# When Are Sparse Feature Interventions Actually Localized? Matched Evaluation for SAE-Based Safety Control

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10226 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.10226/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Steering and probing for LLM safety, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability.
- Builds on 8 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- Mechanistic interpretability / [Steering and probing for LLM safety](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/steering-and-probing-for-llm-safety/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01405/) (2023)
- [Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11717/) (2024)
- [Steering Language Models With Activation Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10248/) (2023)
- [XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01263/) (2023)
- [Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05147/) (2024)
- [WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18510/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We evaluate when sparse autoencoder (SAE) features act as localized control handles for safety-relevant behavior. This question is difficult because apparent success can arise from weak interventions, mismatched baselines, model robustness, or degenerate outputs that automated safety judges mark as unsafe without representing meaningful harmful compliance. We introduce a matched coherence-gated evaluation protocol for runtime safety interventions: methods are compared at matched target-effect points, and the primary target metric counts harmful compliance only when an output is both judge-unsafe and coherent. Applying this protocol to three prompt splits on Gemma-2-9B-it with a Gemma Scope layer-20 residual SAE, we find that SAE feature ablation has a narrow useful regime. SAE top800 reaches a low-to-mid target effect with lower total perturbation and competitive utility, but SAE top1600 loses utility relative to a matched dense refusal-direction baseline, and SAE top3200 primarily induces coherence collapse. Human audit confirms that coherence gating removes unsafe-only artifacts, and feature diagnostics show that the useful regime is driven by a stable head of refusal-aligned features whose activation separation decays rapidly with rank. These results argue that SAE-based safety interventions should be evaluated as regime-dependent control mechanisms rather than assumed to be uniformly localized.