Analyzing Visual Aircraft Representations with Sparse Autoencoders
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Vision models can achieve strong performance on classification tasks, but the internal representations supporting their predictions are often difficult to interpret. This work investigates whether sparse autoencoders can decompose intermediate representations of a vision model into interpretable features. We train a ConvNeXt classifier on the FGVC-Aircraft dataset, extract spatial activations from its final feature stage, and train a sparse autoencoder on these activations. The learned sparse features are analyzed using top-activating image patches, activation strength, and class selectivity. Qualitative visual inspection reveals that several features correspond to recognizable aircraft structures and visual patterns. We evaluate a subset of selected features using input-space and feature-space ablations, measuring how blurring image patches and suppressing sparse features affect class logits, classification margins, and prediction confidence. The results suggest that sparse autoencoders can reveal partially interpretable, class-relevant visual features associated with aircraft recognition, while also exposing limitations such as polysemanticity and coarse spatial localization.
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 13 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2026.
Builds on
13 of 16 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep
Other references · 12
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2015Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localizationcited by 2,436
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
- 2013Fine-Grained Visual Classification of Aircraftcited by 1,726
- 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,319
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
- 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 708
- 2019Score-CAM: Score-Weighted Visual Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 582
- 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnetcited by 191
- 2025Interpretable and Testable Vision Features via Sparse Autoencoderscited by 25
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Beyond Interpretability: When, Why, and How Sparse Autoencoders Enable Label-Free Visual Steering
- 2025Explaining How Visual, Textual and Multimodal Encoders Share Concepts
- 2025Probing the Representational Power of Sparse Autoencoders in Vision Models
- 2024Towards Principled Evaluations of Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability and Control
- 2026ClasSAE: Class-Aligned Sparse Autoencoders via Differentiable Feature-Class Affinity
- 2024Interpreting Attention Layer Outputs with Sparse Autoencoders
- 2024Sparse autoencoders reveal selective remapping of visual concepts during adaptation
- 2024Analyzing (In)Abilities of SAEs via Formal Languages