Encourage or Inhibit Monosemanticity? Revisit Monosemanticity from a Feature Decorrelation Perspective
Hanqi Yan, Yanzheng Xiang, Guangyi Chen, Yifei Wang, Lin Gui, Yulan He
Abstract
To better interpret the intrinsic mechanism of large language models (LLMs), recent studies focus on monosemanticity on its basic units. A monosemantic neuron is dedicated to a single and specific concept, which forms a oneto-one correlation between neurons and concepts. Despite extensive research in monosemanticity probing, it remains unclear whether monosemanticity is beneficial or harmful to model capacity. To explore this question, we revisit monosemanticity from the feature decorrelation perspective and advocate for its encouragement. We experimentally observe that the current conclusion by Wang et al. ( 2024 ), which suggests that decreasing monosemanticity enhances model performance, does not hold when the model changes. Instead, we demonstrate that monosemanticity consistently exhibits a positive correlation with model capacity, in the preference alignment process. Consequently, we apply feature correlation as a proxy for monosemanticity and incorporate a feature decorrelation regularizer into the dynamic preference optimization process. The experiments show that our method not only enhances representation diversity but also improves preference alignment performance 1 .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 54aa6dec-f9d1-4992-9562-0889bc984bc5Cited by top-tier papers4
- Measuring and Guiding MonosemanticityRuben Härle, Felix Friedrich, Manuel Brack, Björn Deiseroth et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 12 citations
- LinguaLens: Towards Interpreting Linguistic Mechanisms of Large Language Models via Sparse Auto-EncoderYi Jing, Zijun Yao, Hongzhu Guo, Lingxu Ran et al.EMNLP 2025 · 7 citations
- When Thinking Backfires: Mechanistic Insights into Reason-induced MisalignmentHanqi Yan, Hainiu Xu, Siya Qi, Shu Yang et al.ICLR 2026 · 3 citations
- Unlocking the Black Box of Latent Reasoning: An Interpretability-Guided Approach to InterventionShuochen Chang, Tong Bai, Xiaofeng Zhang, Qianli Ma et al.ACL 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on20
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Barlow Twins: Self-Supervised Learning via Redundancy ReductionJure Zbontar, Li Jing, Ishan Misra, Yann LeCun et al.ICML 2021 · 2,942 citations
- Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and ScalingStella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley et al.ICML 2023 · 1,822 citations
- VICReg: Variance-Invariance-Covariance Regularization for Self-Supervised LearningAdrien Bardes, Jean Ponce, Yann LeCunICLR 2022 · 1,226 citations
- SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free RewardYu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, Danqi ChenNeurIPS 2024 · 1,203 citations
Related papers
- Learning from Emergence: A Study on Proactively Inhibiting the Monosemantic Neurons of Artificial Neural NetworksJiachuan Wang, Shimin Di, Lei Chen, Charles Wang Wai NgKDD 2024 · 1 citation
- Not Everything is All You Need: Toward Low-Redundant Optimization for Large Language Model AlignmentZhipeng Chen, Kun Zhou, Xin Zhao, Jingyuan Wang et al.EMNLP 2024 · 7 citations
- Rethinking Evaluation of Sparse Autoencoders through the Representation of Polysemous WordsGouki Minegishi, Hiroki Furuta, Yusuke Iwasawa, Yutaka MatsuoICLR 2025
- Taming Polysemanticity in LLMs: Theory-Grounded Feature Recovery via Sparse AutoencodersSiyu Chen, Heejune Sheen, Xuyuan Xiong, Tianhao Wang et al.ICLR 2026 · 1 citation
- On the Limits of Sparse Autoencoders: A Theoretical Framework and Reweighted RemedyJingyi Cui, Qi Zhang, Yifei Wang, Yisen WangICLR 2026 · 16 citations
