Sparse Autoencoders Do Not Find Canonical Units of Analysis
Patrick Leask, Bart Bussmann, Michael T. Pearce, Joseph Isaac Bloom, Curt Tigges, Noura Al Moubayed, Lee Sharkey, Neel Nanda
Abstract
A common goal of mechanistic interpretability is to decompose the activations of neural networks into features: interpretable properties of the input computed by the model. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are a popular method for finding these features in LLMs, and it has been postulated that they can be used to find a canonical set of units: a unique and complete list of atomic features. We cast doubt on this belief using two novel techniques: SAE stitching to show they are incomplete, and meta-SAEs to show they are not atomic. SAE stitching involves inserting or swapping latents from a larger SAE into a smaller one. Latents from the larger SAE can be divided into two categories: novel latents, which improve performance when added to the smaller SAE, indicating they capture novel information, and reconstruction latents, which can replace corresponding latents in the smaller SAE that have similar behavior. The existence of novel features indicates incompleteness of smaller SAEs. Using meta-SAEs -SAEs trained on the decoder matrix of another SAE -we find that latents in SAEs often decompose into combinations of latents from a smaller SAE, showing that larger SAE latents are not atomic. The resulting decompositions are often interpretable; e.g. a latent representing "Einstein" decomposes into "scientist", "Germany", and "famous person". To train meta-SAEs we introduce BatchTopK SAEs, an improved variant of the popular TopK SAE method, that only enforces a fixed average sparsity. Even if SAEs do not find canonical units of analysis, they may still be useful tools. We suggest that future research should either pursue different approaches for identifying such units, or pragmatically choose the SAE size suited to their task. We provide an interactive dashboard to explore meta-SAEs: https://metasaes.streamlit.app/
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 a8e30ef1-3ce2-471d-a3d4-b8a0fb2afa39Cited by top-tier papers24
- Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different FeaturesGonçalo Paulo, Nora BelroseICLR 2026 · 96 citations
- Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept GeometrySai Sumedh R. Hindupur, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Thomas Fel, Demba BaNeurIPS 2025 · 65 citations
- I Have Covered All the Bases Here: Interpreting Reasoning Features in Large Language Models via Sparse AutoencodersAndrey V. Galichin, Alexey Dontsov, Polina Druzhinina, Anton Razzhigaev et al.AAAI 2026 · 31 citations
- Beyond Prompt Engineering: Robust Behavior Control in LLMs via Steering Target AtomsMengru Wang, Ziwen Xu, Shengyu Mao, Shumin Deng et al.ACL 2025 · 19 citations
- Dense SAE Latents Are Features, Not BugsXiaoqing Sun, Alessandro Stolfo, Joshua Engels, Ben Wu et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 19 citations
Builds on11
- Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTKevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan BelinkovNeurIPS 2022 · 3,415 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
- Language Models Represent Space and TimeWes Gurnee, Max TegmarkICLR 2024 · 303 citations
- Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural RepresentationsYamini Bansal, Preetum Nakkiran, Boaz BarakNeurIPS 2021 · 253 citations
- Transcoders find interpretable LLM feature circuitsJacob Dunefsky, Philippe Chlenski, Neel NandaNeurIPS 2024 · 222 citations
Related papers
- Mechanistic Interpretability Should Prioritize Feature Consistency in Sparse AutoencodersXiangchen Song, Aashiq Muhamed, Yujia Zheng, Lingjing Kong et al.ACL 2026
- 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
- On the Limits of Sparse Autoencoders: A Theoretical Framework and Reweighted RemedyJingyi Cui, Qi Zhang, Yifei Wang, Yisen WangICLR 2026 · 16 citations
- Revising and Falsifying Sparse Autoencoder Feature ExplanationsGeorge Ma, Samuel Pfrommer, Somayeh SojoudiNeurIPS 2025 · 7 citations
- Interpretable and Steerable Concept Bottleneck Sparse AutoencodersAkshay Kulkarni, Tsui-Wei Weng, Vivek Narayanaswamy, Shusen Liu et al.CVPR 2026 · 6 citations
