PreprintCited by 61Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Topic ModelingAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models

Open access
Cunningham, Hoagy, Ewart, Aidan, Riggs, Logan, Huben, Robert, Sharkey, Lee·2023·arXiv

Abstract

One of the roadblocks to a better understanding of neural networks' internals is \textit{polysemanticity}, where neurons appear to activate in multiple, semantically distinct contexts. Polysemanticity prevents us from identifying concise, human-understandable explanations for what neural networks are doing internally. One hypothesised cause of polysemanticity is \textit{superposition}, where neural networks represent more features than they have neurons by assigning features to an overcomplete set of directions in activation space, rather than to individual neurons. Here, we attempt to identify those directions, using sparse autoencoders to reconstruct the internal activations of a language model. These autoencoders learn sets of sparsely activating features that are more interpretable and monosemantic than directions identified by alternative approaches, where interpretability is measured by automated methods. Moreover, we show that with our learned set of features, we can pinpoint the features that are causally responsible for counterfactual behaviour on the indirect object identification task \citep{wang2022interpretability} to a finer degree than previous decompositions. This work indicates that it is possible to resolve superposition in language models using a scalable, unsupervised method. Our method may serve as a foundation for future mechanistic interpretability work, which we hope will enable greater model transparency and steerability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2309.08600

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The heuristic perspective that superposition exists in activation space has been used as a fundamental assumption in many works that address superposition.

    “However, this heuristic perspective has been used as a fundamental assumption in many works that address superposition (Cunningham et al. 2023; Bricken et al. 2023; (Templeton et al. 2024)).”
  • Some studies hypothesize that this superposition phenomenon also exists in language models and propose sparse autoencoder (SAE) and variants to disentangle superposition from activation space.

    “Some studies hypothesize that this superposition phenomenon also exists in language models and propose sparse autoencoder (SAE) (Cunningham et al. 2023) and its various variants (Rajamanoharan et al. 2024; Gao et al. 2024) to attempt to disentangle superposition from the activation space of language models (Bricken et al. 2023; Templeton et al. 2024).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, et al. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2397-2430. PMLR, 2023.
  2. Steven Bills, Nick Cammarata, Dan Mossing, Henk Tillman, Leo Gao, Gabriel Goh, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Jeff Wu, and William Saunders. Language models can explain neurons in lan- guage models. URL https://openaipublic. blob. core. windows. net/neuron-explainer/paper/index. html.(Date accessed: 14.05. 2023), 2023.
  3. Nick Cammarata, Gabriel Goh, Shan Carter, Chelsea Voss, Ludwig Schubert, and Chris Olah. Curve circuits. Distill, 2021. doi: 10.23915/distill.00024.006. https://distill.pub/2020/circuits/curve- circuits. · DOI
  4. Arthur Conmy, Augustine N Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim, and Adrià Garriga- Alonso. Towards automated circuit discovery for mechanistic interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14997, 2023. · arXiv
  5. Gonc ¸alo M Correia, Vlad Niculae, and André FT Martins. Adaptively sparse transformers. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 2174-2184, 2019.
  6. Tim Dettmers, Mike Lewis, Younes Belkada, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Llm. int8 (): 8-bit matrix multiplication for transformers at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07339, 2022. · arXiv
  7. Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, Nicholas Schiefer, Tom Henighan, Shauna Kravec, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Robert Lasenby, Dawn Drain, Carol Chen, et al. Toy models of superposi- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10652, 2022b. · arXiv
  8. Jonathan Frankle and Michael Carbin. The lottery ticket hypothesis: Finding sparse, trainable neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.03635, 2018. · arXiv
  9. Kunihiko Fukushima. Cognitron: A self-organizing multilayered neural network. Biol. Cybern., 20 (3-4):121-136, sep 1975. ISSN 0340-1200. doi: 10.1007/BF00342633. URL https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00342633. · DOI
  10. Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, et al. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2020. · arXiv
  11. Georgios Georgiadis. Accelerating convolutional neural networks via activation map compression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 7085-7095, 2019.
  12. Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Woodside. An overview of catastrophic ai risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12001, 2023. · arXiv
  13. Theodoros Kasioumis, Joe Townsend, and Hiroya Inakoshi. Elite backprop: Training sparse inter- pretable neurons. In NeSy, pp. 82-93, 2021.
  14. Honglak Lee, Alexis Battle, Rajat Raina, and Andrew Ng. Efficient sparse coding algorithms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 19, 2006.
  15. Clara Meister, Stefan Lazov, Isabelle Augenstein, and Ryan Cotterell. Is sparse attention more interpretable? In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235293798.
  16. Richard Ngo, Lawrence Chan, and Sören Mindermann. The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00626, 2022. · arXiv
  17. Chris Olah, Nick Cammarata, Ludwig Schubert, Gabriel Goh, Michael Petrov, and Shan Carter. Zoom in: An introduction to circuits. Distill, 5(3):e00024-001, 2020.
  18. Bruno A Olshausen and David J Field. Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: A strategy employed by v1? Vision research, 37(23):3311-3325, 1997.
  19. Bruno A Olshausen and David J Field. Sparse coding of sensory inputs. Current opinion in neuro- biology, 14(4):481-487, 2004.
  20. Qing Qu, Yuexiang Zhai, Xiao Li, Yuqian Zhang, and Zhihui Zhu. Analysis of the optimization landscapes for overcomplete representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02427, 2019. · arXiv
  21. Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12388-12401, 2020.
  22. Kevin Wang, Alexandre Variengien, Arthur Conmy, Buck Shlegeris, and Jacob Steinhardt. Inter- pretability in the wild: a circuit for indirect object identification in gpt-2 small. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00593, 2022. · arXiv
  23. John Wright and Yi Ma. High-dimensional data analysis with low-dimensional models: Principles, computation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2022.
  24. Zeyu Yun, Yubei Chen, Bruno A Olshausen, and Yann LeCun. Transformer visualization via dictio- nary learning: contextualized embedding as a linear superposition of transformer factors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15949, 2021. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cunningham, H., Ewart, A., Riggs, L., Huben, R., & Sharkey, L.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386839891
Cited by
61
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Open Philanthropy Project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
sparse autoencoders, polysemanticity, superposition, mechanistic interpretability, language models, feature attribution, counterfactual explanations, activation space, unsupervised feature learning, model transparency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review