One Language, Two Scripts: Probing Script-Invariance in LLM Concept Representations
Sripad Karne
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Do the features learned by Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) represent abstract meaning, or are they tied to how text is written? We investigate this question using Serbian digraphia as a controlled testbed: Serbian is written interchangeably in Latin and Cyrillic scripts with a near-perfect character mapping between them, enabling us to vary orthography while holding meaning exactly constant. Crucially, these scripts are t ...
okenized completely differently, sharing no tokens whatsoever. Analyzing SAE feature activations across the Gemma model family (270M-27B parameters), we find that identical sentences in different Serbian scripts activate highly overlapping features, far exceeding random baselines. Strikingly, changing script causes less representational divergence than paraphrasing within the same script, suggesting SAE features prioritize meaning over orthographic form. Cross-script cross-paraphrase comparisons provide evidence against memorization, as these combinations rarely co-occur in training data yet still exhibit substantial feature overlap. This script invariance strengthens with model scale. Taken together, our findings suggest that SAE features can capture semantics at a level of abstraction above surface tokenization, and we propose Serbian digraphia as a general evaluation paradigm for probing the abstractness of learned representations.
Results & Benchmarks
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Do the features learned by Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) represent abstract meaning, or are they tied to how text is written?
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.