# From Geometric Recovery to Causal Validation: A Reproducible Audit of Sparse Autoencoder Features, from Superposition Geometry to Causal Inertness

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12166 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.12166/

## 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 9 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- Mechanistic interpretability / [Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/sparse-autoencoder-training-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Toy Models of Superposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.10652/) (2022)
- [Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04093/) (2024)
- [Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14082/) (2024)
- [Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05147/) (2024)
- [Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29358/) (2026)
- [Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16014/) (2024)
- [A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14507/) (2024)
- [BatchTopK Sparse Autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06410/) (2024)
- [SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09532/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are the standard for decomposing superposed neural representations into interpretable features, and evaluation relies predominantly on correlational recovery metrics -- cosine similarity between ground-truth directions and decoder atoms. We show this conflates two distinct claims: decoder-geometry alignment and encoder-activation behavior. We reproduce the superposition phase diagram of Elhage et al. (2022), identifying a convergence artifact at high sparsity and an under-described diffuse sharing regime at extreme overcompleteness. We reproduce the TopK-versus-L1 comparison of Gao et al. (2024), with direct evidence of L1 shrinkage. Our central result is causal: subjecting every recovered feature to ablation and steering, we find up to 77% of features passing a recovery bar (cosine >= 0.90) in a degraded SAE -- and 9% in a well-trained one -- are causally inert: the matched atom never fires when the feature is present, including matches at cosine ~1.000. We package the method as sae-causal-audit, a model-agnostic instrument with a deterministic pipeline. Re-auditing refines the finding: inertness decomposes by cause into structural inertness (antipodal-pair geometry, present in good SAEs) and competitive inertness (a TopK pathology of degraded SAEs), and by direction into read- and write-inertness, which five antipodal pairs dissociate completely -- unmonitorable yet steerable through the same atom, with steering specificities of 143-310 attached to zero ablation effects. We document why byte-exact reproducibility is unavailable by construction, and propose reporting it as a stack of claims with explicit scopes. Applying the instrument to a production SAE reproduces the pattern at small scale (14% inert) and surfaces an atom-collision signal: a handful of atoms recur as the nearest match for dozens of unrelated concepts, replicated across three batches.