mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Dominant Diffuse Phase in the Sparse Autoencoder Phase Diagram

arXiv 2609.10299 ↗First posted 9 Sep 2026cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly used to recover interpretable features from neural-network activations, yet systematic feature co-occurrence can cause distinct features to be absorbed or merged. The MAIS-O43 open problem proposes a controlled experiment to characterize when recovery of a true synthetic dictionary gives way to feature merging as the nesting fraction γ, sparsity penalty λ, and dictionary size M vary. We implement the specified protocol and evaluate 200 independently initialized fits across ten of the 165 grid cells. We observe zero full-dictionary recoveries and zero merges. Instead, every run converges to a reproducible diffuse phase: reconstruction is nearly perfect, but learned atoms typically remain far from the true features (median best cosine 0.5-0.7 against a 0.95 recovery criterion) and learned codes are an order of magnitude denser than the ground truth. This behavior persists under robustness checks and across the full 165-cell grid using standard minibatch Adam (3,300 additional fits). Since the global optimum of the exact sparse-coding objective is known to merge nested features in the two-feature case, these results suggest that trained SAEs need not reach the corresponding minima, and that the phase diagram of trained models may differ fundamentally from that of objective minimizers.

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 12 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.

Builds on

12 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026A Geometric View for Understanding Concept Learning and Neuron Interpretation in Sparse Autoencoders5 Jun
  2. 2025From Flat to Hierarchical: Extracting Sparse Representations with Matching Pursuit3 Jun
  3. 2025Learning Multi-Level Features with Matryoshka Sparse Autoencoders21 Mar
  4. 2022Toy Models of Superposition21 Sep

Other references · 8

  1. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  2. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 553
  3. 2024Improving Dictionary Learning with Gated Sparse Autoencoderscited by 179
  4. 2024The Geometry of Categorical and Hierarchical Concepts in Large Language Modelscited by 159
  5. 2025From superposition to sparse codes: interpretable representations in neural networkscited by 16
  6. 2025Incorporating Hierarchical Semantics in Sparse Autoencoder Architecturescited by 14
  7. 2026From Atoms to Trees: Building a Structured Feature Forest with Hierarchical Sparse Autoencoderscited by 6
  8. 2026Tree SAE: Learning Hierarchical Feature Structures in Sparse Autoencoderscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026From Geometric Recovery to Causal Validation: A Reproducible Audit of Sparse Autoencoder Features, from Superposition Geometry to Causal Inertness
  2. 2026Expander Sparse Autoencoders: Parameter-Efficient Dictionaries for Mechanistic Interpretability
  3. 2026Inference and learning in sparse autoencoders as natural gradient flow
  4. 2026Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders
  5. 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?
  6. 2024Features that Make a Difference: Leveraging Gradients for Improved Dictionary Learning
  7. 2025Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders: From Shallow Design to Matching Pursuit
  8. 2025Features Emerge as Discrete States: The First Application of SAEs to 3D Representations