Evaluating SAE interpretability without generating explanations
Gonçalo Paulo, Nora Belrose
Abstract
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) and transcoders have become important tools for machine learning interpretability. However, measuring how interpretable they are remains challenging, with weak consensus about which benchmarks to use. Most evaluation procedures start by producing a single-sentence explanation for each latent. These explanations are then evaluated based on how well they enable an LLM to predict the activation of a latent in new contexts. This method makes it difficult to disentangle the explanation generation and evaluation process from the actual interpretability of the latents discovered. In this work, we adapt existing methods to assess the interpretability of sparse coders, with the advantage that they do not require generating natural language explanations as an intermediate step. This enables a more direct and potentially standardized assessment of interpretability. Furthermore, we compare the scores produced by our interpretability metrics with human evaluations across similar tasks and varying setups, offering suggestions for the community on improving the evaluation of these techniques.
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 81269d04-b9e7-486a-a105-803f2f798073Builds on10
- Concept Bottleneck ModelsPang Wei Koh, Thao Nguyen, Yew Siang Tang, Stephen Mussmann et al.ICML 2020 · 1,233 citations
- Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language ModelsRobert Huben, Hoagy Cunningham, Logan Riggs Smith, Aidan Ewart et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,072 citations
- Compositional Explanations of NeuronsJesse Mu, Jacob AndreasNeurIPS 2020 · 229 citations
- 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
- Scale Alone Does not Improve Mechanistic Interpretability in Vision ModelsRoland S. Zimmermann, Thomas Klein, Wieland BrendelNeurIPS 2023 · 32 citations
Related papers
- Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language ModelsGonçalo Paulo, Alex Mallen, Caden Juang, Nora BelroseICML 2025
- SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model InterpretabilityAdam Karvonen, Can Rager, Johnny Lin, Curt Tigges et al.ICML 2025
- Automated Interpretability Metrics Do Not Distinguish Trained and Random TransformersThomas Heap, Tim Lawson, Lucy Farnik, Laurence AitchisonICLR 2026 · 32 citations
- Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse ProbingSubhash Kantamneni, Joshua Engels, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Max Tegmark et al.ICML 2025
- Rethinking Evaluation of Sparse Autoencoders through the Representation of Polysemous WordsGouki Minegishi, Hiroki Furuta, Yusuke Iwasawa, Yutaka MatsuoICLR 2025
