Where Decoder Cosine Similarity Fails for SAE Feature Flow Discovery
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Foundation models are increasingly adapted through fine-tuning, model editing, and alignment procedures while retaining previously acquired capabilities. Understanding the internal computations that support these adaptations is therefore becoming increasingly important for continual model evolution. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) provide interpretable feature dictionaries for residual-stream activations and sublayer outputs, but it remains unclear how state features and update features interact to produce downstream residual features. In this work, we focus on MLP updates as a first test case. We construct a transition atlas of triples sk + uj rightarrow tℓ, where a residual-state feature and an MLP-update feature jointly predict a target residual feature, and validate candidate triples by ablating the decoded update feature. In a 20M-token Pythia-160M L7 rightarrow L8 run, we find 38,125 strong ablation-effect transitions, but 88.0% have both state-target and update-target decoder cosine similarity below 0.7. As a preliminary cross-model check, a run of 20M-token Gemma-3-4B L21 rightarrow L22 causally validates only the top 30,000 ranked candidate triples by ablating the decoded update feature, and 53.6% of strong-effect triples have both state-target and update-target decoder cosine similarity below 0.7. The Gemma result is directionally consistent with Pythia, but weaker, since update-target cosine recovers many of the strongest Gemma effects and the run is not a full-atlas causal validation. Ultimately, our results suggest that feature flow atlases can serve as diagnostics of representation-update mechanisms and thereby inform tools for steering model updates. Future work will validate more complex patterns across layers, models, and SAE families.
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 11 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2026.
Builds on
11 of 13 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 10
- 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,787
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,576
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2024Massive Activations in Large Language Modelscited by 294
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different Featurescited by 93
- 2025Overcoming Sparsity Artifacts in Crosscoders to Interpret Chat-Tuningcited by 34
- 2024Evolution of SAE Features Across Layers in LLMscited by 14
- 2025Analyze Feature Flow to Enhance Interpretation and Steering in Language Modelscited by 13
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026From Geometric Recovery to Causal Validation: A Reproducible Audit of Sparse Autoencoder Features, from Superposition Geometry to Causal Inertness
- 2026Unstable Features, Reproducible Subspaces: Understanding Seed Dependence in Sparse Autoencoders
- 2026A Dominant Diffuse Phase in the Sparse Autoencoder Phase Diagram
- 2026Semantic Optimal Transport for Sparse Autoencoder Feature Matching and Circuit Compression
- 2026SynthSAEBench: Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders on Scalable Realistic Synthetic Data
- 2026Aligned Training: A Parameter-Free Method to Improve Feature Quality and Stability of Sparse Autoencoders (SAE)
- 2026Are Single-Token Sparse Autoencoder Features Causally Necessary? Layer-Depth and SAE-Family Effects
- 2026Are Sparse Autoencoder Benchmarks Reliable?