mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Ablating Archetypes: The Stability of Archetypal SAEs is an Artifact of Initialization and Metric Design

arXiv 2606.02061 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2026cs.LGcited by 1

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Dictionary learning with sparse autoencoders (SAEs) produces overcomplete bases from neural network activations that are often interpretable and reduces polysemanticity. However, features from SAEs vary substantially across random seeds -- a problem known as instability. Archetypal SAEs (Fel et al., 2025) were proposed as a general dictionary-learning intervention for more reliable concept extraction, and report more stable dictionaries at the end of training. We demonstrate that the stability claimed by archetypal SAEs is a result of setting identical initialization across multiple runs. Through our analyses, we attempt to clarify two distinct notions in mechanistic interpretability that may be ambiguously used: stability is agreement between two independently trained models, whereas stabilization is the convergence of independently initialized runs toward a common solution. This distinction is critical for mechanistic interpretability of natural language processing (NLP), where feature stability is increasingly used as evidence that SAE features are reusable units of analysis. Experiments from archetypal SAEs share a deterministic k-means decoder initialization, setting inter-run dictionary distance to zero before training begins. When this initialization is removed, the archetypal constraint provides no stabilization advantage in our setting. We further identify a preprocessing-dependent cosine geometry issue that complicates interpretation of endpoint stability metrics. Overall, our study supports the value of studying SAEs within the larger dictionary-learning tradition while showing that stability claims require trajectory diagnostics and initialization ablations.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 7 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

Builds on

7 of 10 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Aligned Training: A Parameter-Free Method to Improve Feature Quality and Stability of Sparse Autoencoders (SAE)18 May
  2. 2025Archetypal SAE: Adaptive and Stable Dictionary Learning for Concept Extraction in Large Vision Models18 Feb
  3. 2024The Geometry of Concepts: Sparse Autoencoder Feature Structure10 Oct

Other references · 4

  1. 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
  2. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  3. 2023A Holistic Approach to Unifying Automatic Concept Extraction and Concept Importance Estimationcited by 109
  4. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different Featurescited by 93

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Sparse Autoencoders for Mechanistic Interpretability in NLP: A Critical Survey of Recoverability, Interpretability, and Utility
  2. 2025A Survey on Sparse Autoencoders: Interpreting the Internal Mechanisms of Large Language Models
  3. 2025Position: Mechanistic Interpretability Should Prioritize Feature Consistency in SAEs
  4. 2026Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders
  5. 2025Temporal Sparse Autoencoders: Leveraging the Sequential Nature of Language for Interpretability
  6. 2025Incorporating Hierarchical Semantics in Sparse Autoencoder Architectures
  7. 2025A Unified Theory of Sparse Dictionary Learning in Mechanistic Interpretability: Piecewise Biconvexity and Spurious Minima
  8. 2026Descriptive Collision in Sparse Autoencoder Auto-Interpretability: When One Explanation Describes Many Features