Constructing Interpretable Features from Compositional Neuron Groups
Or David Shafran, Atticus Geiger, Mor Geva
Abstract
A central goal for mechanistic interpretability has been to identify the right units of analysis in large language models (LLMs) that causally explain their outputs. While early work focused on individual neurons, evidence that neurons often encode multiple concepts has motivated a shift toward analyzing directions in activation space. A key question is how to find directions that capture interpretable features in an unsupervised manner. Current methods rely on dictionary learning with sparse autoencoders (SAEs), commonly trained over residual stream activations to learn directions from scratch. However, SAEs often struggle in causal evaluations and lack intrinsic interpretability, as their learning is not explicitly tied to the computations of the model. Here, we tackle these limitations by directly decomposing MLP activations with semi-nonnegative matrix factorization (SNMF), such that the learned features are (a) sparse linear combinations of co-activated neurons, and (b) mapped to their activating inputs, making them directly interpretable. Experiments on Llama 3.1, Gemma 2 and GPT-2 show that SNMF derived features outperform SAEs and a strong supervised baseline (difference-in-means) on causal steering, while aligning with human-interpretable concepts. Further analysis reveals that specific neuron combinations are reused across semantically-related features, exposing a hierarchical structure in the MLP's activation space. Together, these results position SNMF as a simple and effective tool for identifying interpretable features and dissecting concept representations in LLMs.
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 da50b7ca-ac71-4311-bf1b-b30a57da5dd8Builds on20
- Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language ModelsRobert Huben, Hoagy Cunningham, Logan Riggs Smith, Aidan Ewart et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,072 citations
- Pay Attention to MLPsHanxiao Liu, Zihang Dai, David R. So, Quoc V. LeNeurIPS 2021 · 912 citations
- The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language ModelsKiho Park, Yo Joong Choe, Victor VeitchICML 2024 · 461 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
Related papers
- From Directions to Regions: Decomposing Activations in Language Models via Local GeometryOr Shafran, Shaked Ronen, Omri Fahn, Shauli Ravfogel et al.ICML 2026 · 7 citations
- Revising and Falsifying Sparse Autoencoder Feature ExplanationsGeorge Ma, Samuel Pfrommer, Somayeh SojoudiNeurIPS 2025 · 7 citations
- Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different FeaturesGonçalo Paulo, Nora BelroseICLR 2026 · 96 citations
- Route Sparse Autoencoder to Interpret Large Language ModelsWei Shi, Sihang Li, Tao Liang, Mingyang Wan et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- Scaling Sparse Feature Circuits For Studying In-Context LearningDmitrii Kharlapenko, Stepan Shabalin, Arthur Conmy, Neel NandaICML 2025
