Many distinct SAE features share identical explanations, with the average annotation resolving only 70% of feature identity in a large annotated dataset.
hub
Sparse autoencoders trained on the same data learn different features
12 Pith papers cite this work, alongside 1 external citations. Polarity classification is still indexing.
12
Pith papers citing it
1
external citations · external index
hub tools
representative citing papers
WriteSAE introduces sparse autoencoders with rank-1 matrix atoms for recurrent state updates, allowing replacement tests that outperform deletion on 92.4% of positions and a formula predicting logit changes with R²=0.98.
Exemplar Partitioning creates Voronoi partitions of LLM activation space via leader clustering on streamed activations, yielding comparable, interpretable dictionaries that support interventions and achieve competitive benchmark results with ~1000x less compute than SAEs.
Sparse autoencoders applied to a 14.5M-parameter clinical EHR model reveal progressive abstraction across layers, with SAE features outperforming dense ones for mortality in full-sequence probes but not in leakage-safe windows where dense representations match or exceed them.
Stable SAE features dominate functional signal while unstable features concentrate in reproducible subspaces, allowing more stable SAEs via cross-seed pooling.
Quantization of LLMs can degrade many SAE features even when perplexity improves or stays similar, as shown by correlation measurements on frozen SAEs for Pythia-70M and Gemma-2-2B models across INT8 to INT4.
An audit of SAEBench reveals that Targeted Probe Perturbation and Spurious Correlation Removal metrics fail reliability tests and should not be used to evaluate sparse autoencoders.
GSAE improves selective refusal on safety benchmarks by smoothing SAE directions over a co-activation graph and applying them via a two-gate controller, outperforming standard SAEs and baselines on Llama-3 and other models.
Sparse autoencoders plus greedy filtering and factorization-machine interaction modeling identify minimal sets of features in Gemma-2-2B-IT and LLaMA-3.1-8B-IT whose ablation produces jailbreaks by flipping refusal to compliance.
Sparse autoencoders show OOD prompts increase fallacious concept activation in transformers, offering a mechanistic measure of shift and a path to robust fine-tuning.
citing papers explorer
-
Descriptive Collision in Sparse Autoencoder Auto-Interpretability: When One Explanation Describes Many Features
Many distinct SAE features share identical explanations, with the average annotation resolving only 70% of feature identity in a large annotated dataset.
-
WriteSAE: Sparse Autoencoders for Recurrent State
WriteSAE introduces sparse autoencoders with rank-1 matrix atoms for recurrent state updates, allowing replacement tests that outperform deletion on 92.4% of positions and a formula predicting logit changes with R²=0.98.
-
Exemplar Partitioning for Mechanistic Interpretability
Exemplar Partitioning creates Voronoi partitions of LLM activation space via leader clustering on streamed activations, yielding comparable, interpretable dictionaries that support interventions and achieve competitive benchmark results with ~1000x less compute than SAEs.
-
Sparse Autoencoder Decomposition of Clinical Sequence Model Representations: Feature Complexity, Task Specialisation, and Mortality Prediction
Sparse autoencoders applied to a 14.5M-parameter clinical EHR model reveal progressive abstraction across layers, with SAE features outperforming dense ones for mortality in full-sequence probes but not in leakage-safe windows where dense representations match or exceed them.
-
Unstable Features, Reproducible Subspaces: Understanding Seed Dependence in Sparse Autoencoders
Stable SAE features dominate functional signal while unstable features concentrate in reproducible subspaces, allowing more stable SAEs via cross-seed pooling.
-
Perplexity Can Miss SAE Feature Damage Under Quantization
Quantization of LLMs can degrade many SAE features even when perplexity improves or stays similar, as shown by correlation measurements on frozen SAEs for Pythia-70M and Gemma-2-2B models across INT8 to INT4.
-
Are Sparse Autoencoder Benchmarks Reliable?
An audit of SAEBench reveals that Targeted Probe Perturbation and Spurious Correlation Removal metrics fail reliability tests and should not be used to evaluate sparse autoencoders.
-
Graph-Regularized Sparse Autoencoders for LLM Safety Steering
GSAE improves selective refusal on safety benchmarks by smoothing SAE directions over a co-activation graph and applying them via a two-gate controller, outperforming standard SAEs and baselines on Llama-3 and other models.
-
Beyond I'm Sorry, I Can't: Dissecting Large Language Model Refusal
Sparse autoencoders plus greedy filtering and factorization-machine interaction modeling identify minimal sets of features in Gemma-2-2B-IT and LLaMA-3.1-8B-IT whose ablation produces jailbreaks by flipping refusal to compliance.
-
At the Edge of Understanding: Sparse Autoencoders Trace The Limits of Transformer Generalization
Sparse autoencoders show OOD prompts increase fallacious concept activation in transformers, offering a mechanistic measure of shift and a path to robust fine-tuning.
- Sign-Aware Gated Sparse Autoencoders: Modeling Anticorrelated Features with Bi-Jump-ReLU Activations
- Not Just RLHF: Why Alignment Alone Won't Fix Multi-Agent Sycophancy