Mechanistic Interpretability Should Prioritize Feature Consistency in Sparse Autoencoders
Xiangchen Song, Aashiq Muhamed, Yujia Zheng, Lingjing Kong, Zeyu Tang, Mona T. Diab, Virginia Smith, Kun Zhang
Abstract
Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) are a prominent tool in mechanistic interpretability (MI) for decomposing neural network activations into interpretable features. However, the aspiration to identify a canonical set of features is challenged by the observed inconsistency of learned SAE features across different training runs, undermining reproducibility and complicating model comparison. We study run-to-run feature consistency in SAEs and argue that it should be reported as a standard evaluation axis alongside reconstruction and sparsity. We propose the Pairwise Dictionary Mean Correlation Coefficient (PW-MCC) as an assignment-based metric to quantify consistency and demonstrate that high levels are achievable (PW-MCC ≈ 0.80 for TopK SAEs on LLM activations) with appropriate architectural choices. Our contributions include: (i) theoretical grounding for strong consistency in the idealized setting of TopK SAEs; (ii) synthetic validation using a model organism, which verifies PW-MCC as a reliable proxy for ground-truth recovery; and (iii) empirical analysis on LLM activations, where PW-MCC correlates with the similarity of automatically generated natural-language feature explanations. We hope these results encourage routine reporting of feature consistency to support more robust cumulative progress in MI. 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 659ca668-1225-4c3a-a7aa-169aa994b765Builds on16
- A is for Absorption: Studying Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse AutoencodersDavid Chanin, James Wilken-Smith, Tomás Dulka, Hardik Bhatnagar et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 168 citations
- Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different FeaturesGonçalo Paulo, Nora BelroseICLR 2026 · 96 citations
- Sparse Autoencoders Learn Monosemantic Features in Vision-Language ModelsMateusz Pach, Shyamgopal Karthik, Quentin Bouniot, Serge J. Belongie et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 79 citations
- Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept GeometrySai Sumedh R. Hindupur, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Thomas Fel, Demba BaNeurIPS 2025 · 65 citations
- Is This the Subspace You Are Looking for? An Interpretability Illusion for Subspace Activation PatchingAleksandar Makelov, Georg Lange, Atticus Geiger, Neel NandaICLR 2024 · 48 citations
Related papers
- Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of AnalysisPatrick Leask, Bart Bussmann, Michael T. Pearce, Joseph Isaac Bloom et al.ICLR 2025
- Automated Interpretability Metrics Do Not Distinguish Trained and Random TransformersThomas Heap, Tim Lawson, Lucy Farnik, Laurence AitchisonICLR 2026 · 32 citations
- CR: Cross-sample Consistency Regularization Mitigates Feature Splitting and Absorption in Sparse AutoencodersHaoran Jin, Xiting Wang, Shijie Ren, Hong Xie et al.ICML 2026
- Revising and Falsifying Sparse Autoencoder Feature ExplanationsGeorge Ma, Samuel Pfrommer, Somayeh SojoudiNeurIPS 2025 · 7 citations
- Evaluating SAE interpretability without generating explanationsGonçalo Paulo, Nora BelroseICLR 2026 · 2 citations
