mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Size Doesn't Matter: Cosine-Scored Sparse Autoencoders

arXiv 2606.15054 ↗First posted 13 Jun 2026cs.LGcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) detect features via inner product, so a feature's activation scales with both its directional alignment and the input's norm. Features that fire on token norm therefore claim dictionary slots regardless of content alignment. This matters because sublayer normalization has already discarded the magnitude the score measures, so the encoder detects a quantity the model does not read. We replace the score with a learned blend of cosine similarity and input magnitude, letting the optimizer choose how much norm to use; a per-feature extension lets each feature decide independently. In both regimes, training is free to recover inner product but never does, with no feature ever choosing more than half-magnitude dependence. At matched reconstruction, the cosine encoder learns features that align with human-recognizable concepts far more often than standard, filling dictionary slots that inner product wastes on norm detectors. Loss reweighting that equalizes gradients barely closes the gap, confirming forward-pass score geometry as the lever. The advantage is not universal across tasks or depths, but we believe cosine scoring should be the default for dictionary learning on normalized representations.

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 36 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2026.

Builds on

36 of 50 references.

Closest ancestors · 9

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Improving Robustness In Sparse Autoencoders via Masked Regularization7 Apr
  2. 2026From Data Statistics to Feature Geometry: How Correlations Shape Superposition10 Mar
  3. 2026SynthSAEBench: Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders on Scalable Realistic Synthetic Data16 Feb
  4. 2026PolySAE: Modeling Feature Interactions in Sparse Autoencoders via Polynomial Decoding1 Feb
  5. 2025Provably Extracting the Features from a General Superposition17 Dec
  6. 2025Dimensional Collapse in Transformer Attention Outputs: A Challenge for Sparse Dictionary Learning23 Aug
  7. 2025Learning Multi-Level Features with Matryoshka Sparse Autoencoders21 Mar
  8. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysis7 Feb
  9. 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep

Other references · 27

  1. 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,480
  2. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  3. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  4. 2022LLM.int8(): 8-bit Matrix Multiplication for Transformers at Scalecited by 906
  5. 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 716
  6. 2023Scaling Vision Transformers to 22 Billion Parameterscited by 694
  7. 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 300
  8. 2020Query-Key Normalization for Transformerscited by 280
  9. 2025AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoderscited by 218
  10. 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 212
  11. 2023Linear Representations of Sentiment in Large Language Modelscited by 163
  12. 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 160
15 more
  1. 2024The Geometry of Categorical and Hierarchical Concepts in Large Language Modelscited by 159
  2. 2021All Bark and No Bite: Rogue Dimensions in Transformer Language Models Obscure Representational Qualitycited by 156
  3. 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 124
  4. 2025Overcoming Sparsity Artifacts in Crosscoders to Interpret Chat-Tuningcited by 34
  5. 2023Interpretability Illusions in the Generalization of Simplified Modelscited by 25
  6. 2026From Directions to Regions: Decomposing Activations in Language Models via Local Geometrycited by 12
  7. 2025AbsTopK: Rethinking Sparse Autoencoders For Bidirectional Featurescited by 9
  8. 2026From Atoms to Trees: Building a Structured Feature Forest with Hierarchical Sparse Autoencoderscited by 6
  9. 2026Stable and Steerable Sparse Autoencoders with Weight Regularizationcited by 5
  10. 2026Why Linear Interpretability Works: Invariant Subspaces as a Result of Architectural Constraintscited by 3
  11. 2026Simple LLM Baselines are Competitive for Model Diffingcited by 3
  12. 2026Step-Level Sparse Autoencoder for Reasoning Process Interpretationcited by 3
  13. 2025CE-Bench: Towards a Reliable Contrastive Evaluation Benchmark of Interpretability of Sparse Autoencoderscited by 2
  14. 2026MonoLoss: A Training Objective for Interpretable Monosemantic Representationscited by 1
  15. 2026Sparse Auto-Encoders and Holism about Large Language Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Aligned Training: A Parameter-Free Method to Improve Feature Quality and Stability of Sparse Autoencoders (SAE)
  2. 2026Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders
  3. 2025Sparse Autoencoders, Again?
  4. 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?
  5. 2026From Geometric Recovery to Causal Validation: A Reproducible Audit of Sparse Autoencoder Features, from Superposition Geometry to Causal Inertness
  6. 2026ClasSAE: Class-Aligned Sparse Autoencoders via Differentiable Feature-Class Affinity
  7. 2026Evaluating the Interpretability of Sparse Autoencoders with Concept Annotations
  8. 2024Features that Make a Difference: Leveraging Gradients for Improved Dictionary Learning