Decoder-Preserving Sparse Autoencoders: Which Readouts Survive Sparse Compression?
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) compress model activations into sparse codes, but equal reconstruction error and sparsity can preserve different linearly decodable signals. We formalize this ambiguity as a matrix-valued distortion between optimal ridge-prediction operators and train decoder-preserving SAEs by combining this distortion with reconstruction loss. In a rank relaxation, an isotropic task prior saturates per-mode omission costs without changing PCA's ordering, whereas a structured prior can change which modes are retained. A controlled sparse experiment shows that a declared prior protects held-out combinations from its task subspace. On GPT-2 small block 8, DPSAE reduces held-out decoder distortion by 10.6--11.4% across three paired runs while matching reconstruction NMSE. The same checkpoints pass an average natural-text output-KL noninferiority test, but one matched Pythia pair shows no improvement in probes restricted to a few sparse features. These results show that reconstruction quality does not determine which refitted linear readouts survive sparse compression, and that readout preservation is distinct from learning cleaner benchmark concepts or preserving every frozen-model behavior.
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 18 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jul 2026.
Builds on
18 of 21 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2025From Flat to Hierarchical: Extracting Sparse Representations with Matching Pursuit3 Jun
- 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometry3 Mar
- 2024Interpretability as Compression: Reconsidering SAE Explanations of Neural Activations with MDL-SAEs15 Oct
- 2024Identifying Functionally Important Features with End-to-End Sparse Dictionary Learning17 May
Other references · 14
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,160
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
- 2019Similarity-Preserving Knowledge Distillationcited by 516
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 300
- 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 124
- 2024What Representational Similarity Measures Imply about Decodable Informationcited by 18
- 2025Temporal Sparse Autoencoders: Leveraging the Sequential Nature of Language for Interpretabilitycited by 18
- 2022GULP: a prediction-based metric between representationscited by 17
- 2025Measuring and Guiding Monosemanticitycited by 10
- 2026Cross-Modal Redundancy and the Geometry of Vision-Language Embeddingscited by 10
- 2025Revisiting End-To-End Sparse Autoencoder Training: A Short Finetune Is All You Needcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Compute Optimal Inference and Provable Amortisation Gap in Sparse Autoencoders
- 2026MetaSAEs: Joint Training with a Decomposability Penalty Produces More Atomic Sparse Autoencoder Latents
- 2026Expander Sparse Autoencoders: Parameter-Efficient Dictionaries for Mechanistic Interpretability
- 2026Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders
- 2026From Geometric Recovery to Causal Validation: A Reproducible Audit of Sparse Autoencoder Features, from Superposition Geometry to Causal Inertness
- 2025On the transferability of Sparse Autoencoders for interpreting compressed models
- 2026Decompose Sparsely Where You Should, Absorb Densely Where You Should No
- 2026Aligned Training: A Parameter-Free Method to Improve Feature Quality and Stability of Sparse Autoencoders (SAE)