mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Interactions Between Crosscoder Features: A Compact Proofs Perspective

arXiv 2606.09940 ↗First posted 8 Jun 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Dictionary learning methods like Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) and crosscoders attempt to explain a model by decomposing its activations into independent features. Interactions between features hence induce errors in the reconstruction. We formalize this intuition via compact proofs and make five contributions. First, we show how, textitin principle, a compact proof of model performance can be constructed using a crosscoder. Second, we show that an error term arising in this proof can naturally be interpreted as a measure of interaction between crosscoder features and provide an explicit expression for the interaction term in the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) layers. We then provide three applications of this new interaction measure. In our third contribution we show that the interaction term itself can be used as a differentiable loss penalty. Applying this penalty, we can achieve ``computationally sparse'' crosscoders that retain 60% of MLP performance when only keeping a single feature at each datapoint and neuron, compared to 10% in standard crosscoders. We then show that clustering according to our interaction measure provides semantically meaningful feature clusters, and finally that sleeper agents have significant interactions. Code is available at https://github.com/chainik1125/crosscoders-feature-interactions/tree/arxiv.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 20 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

Builds on

20 of 40 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Transcoders Beat Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability31 Jan
  2. 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep

Other references · 18

  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. 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
  4. 2023TinyStories: How Small Can Language Models Be and Still Speak Coherent English?cited by 449
  5. 2024Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Modelscited by 435
  6. 2024Transcoders Find Interpretable LLM Feature Circuitscited by 200
  7. 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnetcited by 191
  8. 2024Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoderscited by 179
  9. 2019The Shapley Taylor Interaction Indexcited by 143
  10. 2024Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systemscited by 96
  11. 2020How does this interaction affect me? Interpretable attribution for feature interactionscited by 73
  12. 2024shapiq: Shapley Interactions for Machine Learningcited by 43
6 more
  1. 2016Towards Verified Artificial Intelligencecited by 36
  2. 2024Compact Proofs of Model Performance via Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 18
  3. 2024You can remove GPT2's LayerNorm by fine-tuningcited by 11
  4. 2024Towards a unified and verified understanding of group-operation networkscited by 10
  5. 2025Mechanistic Anomaly Detection for "Quirky" Language Modelscited by 5
  6. 2024Modular addition without black-boxes: Compressing explanations of MLPs that compute numerical integrationcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026PolySAE: Modeling Feature Interactions in Sparse Autoencoders via Polynomial Decoding
  2. 2025SCALAR: Benchmarking SAE Interaction Sparsity in Toy LLMs
  3. 2026Feature Rivalry in Sparse Autoencoder Representations: A Mechanistic Study of Uncertainty-Driven Feature Competition in LLMs
  4. 2026Semantic Optimal Transport for Sparse Autoencoder Feature Matching and Circuit Compression
  5. 2026Sparse Crosscoders for diffing MoEs and Dense models
  6. 2024Interpreting Attention Layer Outputs with Sparse Autoencoders
  7. 2024Efficient Dictionary Learning with Switch Sparse Autoencoders
  8. 2025Explaining How Visual, Textual and Multimodal Encoders Share Concepts