mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Readout Scaling Shapes Sparse Feature Recovery

arXiv 2610.18462 ↗First posted 13 Oct 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Readout scaling changes what a sparse autoencoder (SAE) learns, but the benefit of removing it depends on the data. We use readout-canonicalized decision-space (RC-DS) coordinates to remove singular-value gains while preserving retained decision information. At a fixed readout condition number, changing the generating distribution reverses which training coordinates recover known factors best. In our controlled coordinate-matching study, recovery is highest when training restores the space in which the factors were generated. When factors are generated before readout scaling, RC-DS increases mean sparse-factor recovery from 0.506 to 0.913 at condition number 100, compared with centered-logit training under the same budget. An exact wrapper reproduces RC-DS training to numerical precision, isolating training geometry rather than additional information. In neural policies, RC-DS improves mean logit reconstruction under the tested budgets. On three fixed language-model checkpoints, RC-DS has higher mean gain-free reconstruction in all 18 tested task-sparsity settings, while centered-logit SAEs reconstruct output logits better in 17. Small-label-head controls show that longer training reduces the reconstruction gap from 0.0198 to 0.0016. Together, these results show how readout scaling, the data distribution, and training shape sparse learning. RC-DS provides an information-preserving method for studying and controlling the readout's contribution. Separate label-detection and steering tests distinguish these reconstruction effects from task-specific feature usefulness.

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. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

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. 2026Decoder-Preserving Sparse Autoencoders: Which Readouts Survive Sparse Compression?
  3. 2026Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?
  4. 2026Diminishing Returns of Data in Sparse Autoencoders: Functional Behavior does not Guarantee Feature Reproducibility
  5. 2025Sparsification and Reconstruction from the Perspective of Representation Geometry
  6. 2026Aligned Training: A Parameter-Free Method to Improve Feature Quality and Stability of Sparse Autoencoders (SAE)
  7. 2025Data Whitening Improves Sparse Autoencoder Learning
  8. 2026A Dominant Diffuse Phase in the Sparse Autoencoder Phase Diagram