Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders
Leo Gao, Tom Dupré la Tour, Henk Tillman, Gabriel Goh, Rajan Troll, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Jeffrey Wu
Abstract
Sparse autoencoders provide a promising unsupervised approach for extracting interpretable features from a language model by reconstructing activations from a sparse bottleneck layer. Since language models learn many concepts, autoencoders need to be very large to recover all relevant features. However, studying the properties of autoencoder scaling is difficult due to the need to balance reconstruction and sparsity objectives and the presence of dead latents. We propose using k-sparse autoencoders [Makhzani and Frey, 2013] to directly control sparsity, simplifying tuning and improving the reconstruction-sparsity frontier. Additionally, we find modifications that result in few dead latents, even at the largest scales we tried. Using these techniques, we find clean scaling laws with respect to autoencoder size and sparsity. We also introduce several new metrics for evaluating feature quality based on the recovery of hypothesized features, the explainability of activation patterns, and the sparsity of downstream effects. These metrics all generally improve with autoencoder size. To demonstrate the scalability of our approach, we train a 16 million latent autoencoder on GPT-4 activations for 40 billion tokens. We release training code and autoencoders for open-source models, as well as a visualizer.
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 cec6e344-0745-4630-82f7-8ec960eedc38Cited by top-tier papers237
- 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
- Persona Features Control Emergent MisalignmentMiles Wang, Tom Dupré la Tour, Olivia Watkins, Aleksandar Makelov et al.ICLR 2026 · 81 citations
- Sparse Autoencoders Learn Monosemantic Features in Vision-Language ModelsMateusz Pach, Shyamgopal Karthik, Quentin Bouniot, Serge J. Belongie et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 79 citations
- Measuring Progress in Dictionary Learning for Language Model Interpretability with Board Game ModelsAdam Karvonen, Benjamin Wright, Can Rager, Rico Angell et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 66 citations
Builds on9
- PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural LanguageYonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao et al.AAAI 2020 · 2,916 citations
- Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention SinksGuangxuan Xiao, Yuandong Tian, Beidi Chen, Song Han et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,714 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
- Aligning AI With Shared Human ValuesDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch et al.ICLR 2021 · 878 citations
- Unified Scaling Laws for Routed Language ModelsAidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Arthur Mensch et al.ICML 2022 · 266 citations
Related papers
- Automatically Interpreting Millions of Features in Large Language ModelsGonçalo Paulo, Alex Mallen, Caden Juang, Nora BelroseICML 2025
- Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse AutoencodersSenthooran Rajamanoharan, Arthur Conmy, Lewis Smith, Tom Lieberum et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 49 citations
- SAEBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Sparse Autoencoders in Language Model InterpretabilityAdam Karvonen, Can Rager, Johnny Lin, Curt Tigges et al.ICML 2025
- Sparse but Wrong: Incorrect L0 Leads to Incorrect Features in Sparse AutoencodersDavid Chanin, Adrià Garriga-AlonsoICML 2026 · 8 citations
- Automated Interpretability Metrics Do Not Distinguish Trained and Random TransformersThomas Heap, Tim Lawson, Lucy Farnik, Laurence AitchisonICLR 2026 · 32 citations
