Beyond a Bag of Features: Set-Level Instability in Sparse Autoencoders
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → SAE features and their applications
Abstract (arXiv)
Shani et al. (2026) show that LLM representations broadly recover human category boundaries, while failing to reflect fine-grained typicality structure. Their analysis uses cosine similarity over dense model representations. We revisit their approach using overlap over active sparse autoencoder (SAE) latent sets as a more interpretable similarity measure. We first verify that this set-level measure is meaningful: SAE latent sets can recover union-like compositional structure in controlled toy models and induce semantically coherent neighborhoods in natural text. Extending the human-concepts analysis to SAE set similarities, we find that SAE activation sets do not recover human category boundaries or within-category typicality more faithfully than dense embeddings or residual-stream states, but instead track model-internal similarity structure. To probe this gap further, we study active latent sets under well-controlled semantic modifications, revealing a substantial mismatch between human judgements of conceptual change and change in the SAE active set. We interpret this as evidence that, outside idealised settings, SAE features do not compose via simple bag-of-features semantics.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 16 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.
Builds on
16 of 41 references.
Closest ancestors · 6
Same direction, newest first
- 2025SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model Interpretability12 Mar
- 2024Can sparse autoencoders be used to decompose and interpret steering vectors?13 Nov
- 2024Llama Scope: Extracting Millions of Features from Llama-3.1-8B with Sparse Autoencoders27 Oct
- 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoders22 Sep
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoders19 Jul
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models15 Sep
Other references · 10
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
- 2022Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Build Predictions by Promoting Concepts in the Vocabulary Spacecited by 532
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
- 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 212
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysiscited by 88
- 2025Language Models Use Trigonometry to Do Additioncited by 70
- 2025From Tokens to Thoughts: How LLMs and Humans Trade Compression for Meaningcited by 25
- 2024Mechanistic Permutability: Match Features Across Layerscited by 22
- 2025Feature Hedging: Correlated Features Break Narrow Sparse Autoencoderscited by 16
- 2025Probing the Representational Power of Sparse Autoencoders in Vision Modelscited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Temporal Sparse Autoencoders: Leveraging the Sequential Nature of Language for Interpretability
- 2026Measuring Semantic Abstractness of SAE Features via Nonlocality
- 2026Descriptive Collision in Sparse Autoencoder Auto-Interpretability: When One Explanation Describes Many Features
- 2026Comparing Latent Concept Formation in State Space Models and Transformers via Sparse Autoencoders
- 2025Semantic Convergence: Investigating Shared Representations Across Scaled LLMs
- 2025Sparse Shift Autoencoders for Identifying Concepts from Large Language Model Activations
- 2024Quantifying Feature Space Universality Across Large Language Models via Sparse Autoencoders
- 2025Dense SAE Latents Are Features, Not Bugs