mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Measuring Monosemanticity in Sparse Autoencoders via Latent Activation Coherence

arXiv 2607.17770 ↗First posted 20 Jul 2026cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → SAE features and their applications

Abstract (arXiv)

Within Explainable Artificial Intelligence, mechanistic interpretability uses Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to extract more interpretable features from neural representations. However, assessing their monosemanticity, and thus explanation quality, remains challenging. Existing metrics require external concept labels or depend on pretrained embedding models, making them sensitive to encoder's geometry. We introduce the Tversky Monosemanticity Score (TMS), a label-free metric that operationalizes monosemanticity as activation-set coherence of binarized SAE latents, and does not require external embedding encoders. We evaluate TMS on SAEs trained on features from pretrained vision and vision-language models (DINOv3, CLIP, BLIP2), two common SAE regimes (TopK, BatchTopK), multiple sparsity levels, and expansion factors. Our results show that TMS is less affected by encoder anisotropy than its embedding-based alternative, while remaining aligned with established monosemanticity indicators. TMS also reveals distinct SAE training dynamics across base models. Moreover, under encoder anisotropy, TMS provides a stronger indication of probe-based concept deletion effectiveness, while being competitive otherwise.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 13 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.

Builds on

13 of 20 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders for Monosemantic Representation20 Aug
  2. 2025Measuring and Guiding Monosemanticity24 Jun
  3. 2025Sparse Autoencoder Features for Classifications and Transferability17 Feb
  4. 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoders19 Jul
  5. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders6 Jun
  6. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models15 Sep

Other references · 7

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  2. 2023BLIP-2: Bootstrapping Language-Image Pre-training with Frozen Image Encoders and Large Language Modelscited by 6,137
  3. 2016Matching Networks for One Shot Learningcited by 2,255
  4. 2024Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Reviewcited by 422
  5. 2025SAeUron: Interpretable Concept Unlearning in Diffusion Models with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 80
  6. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Learn Monosemantic Features in Vision-Language Modelscited by 71
  7. 2025Interpreting CLIP with Hierarchical Sparse Autoencoderscited by 60

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026MonoLoss: A Training Objective for Interpretable Monosemantic Representations
  2. 2025Rethinking Evaluation of Sparse Autoencoders through the Representation of Polysemous Words
  3. 2026Verifying the Linear Representation Hypothesis: How Interpretable Are Vision SAEs?
  4. 2026The Rate-Distortion-Polysemanticity Tradeoff in SAEs
  5. 2025Automated Interpretability Metrics Do Not Distinguish Trained and Random Transformers
  6. 2025Evaluating SAE interpretability without explanations
  7. 2024Interpreting Attention Layer Outputs with Sparse Autoencoders
  8. 2025Probing the Representational Power of Sparse Autoencoders in Vision Models