Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Active Budget Can Kill Sensitivity: Diagnosing and Repairing TopK Sparse Autoencoder Reliability

Zhenting Huang, Junnan Liu, Qianren Mao, Zhixing Tan +1 more

Published

Sep 29, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

40/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Sep 29, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
40/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations. However, a feature is useful for interpretation only if it remains a stable unit of analysis when the same meaning is expressed in different surface forms. We study this reliability question for TopK SAEs via feature sensitivity. Experiments demonstrate that scaling selectively reduces the sensitivity of rare features, while common features remain comparatively stable. A controlled width\(\times k\) factorial experiment identifies the active budget k as the root cause: the degradation arises from the selection boundary rather than dictionary width alone. We attribute this failure to the geometry of TopK selection. The active margin, the distance to the cutoff, predicts feature loss without thresholds. Guided by this margin diagnosis, we introduce pairwise rank stabilization. Our method targets ordering failures at the cutoff and improves rare-feature sensitivity by \(8.83\) percentage points, while keeping reconstruction and alive-feature coverage near the baseline. Overall, our results suggest that wide TopK SAEs should be evaluated not only by reconstruction, sparsity, and feature count, but also by feature reliability under semantic variation and boundary geometry for stable interpretability.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

partial

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Pairwise Preference
Rater population
Not reported
Unit of annotation
Pairwise (inferred)
Expertise required
Medicine
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly scaled to wider dictionaries to recover fine-grained structure from large language model activations.
  • However, a feature is useful for interpretation only if it remains a stable unit of analysis when the same meaning is expressed in different surface forms.
  • We study this reliability question for TopK SAEs via feature sensitivity.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Contribution summary

  • Guided by this margin diagnosis, we introduce pairwise rank stabilization.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.