mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Active Budget Can Kill Sensitivity: Diagnosing and Repairing TopK Sparse Autoencoder Reliability

arXiv 2609.37857 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → SAE features and their applications also fits: Sparse autoencoder training and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations. However, a feature is useful for interpretation only if it remains a stable unit of analysis when the same meaning is expressed in different surface forms. We study this reliability question for TopK SAEs via feature sensitivity. Experiments demonstrate that scaling selectively reduces the sensitivity of rare features, while common features remain comparatively stable. A controlled width(× k) factorial experiment identifies the active budget k as the root cause: the degradation arises from the selection boundary rather than dictionary width alone. We attribute this failure to the geometry of TopK selection. The active margin, the distance to the cutoff, predicts feature loss without thresholds. Guided by this margin diagnosis, we introduce pairwise rank stabilization. Our method targets ordering failures at the cutoff and improves rare-feature sensitivity by (8.83) percentage points, while keeping reconstruction and alive-feature coverage near the baseline. Overall, our results suggest that wide TopK SAEs should be evaluated not only by reconstruction, sparsity, and feature count, but also by feature reliability under semantic variation and boundary geometry for stable interpretability.

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 37 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

Builds on

37 of 49 references.

Closest ancestors · 8

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet28 May
  2. 2026Are LLM Uncertainty and Correctness Encoded by the Same Features? A Functional Dissociation via Sparse Autoencoders21 Apr
  3. 2025Measuring Sparse Autoencoder Feature Sensitivity28 Sep
  4. 2024BatchTopK Sparse Autoencoders9 Dec
  5. 2024A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse Autoencoders22 Sep
  6. 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoders19 Jul
  7. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders6 Jun
  8. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models15 Sep

Other references · 29

  1. 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  4. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  5. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  6. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  7. 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
  8. 2020Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memoriescited by 1,336
  9. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  10. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,319
  11. 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
  12. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 1,006
17 more
  1. 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
  2. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 876
  3. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
  4. 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
  5. 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 708
  6. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 571
  7. 2022Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Build Predictions by Promoting Concepts in the Vocabulary Spacecited by 532
  8. 2023Emergent Linear Representations in World Models of Self-Supervised Sequence Modelscited by 319
  9. 2018Adversarial Example Generation with Syntactically Controlled Paraphrase Networkscited by 286
  10. 2020Understanding the Role of Individual Units in a Deep Neural Networkcited by 255
  11. 2013k-Sparse Autoencoderscited by 215
  12. 2025Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysiscited by 88
  13. 2024Towards Principled Evaluations of Sparse Autoencoders for Interpretability and Controlcited by 86
  14. 2026Language Model Circuits Are Sparse in the Neuron Basiscited by 25
  15. 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?cited by 14
  16. 2026SynthSAEBench: Evaluating Sparse Autoencoders on Scalable Realistic Synthetic Datacited by 11
  17. 2026HalluSAE: Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Models via Sparse Auto-Encoderscited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026SoftSAE: Dynamic Top-K Selection for Adaptive Sparse Autoencoders
  2. 2026Are Sparse Autoencoder Benchmarks Reliable?
  3. 2026Diminishing Returns of Data in Sparse Autoencoders: Functional Behavior does not Guarantee Feature Reproducibility
  4. 2025TopK Language Models
  5. 2025Evaluating and Designing Sparse Autoencoders by Approximating Quasi-Orthogonality
  6. 2026Beyond the Hard Budget: Sparsity Regularizers for More Interpretable Top-k Sparse Autoencoders
  7. 2025AbsTopK: Rethinking Sparse Autoencoders For Bidirectional Features
  8. 2026Toward Identifiable Sparse Autoencoders