Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have emerged as a promising tool for interpreting neural networks by decomposing their activations into sparse sets of human-interpretable features. Recent work has introduced multiple SAE variants and successfully scaled them to frontier models. Despite much excitement, a growing number of negative results in downstream tasks casts doubt on whether SAEs recover meaningful features. To directly investigate this, we perform two complementary evaluations. On a synthetic setup with known ground-truth features, we demonstrate that SAEs recover only $9\%$ of true features despite achieving $71\%$ explained variance, showing that they fail at their core task even when reconstruction is strong. To evaluate SAEs on real activations, we introduce three baselines that constrain SAE feature directions or their activation patterns to random values. Through extensive experiments across multiple SAE architectures, we show that our baselines match fully-trained SAEs in interpretability (0.87 vs 0.90), sparse probing (0.69 vs 0.72), and causal editing (0.73 vs 0.72). Together, these results suggest that SAEs in their current state do not reliably decompose models' internal mechanisms.

OrtSAE: Orthogonal Sparse Autoencoders Uncover Atomic Features

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are a technique for sparse decomposition of neural network activations into human-interpretable features. However, current SAEs suffer from feature absorption, where specialized features capture instances of general features creating representation holes, and feature composition, where independent features merge into composite representations. In this work, we introduce Orthogonal SAE (OrtSAE), a novel approach aimed to mitigate these issues by enforcing orthogonality between the learned features. By implementing a new training procedure that penalizes high pairwise cosine similarity between SAE features, OrtSAE promotes the development of disentangled features while scaling linearly with the SAE size, avoiding significant computational overhead. We train OrtSAE across different models and layers and compare it with other methods. We find that OrtSAE discovers 9% more distinct features, reduces feature absorption (by 65%) and composition (by 15%), improves performance on spurious correlation removal (+6%), and achieves on-par performance for other downstream tasks compared to traditional SAEs.

The Rogue Scalpel: Activation Steering Compromises LLM Safety

Activation steering is a promising technique for controlling LLM behavior by adding semantically meaningful vectors directly into a model's hidden states during inference. It is often framed as a precise, interpretable, and potentially safer alternative to fine-tuning. We demonstrate the opposite: steering systematically breaks model alignment safeguards, making it comply with harmful requests. Through extensive experiments on different model families, we show that even steering in a random direction can increase the probability of harmful compliance from 0% to 2-27%. Alarmingly, steering benign features from a sparse autoencoder (SAE), a common source of interpretable directions, increases these rates by a further 2-4%. Finally, we show that combining 20 randomly sampled vectors that jailbreak a single prompt creates a universal attack, significantly increasing harmful compliance on unseen requests. These results challenge the paradigm of safety through interpretability, showing that precise control over model internals does not guarantee precise control over model behavior.