: Understanding Seed Dependence in Sparse Autoencoders
  7. 2026Perplexity Can Miss SAE Feature Damage Under Quantization
  8. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders