Superposition Without Interference? Towards Isolated Interventions via Almost Orthogonal Features in Language Models

Bernhard Sch\"olkopf; Florent Draye; Moritz Miller

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

By regularizing the SAE decoder to be almost orthogonal, this paper tries to show that single-feature interventions become isolated: swapping a name feature changes the generated name while math reasoning accuracy stays flat.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:09 UTC pith:UMABJDN7

load-bearing objection Worth reading for the intervention experiment, but the theoretical wrapper in Section 3 is broken and the code has not been released despite the abstract's promise. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.04718 v4 pith:UMABJDN7 submitted 2026-02-04 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Superposition Without Interference? Towards Isolated Interventions via Almost Orthogonal Features in Language Models

Moritz Miller , Florent Draye , Bernhard Sch\"olkopf This is my paper

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

keywords sparse autoencodersfeature interventionsorthogonality regularizationself-coherencedictionary identifiabilitymechanistic interpretabilitylanguage model fine-tuning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that adding an orthogonality penalty to the decoder of a sparse autoencoder, then fine-tuning a language model around that SAE, makes individual features directly intervenable: changing one feature (for instance swapping the name 'Jerry' for 'Aquaman') changes the generated text without breaking the model's mathematical reasoning. It connects this to the Independent Causal Mechanisms principle and to classical dictionary-learning identifiability, arguing that low self-coherence is the geometric condition that isolates interventions. The empirical core shows that on GSM8K word problems the penalty preserves accuracy while the fraction of correctly included swapped names rises from about 60% to about 71% as the penalty increases. The paper itself notes that the approach may not generalize to unstructured text, reporting factually incorrect generations on wikitext, and that a clear theoretical link rests on an unstated frame assumption.

Core claim

The central claim is that the discrepancy between an idealized isolated intervention and its actual effect on model outputs is governed by the self-coherence of the SAE feature dictionary, and that penalizing off-diagonal inner products of the decoder matrix shrinks this gap. Concretely, the paper fine-tunes a 2B language model around a fixed TopK SAE whose decoder was optimized with an orthogonality penalty, and shows that for penalty strength 1e-4, swapping a first-name feature with an 'aqua' feature turns 'Jerry' into 'Aquaman' in generated text while the arithmetic answer (e.g., 624 pages) remains correct. The authors report that correct name inclusion after feature swap rises monotonica

What carries the argument

The engine is the orthogonality penalty ∥tril(DᵀD)∥_F² appended to the SAE reconstruction loss, which forces the decoder dictionary atoms toward mutual orthogonality; the theoretical glue is finite-frame analysis/synthesis operators T and T*, used to derive Theorem 3.1, which states that post-intervention re-encoding of a residual stream produces coefficient shifts z′_j = z_j + α⟨f_j, f_l⟩, so total interference equals the ℓ1 norm of the combined frame coefficients of the intervened features and grows with feature alignment.

Load-bearing premise

The theoretical bound treats the SAE encoder as the exact adjoint of the decoder (a Parseval/tight frame), but the separately trained TopK encoder used in experiments does not satisfy that relation, so the claimed link between dictionary orthogonality and intervention isolation is not directly supported by the proof.

What would settle it

Take a reconstruction x = D z, intervene on feature l by adding α e_l, and re-encode the result with the actual SAE encoder to obtain z″; if z″_j deviates systematically from z_j + α⟨f_j, f_l⟩ even when the dictionary is nearly orthogonal, the theorem's mechanism does not explain the observed interventions and the empirical name-swap gains require an alternative account.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

With penalty λ ≥ 1e-6, the fraction of correctly included names after feature swap improves monotonically, reaching ~70.9% at λ=1e-4, while GSM8K accuracy stays statistically flat.
Lower self-coherence, guaranteed by the orthogonality penalty, directly connects to dictionary-learning identifiability: for a given sparsity level, the sparse decomposition becomes unique.
Feature explanations become semantically more distinct: the average pairwise cosine similarity of embedded explanations decreases as the penalty strengthens.
The paper reports that on wikitext the fine-tuned model generates factually incorrect content, suggesting the orthogonality benefit may be specific to highly structured tasks like math word problems.
Dead features increase with penalty strength (at λ=1e-3 less than half the feature budget is used), which the paper attributes to a better-conditioned basis, while acknowledging it could partly reflect optimization artifacts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The linear-shift prediction of Theorem 3.1 can be tested directly: re-encode an intervened reconstruction with the actual TopK encoder and compare z″_j to z_j + α⟨f_j, f_l⟩; if the discrepancy is large even for near-orthogonal dictionaries, the empirical gains need a different explanation than the frame-theoretic one.
A stronger causal-isolation test would intervene on two features simultaneously and check whether the joint effect equals the sum of individual effects; the paper's theory predicts interference grows with the ℓ1 norm of combined frame coefficients, but the experimental protocol only tests single-feature swaps.
If orthogonalization indeed reduces superposition, attack success rates on adversarial or prompt-injection inputs should drop — a directly testable comparison between λ=0 and λ=1e-4 models.
The same orthogonality regularization could be applied to other SAE variants (e.g., JumpReLU) or inserted at different layers; if the name-swap improvement persists, that would support the geometric explanation over architecture-specific quirks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

Worth reading for the intervention experiment, but the theoretical wrapper in Section 3 is broken and the code has not been released despite the abstract's promise.

read the letter

This paper has a useful empirical recipe and a theoretical argument that does not hold as stated. The core finding — that an orthogonality penalty on an SAE decoder plus LoRA fine-tuning around that SAE yields more isolated name-feature interventions — is plausible and worth a look. On a small but consistent set, the name-inclusion rate goes from roughly 60% to 71% at lambda=1e-4 with no drop in GSM8K accuracy. I also find the explanation-embedding cosine similarity result neat, and the framing around dictionary identifiability is sensible even if not deeply developed.

The soft spots are real. Section 3's derivation assumes that the SAE's sparse coefficients z are the analysis coefficients of the residual stream under the decoder frame, i.e., z_j = . That requires the encoder to be the adjoint of the decoder, which a separately trained TopK encoder almost certainly is not. The stress-test note is right: the algebra in the proof of Theorem 3.1 does not go through for an overcomplete dictionary. And even if it did, the abstract promises an upper bound on interference in terms of self-coherence, but the theorem gives a norm identity, not a bound. The theory as written should not be the load-bearing justification for the experiments.

Empirically, the alpha sweep is performed on the same 3960 examples used for the headline results, so the reported best-case numbers are selected on the evaluation set. That is an overfitting risk, though the fact that all four models settle on the same alpha=200 makes it a softer problem than a fully per-model cherry-pick. The dataset itself is small: 30 hand-built templates and 12 manually chosen name features. The abstract says the code is at a public GitHub URL, but Appendix D.1 says it will be released in a future version — that is a flat contradiction and needs fixing. There's also a stray mention of lambda=1e-3 in the Discussion, even though only 0, 1e-6, 1e-5, and 1e-4 were trained. Minor, but it points to hasty writing.

Who should read this? Interpretability researchers working on SAE-based interventions or dictionary regularization. The empirical setup is simple and probably reproducible, and the intervention protocol — while tiny — is a concrete way to measure isolation. If the theory is repaired or removed, the empirical contribution can stand on its own. I would not cite it yet, but I would bring it to a reading group to discuss the methodology and the theory gap.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but only with a clear request to fix or drop the theorem, release the code and data with a commit hash, and evaluate alpha on a held-out subset. A desk reject would be too harsh given the promising empirical direction.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes regularizing the decoder matrix of a TopK sparse autoencoder with an orthogonality penalty and fine-tuning a language model around that SAE. It claims that the resulting almost-orthogonal features are more identifiable and more amenable to isolated interventions: swapping a name feature changes the generated name while preserving mathematical reasoning accuracy on GSM8K. The theoretical contribution is presented in Section 3, where the authors use finite frame theory to relate feature interference to pairwise inner products and claim an upper bound on interference in terms of dictionary self-coherence. Experiments compare four penalties (λ = 0, 1e-6, 1e-5, 1e-4) on orthogonality loss, GSM8K accuracy, interpretability, explanation diversity, and intervention success.

Significance. If the empirical findings hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to mechanistic interpretability: it demonstrates a practical way to impose structure on SAE features and reports a plausible improvement in name-feature intervention success (≈60% to ≈71%) without degrading GSM8K accuracy. The code is promised, the experimental details are extensive, and the paper is honest about limitations, including poor generation on wikitext and the proof-of-concept scope. However, the theoretical derivation in Section 3 is invalid as written: it conflates the SAE encoder with the frame analysis operator and implicitly assumes an identity Gram matrix for an overcomplete dictionary. The abstract's promised upper bound in terms of self-coherence is not actually proved. The empirical intervention results may stand independently, but the proposed mechanism is not established by the theory, so the paper needs substantial revision.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Eqs. (4)–(5), Appendix C] The derivation of the post-intervention coefficients assumes that z, the SAE encoder output, equals the analysis coefficients T x~ = {<x~, f_j>} of the reconstruction under the decoder frame. In the actual TopK SAE (Section 2.2), z = TopK(E x + b_E); there is no reason for z = T x~. More importantly, the re-analysis step is algebraically wrong. Let G = D^T D. Since x~' = D(z + α e_l), the analysis coefficients are T x~' = G(z + α e_l) = G z + α G_{·l}, not z + α G_{·l}. The identity G z = z requires G = I_d, which is impossible for d ≫ m because rank(G) ≤ m. Thus Theorem 3.1 actually computes ∥(I−G)z − α G_{·l}∥_1 (with multiple interventions summed), and the stated formula ∥Σ_c α_c T f_{j(c)}∥_1 omits the generally large, data-dependent term (I−G)z. This is load-bearing: the claimed theoretical link between dictionary orthogonality and intervention isolation relies on this incorrect ide
[Abstract; Section 3, Theorem 3.1] The abstract promises an upper bound on feature interference in terms of self-coherence, but Theorem 3.1 provides only an equality, not a bound. The quantity ∥Σ_c α_c T f_{j(c)}∥_1 is the ℓ1 norm of a vector whose j-th entry is Σ_c α_c <f_j, f_{j(c)}>. A bound in terms of μ would require, for example, ∥T f_l∥_1 ≤ d μ or a sparsity-dependent improvement; neither is stated or proved. For d = 65,536, the trivial bound is very loose. If the intended contribution is to bound interference by self-coherence, the paper must state and prove the inequality explicitly. As written, the theorem merely defines an interference measure and does not support the abstract's claim.
[Section 4.4, Appendix D.4] The intervention coefficient α was selected by sweeping over {10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 500, 750} and choosing the value that gives the best performance, and the same test set is then used to report inclusion rates in Figure 6b. This post-selection is not reflected in the bootstrap intervals. The qualitative conclusion that stricter orthogonality improves name inclusion may still be true, but a fair evaluation should use a validation split for the α selection or report the full sensitivity of Figure 6b to α. At minimum, the selection procedure should be disclosed in the main text and caption.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1, Theorem 2.1 proof] In the Gershgorin argument, the text writes 'Gi,j ≤ µ' but the off-diagonal bound should be on absolute values, |Gi,j| ≤ µ. Please correct the inequality to avoid ambiguity.
[Section 3, Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1 is a direct computation rather than a deep theorem; consider calling it a Proposition or Lemma. Also, the quantity 'effinterference' should be defined before the theorem statement, not only in Appendix C.
[Appendix D.2] Typo: '2,000 features eper' should be '2,000 features per'.
[Figure 6 caption] The caption says 'the correct inclusion of the included first name'; this phrasing is circular. Better: 'fraction of generations containing the injected name'.
[Section 4.3] The text in Section 4.3 says the explanation similarity 'significantly increases with looser orthogonality penalty.' This is correct, but the following sentence 'Our penalty therefore pushes features to be geometrically less aligned' would be clearer if it explicitly said 'relative to the unpenalized SAE', since Figure 5 shows a comparison across λ.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Section 3's interference theorem is a definitional identity; intervention amplitude is tuned on the evaluation set.

specific steps

self definitional [Section 3, Theorem 3.1 and Appendix C, Definition C.1]
"We define the effect of interference on feature j as the absolute difference between the reanalyzed coefficient after intervention (4), z′_j and the pre-intervention coefficient z_j. ... The total interference effect we define by effinterference = ∥z − z′∥_1. ... Reanalyzing using (4), we obtain the new coefficients z′_j = ⟨˜x′, f_j⟩ + α⟨f_j, f_l⟩ = z_j + α⟨f_j, f_l⟩. ... Theorem 3.1 ... effinterference = ||∑ α_c T f_{j(c)}||_1."

Interference is defined as the change in the reanalyzed coefficients, and the reanalysis formula already computes that change as a linear function of the inner products ⟨f_j, f_l⟩. The theorem's conclusion that interference grows with inner product is therefore a restatement of the definition of 'interference' together with the reanalysis identity. It is not a derived bound from frame theory; it is the target quantity unpacked by construction. The paper presents this as the theoretical link between dictionary orthogonality and intervention isolation, but the link is true by definition.
fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4 and Appendix D.4]
"We therefore run a broad hyperparameter sweep on values from 10 to 750. We choose the hyperparameter that results in the best performance for each of the models. Then, we check whether the respective first names are adequately dropped and included. ... We sweep over the following values for the associated coefficient z_j, j ∈ [d], {10,20,50,100,150,200,300,500,750}. By doing so, we find that a value of 200 yields the best performance across all four models. Using this value, we evaluate both drop and include interventions."

The intervention amplitude α is selected by maximizing the same performance metrics (reasoning accuracy and name inclusion) on the same 3,960-example evaluation set that is later reported in Figure 6. Thus the reported 'isolated intervention works' numbers are in-sample best-case values after tuning on the evaluation labels, not an independent prediction. The comparison across λ is not forced because α=200 is used for all models, but the absolute success rates and the choice of protocol are fitted to the reported metric.

full rationale

The paper's empirical pipeline is mostly self-contained: it compares GSM8K accuracy across orthogonality penalties, uses an external SAE benchmark, and does not rely on self-citations to establish its main empirical trend. However, the theoretical result in Section 3 (Theorem 3.1) is not an independent derivation: 'interference' is defined as the change in reanalyzed coefficients, and the reanalysis formula already computes that change as α⟨f_j,f_l⟩. The theorem's conclusion that interference grows with inner product is the definition unpacked, not a frame-theoretic bound. The abstract's promise of an upper bound is also not delivered—the theorem is an equality. Additionally, the intervention amplitude α is selected by maximizing performance on the same evaluation set used for the reported intervention metrics, making the absolute numbers in-sample. The comparison across λ is less affected because α=200 is applied to all models, so the paper's central empirical trend has independent content. Score 6 reflects partial circularity in the theoretical claim and the evaluation protocol, while acknowledging that the empirical comparison across orthogonality penalties is not itself forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or ontological entities are introduced. 'Feature interference' is a defined mathematical quantity derived from the Gram matrix, not an added entity. The main free parameters are the intervention coefficient alpha and the penalty lambda; the main unstated assumption is that the SAE encoder behaves like the frame analysis operator of the decoder.

free parameters (3)

Intervention coefficient alpha = 200 (swept over 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 500, 750)
Chosen as the value giving best performance on the same 3,960-example evaluation set used to report intervention results; no held-out tuning or multiple-comparison correction is described.
Orthogonality penalty lambda = 0, 1e-6, 1e-5, 1e-4
Main treatment hyperparameter; the four values are chosen by hand and are not tuned against a separate validation set, though the paper treats lambda as the variable of interest.
TopK sparsity K = 20
Fixed without ablation; intervention behavior and interference could depend on the level of sparsity.

axioms (4)

ad hoc to paper The SAE encoder E is (or is approximately) the analysis operator T of the decoder frame, so re-encoding an intervened reconstruction yields z_j + alpha <f_l, f_j>.
Invoked implicitly in Section 3's 'reanalyzing' step; requires the Parseval/tight-frame condition TT*=I, which is not stated, derived, or enforced.
domain assumption SAE features correspond to human-interpretable atomic concepts (linear representation hypothesis).
Used throughout to equate decoder-atom orthogonality with semantic distinctness and to justify treating the 12 name features as well-defined concepts.
domain assumption The Independent Causal Mechanisms principle is an appropriate normative criterion for representation-space interventions in language models.
Motivates the whole approach; it is a philosophical/statistical principle imported from causality, not derived for SAE dictionaries.
standard math Classical coherence bounds (Theorem 2.1 and Welch/Waldron bounds) apply to the trained SAE dictionary.
Restated to connect self-coherence to identifiability; Theorem 2.1 assumes unit-norm columns, which the orthogonality penalty does not explicitly enforce.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17936 in / 13972 out tokens · 153205 ms · 2026-08-04T06:09:12.726680+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

A central premise in mechanistic interpretability is that meaningful concepts in language models are represented by linear features in activation space. For such features to support reliable interventions, manipulating one feature should not substantially alter the effects of others. In practice, however, feature entanglement leads to interference such that localized interventions can have unintended downstream effects. Motivated by the _Independent Causal Mechanisms_ principle, we propose to constrain internal features to be almost orthogonal. We argue that this promotes modular representations amenable to causal intervention. We formalize this problem by characterizing the gap between an idealized isolated intervention and its realized effect on model outputs in terms of feature interference. We upper-bound the propagation of feature interference in terms of the self-coherence of the feature dictionary, and relate this discrepancy to an explicit orthogonality regularization on the dictionary itself. Empirically, we show that this regularization enables more isolated interventions on mathematical reasoning concepts while preserving model performance. Our code is available under https://github.com/mrtzmllr/sae-icm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.04718 by Bernhard Sch\"olkopf, Florent Draye, Moritz Miller.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Intervention on SAE Feature We query a LM fine-tuned on the orthogonality penalty 10−4 . At inference, we exchange the feature associated with Jerry with the feature corresponding to the prefix aqua. The model then substitutes Jerry for Aquaman while maintaining its reasoning capabilities. With this in mind, we study interventions in the SAE under the ICM principle. By enforcing almost orthogonality inside… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Orthogonality Evaluation Loss We plot the orthogonality loss ∥tril(D⊤D)∥ 2 F for all values of λ. For each λ, we evaluate on a subset of 1 ′ 024 active features in the decoder. Error bars represent confidence intervals obtained from running 100 evaluations. 4.1. Almost Orthogonality While Keeping Performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Evaluation on GSM8K We evaluate on the GSM8K test set. Error bars represent the basic bootstrap confidence intervals (Efron, 1979) on 100 randomly drawn datasets. fore check the interpretability of our SAEs under different orthogonality penalties. For this, we create LM-generated explanations for 2 ′000 activated features in each of our finetuned SAEs. We do so providing 20 text snippets which activate t… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Interpretability Score We plot the interpretability score of correctly identifying one out of five examples, which relates closest to the provided explanation. Error bars are basic bootstrap confidence intervals (Efron, 1979) with 100 resamples. We then ask Llama 3.1 8B-Instruct to match one of five text snippets to the corresponding feature explanation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Intervenability We intervene on 12 features in the SAE corresponding to the concept of first names. Then, we evaluate the ability to maintain reasoning performance and the correct generation of the included first name. generation. In particular, every time a certain feature is activated in the residual stream, we swap it for a different one. We then check if the model remains capable of reasoning about th… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Interventions in the SAE We perform interventions in the SAE by turning off the intervened on feature and adding to the residual stream the feature we replace with. 5. Related Work Identifiability Identifiability in sparse dictionary learning is centered around the uniqueness bound in Theorem 2.1 and low self-coherence in general. Beyond conventional dictionary learning, self-coherence (Nejati et al., 201… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Dead Features We plot the fraction of dead features with increasing orthogonality penalty. Error bars are basic bootstrap confidence intervals (Efron, 1979). Limitations Our study is focused on meaningful interventions in the residual stream. Choosing the off-the-shelf SAEBench (Karvonen et al., 2025) module as a starting point, we insert the SAE only after layer 12. In consequence, we are constrained to … view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Intrinsically Interpretable Attention via Sparse Post-Training
cs.LG 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

Sparsity-regularised post-training can cut LLM attention connectivity to ~0.4% while keeping loss near baseline, yielding up to 100x smaller interpretable circuits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[4]

org/CorpusID:255749463

URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:255749463. Gershgorin, S. Uber die abgrenzung der eigenwerte einer matrix.Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Serija Matematika, 7(3):749–754, 1931. Gorton, L. and Lewis, O. Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are superposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17456, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2508.17456. Guo, S....

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1931
[8]

The spans describe

doi: 10.1101/2025.10.22.681631. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/ early/2025/10/23/2025.10.22.681631. Peters, J., B ¨uhlmann, P., and Meinshausen, N. Causal in- ference by using invariant prediction: Identification and confidence intervals.Journal of the Royal Statistical So- ciety Series B: Statistical Methodology, 78(5):947–1012, 10 2016. ISSN 1369-7...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[2006]

cc/paper_files/paper/2006/file/ 2d71b2ae158c7c5912cc0bbde2bb9d95-Paper

URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2006/file/ 2d71b2ae158c7c5912cc0bbde2bb9d95-Paper. pdf. Li, Y ., Michaud, E. J., Baek, D. D., Engels, J., Sun, X., and Tegmark, M. The geometry of concepts: Sparse autoencoder feature structure.Entropy, 27(4):344, 2025. Locatello, F., Bauer, S., Lucic, M., Raetsch, G., Gelly, S., Sch¨olkopf, B., and Ba...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[2016]

Olshausen, B

doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2016.7472572. Olshausen, B. A. and Field, D. J. Sparse coding with an over- complete basis set: A strategy employed by v1?Vision Research, 37(23):3311–3325, 1997. ISSN 0042-6989. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00169-7. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0042698997001697. Pach, M., Karthik, S., Bouniot, ...

arXiv 2016
[2021]

org/CorpusID:235458009

URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:235458009. Hyv¨arinen, A. and Pajunen, P. Nonlinear independent component analysis: Existence and uniqueness results. Neural Networks, 12(3):429–439, 1999. ISSN 0893-6080. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-6080(98)00140-3. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0893608098001403. Janzing, D. a...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[2022]

pub/2022/toy_model/index.html

URL https://transformer-circuits. pub/2022/toy_model/index.html. Gao, L., la Tour, T. D., Tillman, H., Goh, G., Troll, R., Radford, A., Sutskever, I., Leike, J., and Wu, J. Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025a. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=tcsZt9ZNKD. Gao, L., Raja...

arXiv 2022
[2023]

org/CorpusID:261934663

URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:261934663. Donoho, D. L., Elad, M., and Temlyakov, V . N. Stable recovery of sparse overcomplete representations in the presence of noise.IEEE Transactions on information theory, 52(1):6–18, 2005. Dorszewski, T., Tˇetkov´a, L., Jenssen, R., Hansen, L. K., and Wickstrøm, K. K. From colors to classes: Emergence ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[2025]

URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v267/chen25r.html. Chen, M. C., Miller, M., Sch¨olkopf, B., and Guo, S. On the emergence and test-time use of structural information in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.17869, 2026. Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V ., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., Hess...

arXiv 2026

[1] [4]

org/CorpusID:255749463

URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:255749463. Gershgorin, S. Uber die abgrenzung der eigenwerte einer matrix.Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Serija Matematika, 7(3):749–754, 1931. Gorton, L. and Lewis, O. Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are superposition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17456, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2508.17456. Guo, S....

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1931

[2] [8]

The spans describe

doi: 10.1101/2025.10.22.681631. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/ early/2025/10/23/2025.10.22.681631. Peters, J., B ¨uhlmann, P., and Meinshausen, N. Causal in- ference by using invariant prediction: Identification and confidence intervals.Journal of the Royal Statistical So- ciety Series B: Statistical Methodology, 78(5):947–1012, 10 2016. ISSN 1369-7...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[3] [2006]

cc/paper_files/paper/2006/file/ 2d71b2ae158c7c5912cc0bbde2bb9d95-Paper

URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2006/file/ 2d71b2ae158c7c5912cc0bbde2bb9d95-Paper. pdf. Li, Y ., Michaud, E. J., Baek, D. D., Engels, J., Sun, X., and Tegmark, M. The geometry of concepts: Sparse autoencoder feature structure.Entropy, 27(4):344, 2025. Locatello, F., Bauer, S., Lucic, M., Raetsch, G., Gelly, S., Sch¨olkopf, B., and Ba...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

[4] [2016]

Olshausen, B

doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2016.7472572. Olshausen, B. A. and Field, D. J. Sparse coding with an over- complete basis set: A strategy employed by v1?Vision Research, 37(23):3311–3325, 1997. ISSN 0042-6989. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00169-7. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0042698997001697. Pach, M., Karthik, S., Bouniot, ...

arXiv 2016

[5] [2021]

org/CorpusID:235458009

URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:235458009. Hyv¨arinen, A. and Pajunen, P. Nonlinear independent component analysis: Existence and uniqueness results. Neural Networks, 12(3):429–439, 1999. ISSN 0893-6080. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-6080(98)00140-3. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0893608098001403. Janzing, D. a...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

[6] [2022]

pub/2022/toy_model/index.html

URL https://transformer-circuits. pub/2022/toy_model/index.html. Gao, L., la Tour, T. D., Tillman, H., Goh, G., Troll, R., Radford, A., Sutskever, I., Leike, J., and Wu, J. Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025a. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=tcsZt9ZNKD. Gao, L., Raja...

arXiv 2022

[7] [2023]

org/CorpusID:261934663

URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:261934663. Donoho, D. L., Elad, M., and Temlyakov, V . N. Stable recovery of sparse overcomplete representations in the presence of noise.IEEE Transactions on information theory, 52(1):6–18, 2005. Dorszewski, T., Tˇetkov´a, L., Jenssen, R., Hansen, L. K., and Wickstrøm, K. K. From colors to classes: Emergence ...

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

[8] [2025]

URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/ v267/chen25r.html. Chen, M. C., Miller, M., Sch¨olkopf, B., and Guo, S. On the emergence and test-time use of structural information in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.17869, 2026. Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V ., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., Hess...

arXiv 2026