Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders

Inputs: We train autoencoders on the residual streams of both GPT-2 small (Radford et al., 2019) and models from a series of increasing sized models sharing GPT-4 architecture and training setup, including GPT-4 itself (OpenAI, 2023)$^{2}$. We choose a layer near the end of the network, which should contain many features without being specialized for next-token predictions (see Section F.1 for more discussion). Specifically, we use a layer $\frac{5}{6}$ of the way into the network for GPT-4 series models, and we use layer 8 ($\frac{3}{4}$ of the way) for GPT-2 small. We use a context length of 64 tokens for all experiments. We subtract the mean over the $d_{\text{model}}$ dimension and normalize to all inputs to unit norm, prior to passing to the autoencoder (or computing reconstruction errors).

Evaluation: After training, we evaluate autoencoders on sparsity L$_{0}$, and reconstruction mean-squared error (MSE). We report a normalized version of all MSE numbers, where we divide by a baseline reconstruction error of always predicting the mean activations.

Hyperparameters: To simplify analysis, we do not consider learning rate warmup or decay unless otherwise noted. We sweep learning rates at small scales and extrapolate the trend of optimal learning rates for large scale. See Appendix A for other optimization details.

For an input vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ from the residual stream, and $n$ latent dimensions, we use baseline ReLU autoencoders from (Bricken et al., 2023). The encoder and decoder are defined by:

with $W_{\text{enc}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$, $b_{\text{enc}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $W_{\text{dec}}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times n}$, and $b_{\text{pre}}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$. The training loss is defined by $\mathcal{L}=||x-\hat{x}||^{2}_{2}+\lambda||z||_{1}$, where $||x-\hat{x}||^{2}_{2}$ is the reconstruction MSE, $||z||_{1}$ is an L$_{1}$ penalty promoting sparsity in latent activations $z$, and $\lambda$ is a hyperparameter that needs to be tuned.

We use a $k$-sparse autoencoder (Makhzani and Frey, 2013), which directly controls the number of active latents by using an activation function (TopK) that only keeps the $k$ largest latents, zeroing the rest. The encoder is thus defined as:

and the decoder is unchanged. The training loss is simply $\mathcal{L}=||x-\hat{x}||^{2}_{2}$.

Using $k$-sparse autoencoders has a number of benefits:

Dead latents pose another significant difficulty in autoencoder training. In larger autoencoders, an increasingly large proportion of latents stop activating entirely at some point in training. For example, Templeton et al. (2024) train a 34 million latent autoencoder with only 12 million alive latents, and in our ablations we find up to 90% dead latents$^{6}$ when no mitigations are applied (Figure 15). This results in substantially worse MSE and makes training computationally wasteful. We find two important ingredients for preventing dead latents: we initialize the encoder to the transpose of the decoder, and we use an auxiliary loss that models reconstruction error using the top-$k_{\text{aux}}$ dead latents (see Section A.2 for more details). Using these techniques, even in our largest (16 million latent) autoencoder only 7% of latents are dead.

Due to the broad capabilities of frontier models such as GPT-4, we hypothesize that faithfully representing model state will require large numbers of sparse features. We consider two primary approaches to choose autoencoder size and token budget:

Since language models are likely to keep growing in size, we would also like to understand how sparse autoencoders scale as the subject models get larger. We find that if we hold $k$ constant, larger subject models require larger autoencoders to achieve the same MSE, and the exponent is worse (Figure 4).

An autoencoder with non-zero reconstruction error may not succeed at modeling the features most relevant for behavior (Braun et al., 2024). To measure whether we model features relevant to language modeling, we follow prior work (Bills et al., 2023; Cunningham et al., 2023; Bricken et al., 2023; Braun et al., 2024) and consider downstream Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence and cross-entropy loss.$^{9}$ In both cases, we test an autoencoder by replacing the residual stream by the reconstructed value during the forward pass, and seeing how it affects downstream predictions. We find that $k$-sparse autoencoders improve more on downstream loss than on MSE over prior methods (Figure 5a). We also find that MSE has a clean power law relationship with both KL divergence, and difference of cross entropy loss (Figure 5b), when keeping sparsity L$_{0}$ fixed and only varying autoencoder size. Note that while this trend is clean for our trained autoencoders, we can observe instances where it breaks such as when modulating $k$ at test time (see Section 5.3).

One additional issue is that raw loss numbers alone are difficult to interpret—we would like to know how good it is in an absolute sense. Prior work (Bricken et al., 2023; Rajamanoharan et al., 2024) use the loss of ablating activations to zero as a baseline and report the fraction of loss recovered from that baseline. However, because ablating the residual stream to zero causes very high downstream loss, this means that even very poorly explaining the behavior can result in high scores.$^{10}$

Instead, we believe a more natural metric is to consider the relative amount of pretraining compute needed to train a language model of comparable downstream loss. For example, when our 16 million latent autoencoder is substituted into GPT-4, we get a language modeling loss corresponding to 10% of the pretraining compute of GPT-4.

If we expect that a specific feature (e.g sentiment, language identification) should be discovered by a high quality autoencoder, then one metric of autoencoder quality is to check whether these features are present. Based on this intuition, we curated a set of 61 binary classification datasets (details in Table 1). For each task, we train a 1d logistic probe on each latent using the Newton-Raphson method to predict the task, and record the best cross entropy loss (across latents).$^{11}$ That is:

where $z_{i}$ is the $i$th pre-activation autoencoder latent, and $y$ is a binary label.

Results on GPT-2 small are shown in 6(a). We find that probe score increases and then decreases as $k$ increases. We find that TopK generally achieves better probe scores than ReLU (Figure 23), and both are substantially better than when using directly residual stream channels. See Figure 32 for results on several GPT-4 autoencoders: we observe that this metric improves throughout training, despite there being no supervised training signal; and we find that it beats a baseline using channels of the residual stream. See Figure 33 for scores broken down by component.

This metric has the advantage that it is computationally cheap. However, it also has a major limitation, which is that it leans on strong assumptions about what kinds of features are natural.

Anecdotally, our autoencoders find many features that have quickly recognizable patterns that suggest explanations when viewing random activations (Section E.1). However, this can create an “illusion” of interpretability (Bolukbasi et al., 2021), where explanations are overly broad, and thus have good recall but poor precision. For example, Bills et al. (2023) propose an automated interpretability score which disproportionately depends on recall. They find a feature activating at the end of the phrase “don’t stop” or “can’t stop”, but an explanation activating on all instances of “stop” achieves a high interpretability score. As we scale autoencoders and the features get sparser and more specific, this kind of failure becomes more severe.

Unfortunately, precision is extremely expensive to evaluate when the simulations are using GPT-4 as in Bills et al. (2023). As an initial exploration, we focus on an improved version of Neuron to Graph (N2G) (Foote et al., 2023), a substantially less expressive but much cheaper method that outputs explanations in the form of collections of n-grams with wildcards. In the future, we would like to explore ways to make it more tractable to approximate precision for arbitrary English explanations.

To construct a N2G explanation, we start with some sequences that activate the latent. For each one, we find the shortest suffix that still activates the latent.$^{12}$ We then check whether any position in the n-gram can be replaced by a padding token, to insert wildcard tokens. We also check whether the explanation should be dependent on absolute position by checking whether inserting a padding token at the beginning matters. We use a random sample of up to 16 nonzero activations to build the graph, and another 16 as true positives for computing recall.

Results for GPT-2 small are found in 25(a) and 25(b). Note that dense token patterns are trivial to explain, thus $n=2048,k=512$ latents are easy to explain on average since many latents activate extremely densely (see Section E.5)$^{13}$. In general, autoencoders with more total latents and fewer active latents are easiest to model with N2G.

We also obtain evidence that TopK models have fewer spurious positive activations than their ReLU counterparts. N2G explanations have significantly better recall (>1.5x) and only slightly worse precision (>0.9x) for TopK models with the same $n$ (resulting in better F1 scores) and similar L$_{0}$ (Figure 24).

When our goal is for a model’s activations to be interpretable, one question we can ask is: how much performance do we sacrifice if we use only the parts of the model that we can interpret?

Our downstream loss metric measures how much of the performance we’re capturing (but our features could be uninterpretable), and our explanation based metric measures how monosemantic our features are (but they might not explain most of the model). This suggests combining our downstream loss and explanation metrics, by using our explanations to simulate autoencoder latents, and then checking downstream loss after decoding. This metric also has the advantage that it values both recall and precision in a way that is principled, and also values recall more for latents that activate more densely.

We tried this with N2G explanations. N2G produces a simulated value based on the node in the trie, but we scale this value to minimize variance explained. Specifically, we compute $E[sa]/E[s^{2}]$, where $s$ is the simulated value and $a$ is the true value, and we estimate this quantity over a training set of tokens. Results for GPT-2 are shown in Figure 8. We find that we can explain more of GPT-2 small than just explaining bigrams, and that larger and sparser autoencoders result in better downstream loss.

If the underlying computations learned by a language model are sparse, one hypothesis is that natural features are not only sparse in terms of activations, but also in terms of downstream effects (Olah et al., 2024). Anecdotally, we observed that ablation effects often are interpretable (see our visualizer). Therefore, we developed a metric to measure the sparsity of downstream effects on the output logits.

At a particular token index, we obtain the latents at the residual stream, and proceed to ablate each autoencoder latent one by one, and compare the resulting logits before and after ablation. This process leads to $V$ logit differences per ablation and affected token, where $V$ is the size of the token vocabulary. Because a constant difference at every logit does not affect the post-softmax probabilities, we subtract at each token the median logit difference value. Finally, we concatenate these vectors together across some set of $T$ future tokens (at the ablated index or later) to obtain a vector of $V\cdot T$ total numbers. We then measure the sparsity of this vector via $(\frac{\text{L}_{1}}{\text{L}_{2}})^{2}$, which corresponds to an “effective number of vocab tokens affected”. We normalize by $V\cdot T$ to have a fraction between 0 and 1, with smaller values corresponding to sparser effects.

We perform this for various autoencoders trained on the post-MLP residual stream at layer 8 in GPT-2 small, with $T=16$. Results are shown in 6(b). Promisingly, models trained with larger $k$ have latents with sparser effects. However, the trend reverses at $k=512$, indicating that as $k$ approaches $d_{\text{model}}=768$, the autoencoder learns latents with less interpretable effects. Note that latents are sparse in an absolute sense, having a $(\frac{\text{L}_{1}}{\text{L}_{2}})^{2}$ of 10-14% , whereas ablating residual stream channels gives 60% (slightly better than the theoretical value of $\sim\frac{2}{\pi}$ for random vectors).

A major drawback of the L$_{1}$ penalty is that it tends to shrink all activations toward zero (Tibshirani, 1996). Our proposed TopK activation function prevents activation shrinkage, as it entirely removes the need for an L$_{1}$ penalty. To empirically measure the magnitude of activation shrinkage, we consider whether different (and potentially larger) activations would result in better reconstruction given a fixed decoder. We first run the encoder to obtain a set of activated latents, save the sparsity mask, and then optimize only the nonzero values to minimize MSE.$^{14}$ This refinement method has been proposed multiple times such as in $k$-SVD (Aharon et al., 2006), the relaxed Lasso (Meinshausen, 2007), or ITI (Maleki, 2009). We solve for the optimal activations with a positivity constraint using projected gradient descent.

This refinement procedure tends to increase activations in ReLU models on average, but not in TopK models (Figure 9a), which indicates that TopK is not impacted by activation shrinkage. The magnitude of the refinement is also smaller for TopK models than for ReLU models. In both ReLU and TopK models, the refinement procedure noticeably improves the reconstruction MSE (Figure 9b), and the downstream next-token-prediction cross-entropy (Figure 9c). However, this refinement only closes part of the gap between ReLU and TopK models.

Other recent works on sparse autoencoders have proposed different ways to address the L$_{1}$ activation shrinkage, and Pareto improve the L$_{0}$-MSE frontier (Wright and Sharkey, 2024; Taggart, 2024; Rajamanoharan et al., 2024). Wright and Sharkey (2024) propose to fine-tune a scaling parameter per latent, to correct for the L$_{1}$ activation shrinkage. In Gated sparse autoencoders (Rajamanoharan et al., 2024), the selection of which latents are active is separate from the estimation of the activation magnitudes. This separation allows autoencoders to better estimate the activation magnitude, and avoid the L$_{1}$ activation shrinkage. Another approach is to replace the ReLU activation function with a ProLU (Taggart, 2024) (also known as TRec (Konda et al., 2014), or JumpReLU (Erichson et al., 2019)), which sets all values below a positive threshold to zero $J_{\theta}(x)=x\cdot\mathbf{1}_{(x>\theta)}$. Because the parameter $\theta$ is non-differentiable, it requires a approximate gradient such as a ReLU equivalent (ProLU-ReLU) or a straight-through estimator (ProLU-STE) (Taggart, 2024).

We compared these different approaches in terms of reconstruction MSE, number of active latents L$_{0}$, and downstream cross-entropy loss (Figure 2 and 5). We find that they significantly improve the reconstruction-sparsity Pareto frontier, with TopK having the best performance overall.

In a progressive code, a partial transmission still allows reconstructing the signal with reasonable fidelity (Skodras et al., 2001). For autoencoders, learning a progressive code means that ordering latents by activation magnitude gives a way to progressively recover the original vector. To study this property, we replace the autoencoder activation function (after training) by a TopK($k^{\prime}$) activation function where $k^{\prime}$ is different than during training. We then evaluate each value of $k^{\prime}$ by placing it in the L$_{0}$-MSE plane (Figure 10).

We find that training with TopK only gives a progressive code up to the value of $k$ used during training. MSE keeps improving for values slightly over $k$ (a result also described in (Makhzani and Frey, 2013)), then gets substantially worse as $k^{\prime}$ increases (note that the effect on downstream loss is more muted). This can be interpreted as some sort of overfitting to the value $k$.

We initialize our autoencoders as follows:

We define an auxiliary loss (AuxK) similar to “ghost grads” [Jermyn and Templeton, 2024] that models the reconstruction error using the top-$k_{\text{aux}}$ dead latents (typically $k_{\text{aux}}=512$). Latents are flagged as dead during training if they have not activated for some predetermined number of tokens (typically 10 million). Then, given the reconstruction error of the main model $e=x-\hat{x}$, we define the auxiliary loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{aux}}=||e-\hat{e}||^{2}_{2}$, where $\hat{e}=W_{\text{dec}}z$ is the reconstruction using the top-$k_{\text{aux}}$ dead latents. The full loss is then defined as $\mathcal{L}+\alpha\mathcal{L}_{\text{aux}}$, where $\alpha$ is a small coefficient (typically $1/32$). Because the encoder forward pass can be shared (and dominates decoder cost and encoder backwards cost, see Appendix D), adding this auxiliary loss only increases the computational cost by about 10%.

We found that the AuxK loss very occasionally NaNs at large scale, and zero it when it is NaN to prevent training run collapse.

We use the Adam optimizer [Kingma and Ba, 2014] with $\beta_{1}=0.9$ and $\beta_{2}=0.999$, and a constant learning rate. We tried several learning rate decay schedules but did not find consistent improvements in token budget to convergence. We also did not find major benefits from tuning $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$.

We project away gradient information parallel to the decoder vectors, to account for interaction between Adam and decoder normalization, as described in Bricken et al. 2023.

Larger batch sizes are critical for allowing much greater parallelism. Prior work tends to use batch sizes like 2048 or 4096 tokens [Bricken et al., 2023, Conerly et al., 2024, Rajamanoharan et al., 2024]. To gain the benefits of parallelism, we use a batch size of 131,072 tokens for most of our experiments.

While batch size affects $L(C)$ substantially, we find that the $L(N)$ loss does not depend strongly on batch size when optimization hyperparameters are set appropriately (Figure 12).

We find that keeping an exponential moving average (EMA) Ruppert 1988 of the weights slightly reduces sensitivity to learning rate by allowing slightly higher learning rates to be tolerated. Due to its low cost, we use EMA in all experiments. We use an EMA coefficient of 0.999, and did not find a substantial benefit to tuning it.

We use a bias-correction similar to that used in Kingma and Ba 2014. Despite this, the early steps of EMA are still generally worse than the original model. Thus for the $L(C)$ experiments, we take the min of the EMA model’s and non-averaged model’s validation losses.

We select $k_{\text{aux}}$ as a power of two close to $\frac{d_{model}}{2}$ (e.g. 512 for GPT-2 small). We typically select $\alpha=1/32$. We find that the training is generally not extremely sensitive to the choice of these hyperparameters.

We find empirically that using AuxK eliminates almost all dead latents by the end of training.

Unfortunately, because of compute constraints, we were unable to train our 16M latent autoencoder to $L(N)$, which made it not possible to include the 16M as part of a consistent $L(N)$ series.

Baseline ReLU autoencoders were trained on GPT-2 small, layer 8. We sweep learning rate in [5e-5, 1e-4, 2e-4, 4e-4], L$_{1}$ coefficient in [1.7e-3, 3.1e-3, 5e-3, 1e-2, 1.7e-2] and train for 8 epochs of 6.4 billion tokens at a batch size of 131072. We try different resampling periods in [12.5k, 25k] steps, and choose to resample 4 times throughout training. We consider a feature dead if it does not activate for 10 million tokens.

For Gated SAE [Rajamanoharan et al., 2024], we sweep L$_{1}$ coefficient in [1e-3, 2.5e-3, 5e-3, 1e-2, 2e-2], learning rate in [2.5e-5, 5e-5, 1e-4], train for 6 epochs of 6.4 billion tokens at a batch size of 131072. We resample 4 times throughout training.

For ProLU autoencoders [Taggart, 2024], we sweep L$_{1}$ coefficient in [5e-4, 1e-3, 2.5e-3, 5e-3, 1e-2, 2e-2], learning rate in [2.5e-5, 5e-5, 1e-4], train for 6 epochs of 6.4 billion tokens at a batch size of 131072. We resample 4 times throughout training. For the ProLU gradient, we try both ProLU-STE and ProLU-ReLU. Note that, consistent with the original work, ProLU-STE autoencoders all have $L_{0}<25$, even for small L$_{1}$ coefficients.

We used similar settings and sweeps for autoencoders trained on GPT-4. Differences include: replacing the resampling of dead latents with a L$_{1}$ coefficient warm-up over 5% of training [Conerly et al., 2024]; removing the decoder unit-norm constraint and adding the decoder norm in the L$_{1}$ penalty [Conerly et al., 2024].

Our baselines generally have few dead latents, similar or less than our TopK models (see Figure 14).

We find that the reduction in dead latents is mostly due to a combination of the AuxK loss and the tied initialization scheme.

We find that tied initialization substantially improves MSE, and that our encoder initialization scheme has no effect when tied initialization is being used, and hurts slightly on its own.

We find that $b_{\textrm{enc}}$ does not affect the MSE at convergence. With $b_{\textrm{enc}}$ removed, the autencoder is equivalent to a JumpReLU where the threshold is dynamically chosen per example such that exactly $k$ latents are active. However, convergence is slightly slower without $b_{\textrm{enc}}$. We believe this may be confounded by encoder learning rate but did not investigate this further.

After each step we renormalize columns of the decoder to be unit-norm, following Bricken et al. 2023. This normalization (or a modified L1 term, as in Conerly et al. 2024) is necessary for L1 autoencoders, because otherwise the L1 loss can be gamed by making the latents arbitrarily small. For TopK autoencoders, the normalization is optional. However, we find that it still improves MSE, so we still use it in all of our experiments.

We use standard data parallel and tensor sharding [Shoeybi et al., 2019], with an additional allgather for the TopK forward pass to determine which $k$ latents should are in the global top k. To minimize the cost of this allgather, we truncate to a capacity factor of 2 per shard—further improvements are possible but would require modifications to NCCL. For the largest (16 million) latent autoencoder, we use 512-way sharding. Large batch sizes (Section A.4) are very important for reducing the parallelization overhead.

The very small number of layers creates a challenge for parallelism - it makes pipeline parallelism [Huang et al., 2019] and FSDP [Zhao et al., 2023] inapplicable. Additionally, opportunities for communications overlap are limited because of the small number of layers, though we do overlap host to device transfers and encoder data parallel comms for a small improvement.

We can take advantage of the extreme sparsity of latents to perform most operations using substantially less compute and memory than naively doing dense matrix multiplication. This was important when scaling to large numbers of latents, both via directly increasing throughput and reducing memory usage.

We use two main kernels:

Then, we have the following optimizations:

Theoretically, this gives a compute efficiency improvement of up to 6x in the limit of sparsity, since the encoder forward pass is the only remaining dense operation. In practice, we indeed find the encoder forward pass is much of the compute, and the pre-activations are much of the memory.

To ensure that reads are coalesced, the decoder weight matrix must also be stored transposed from the typical layout. We also use many other kernels for fusing various operations for reducing memory and memory bandwidth usage.

Throughout the project, we stumbled upon many subjectively interesting latents. The majority of latents in our GPT-2 small autoencoders seemed interpretable, even on random positive activations. Furthermore, the ablations typically had predictable effects based on the activation conditions. For example, some features that are potentially part of interesting circuits in GPT-2:

In GPT-4, we tended to find more complex features, including ones that activate on the same concept in multiple languages, or on complex technical concepts such as algebraic rings.

You can explore for yourself at our viewer.

Typical features are not of particular interest, but having an autoencoder also lets one easily find relevant features. Specifically, one can use gradient-based attribution to quickly compute how relevant latents are to behaviors of interest [Baehrens et al., 2010, Simonyan et al., 2013].

Following the methodologies of Templeton et al. 2024 and Mossing et al. 2024, we found features by using a hand-written prompt, with a set of "positive" and "negative" token predictions, and back-propagating from logit differences to latent values. We then consider latents sorted by activation times gradient value, and inspect the latents.

We tried this methodology with a $n=2^{17}=131072$, $k=32$ GPT-2 autoencoder and were able to quickly find a number of safety relevant latents, such as ones corresponding to profanity or child sexual content. Clamping these latents appeared to have causal effect on the samples. For example, clamping the profanity latent to negative values results in significantly less profanity (some profanity can still be observed in situations where it copies from the prompt).

We anecdotally found that latent activation distributions often have multiple modes, especially in early layers.

We find that log of latent density is approximately Gaussian (Figure 19). If we define the importance of a feature to be the expected squared activation (an approximation of its marginal impact on MSE), then log importance looks a bit more like a Laplace distribution. Modal density and modal feature importance both decrease with number of total latents (for a fixed $k$), as expected.

One option for a sparse autoencoder is to simply learn the $k$ directions that explain the most variance. As $k$ approaches $d_{model}$, this “principal component”-like solution may become competitive with solutions where each latent is used sparsely. In order to check for such solutions, we can simply measure the average density of the $d_{model}$ densest latents. Using this metric, we find that for some hyperparameter settings, GPT-2 small autoencoders find solutions with many dense latents (Figure 20), beginning around $k=256$ but especially for $k=512$.

This coincides with when the scaling laws from Section 3 begin to break - many of our trends between $k$ and reconstruction loss bend significantly. Also, MSE becomes significantly less sensitive to $n$, at $k=512$.

We manually examined the densest latents across various GPT-2 small layer 8 autoencoders, trained in different ways (e.g. differing numbers of total latents).

The two densest latents are always the same feature: the latent simply activates more and more later in the context ($\sim$ 40% active), and one that activates more and more earlier in the context excluding the first position ($\sim$35% active). Both features look like they want to activate more than they do, with TopK probably preventing it from activating with lower values.

The third densest latent is always a first-token-position feature ($\sim$30% active), which has a modal activation value in a narrow range between 14.6-14.8. Most of its activation values are significantly smaller values, at tokens after the first position; the large value is always at the first token. These smaller values appear uninterpretable; we conjecture these are simply interference with the first position direction. (Sometimes there are two of these latents, the second with smaller activation values.)

Finally, there is a recurring “repetition” feature that is $\sim$20% dense. Its top activations are mostly highly repetitive sequences, such as series of dates, chapter indices, numbers, punctuations, repeated exact phrases, or other repetitive things such as Chess PGN notation. However, like the first-token-position latents, random activations of this latent are typically appear unrelated and uninterpretable.

Often in the top ten densest latents, we find opposing latents, which have decoder cosine similarity close to $-1$. In particular, the first-token-position feature and the repetition latent both seems to always have an opposite latent. The less dense of the two opposite latents always seems to appear uninterpretable. We conjecture that these are symptoms of optimization failure - the opposite latents cancel out spurious activations in the denser latent.

[Elhage et al., 2022] discuss how underlying features may lie in distinct sub-spaces. If such sub-spaces exists, we hypothesize that the set of latent encoding vectors $W\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ can be written as a block-diagonal matrix $W^{\prime}=PWR$, where $P\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is a permutation matrix, and $R\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ is orthogonal. We can then use the singular vector decomposition (SVD) to write $W=U\Sigma V^{\top}$ and $W^{\prime}=U^{\prime}\Sigma^{\prime}V^{\prime\top}$, noting that $U^{\prime}$ is also block diagonal. Finally, we write $W=P^{\top}U^{\prime}\Sigma^{\prime}V^{\prime\top}R^{\top}=U\Sigma V^{\top}$, and because the SVD is unique up to a column permutation $P^{\prime}$, we get $U=P^{\top}U^{\prime}P^{\prime}$. In other words, if $W$ is block-diagonal in some unknown basis, $U$ is also block diagonal up to a permutation of rows and columns.

To find a good permutation of rows, we sorted the rows of $U$ based on how similarly they project on all elements of the singular vector basis. Specifically, we normalized each row to unit norm $\tilde{U_{i}}=U_{i}/||U_{i}||$ and considered the pairwise euclidean distances $d_{i,j}=||\tilde{U_{i}}^{2}-\tilde{U_{j}}^{2}||$. These pairwise distances were then reduced to a single dimension with a UMAP algorithm [McInnes et al., 2018]. The obtained 1-dimensional embedding was then used to order the projections $\tilde{U_{i}}^{2}$ (Figure 22a), which reveals two fuzzily separated sub-spaces. These two sub-spaces use respectively about 25% and 75% of the dimensions of the entire vector space.

Interestingly, ordering the columns by singular values is fairly consistent with these two sub-spaces. One reason for this result might by that latents projecting to the first sub-space have different encoder norms than latents projecting to the second sub-space (Figure 22b). This difference in norm can significantly guide the SVD to separate these two sub-spaces.

To further interpret these two sub-spaces, we manually looked at latents from each cluster. We found that latents from the smaller cluster tend to activate on relatively non-diverse vocabulary tokens. To quantify this insight, we first estimated $A_{i,v}$, the average squared activation of latent $i$ on vocabulary token $v$. Then, we normalized the vectors $A_{i}$ to sum to one, $\tilde{A}_{i,v}=A_{i,v}/\sum_{w}A_{i,w}$ and computed the effective number of token $m_{i}=\exp(\sum_{v}\tilde{A}_{i,v}\log(\tilde{A}_{i,v}))$. The effective number of token is a continuous metric with values in $[1,n_{\text{vocab}}]$, and it is equal to $k$ when a latent activates equally on $k$ vocabulary tokens. With this metric, we confirmed quantitatively (Figure 22c) that latents from the smaller cluster all activate on relatively low numbers of vocabulary tokens (less than $100$), whereas latents from the larger cluster sometimes activate on a larger numbers of vocabulary tokens (up to $1000$).

In a sweep across locations in GPT-2 small, we found that the optimal learning rate varies with layer and location type (MLP delta, attention delta, MLP post, attention post), but was within a factor of two.

Number of tokens needed for convergence is noticeably higher for earlier layers. MSE is lowest at early layers of the residual stream, increasing until the final layer, at which point it drops. Residual stream deltas have MSE peaking around layer 6, with attention delta falling sharply at the final layer.

When ablating to reconstructions, downstream loss and KL get strictly worse with layer. This is despite normalized MSE dropping at late layers. However, there appears to be an exception at final layers (layer 11/12 and especially 12/12 of GPT-2 small), which can have better normalized MSE than earlier layers, but more severe effects on downstream prediction (Figure 27).

We can also see that choice of layer affects different metrics differently (Figure 28). While earlier layers (unsurprisingly) have better N2G explanations, later layers do better on probe loss and sparsity.

In early results with autoencoders trained on the last layer of GPT-2 small, we found the results to be qualitatively worse than the layer 8 results, so we use layer 8 for all experiments going forwards.

We find that tokens at later positions are harder to reconstruct (Figure 29). We hypothesize that this is because the residual stream at later positions have more features. First positions are particularly egregiously easy to reconstruct, in terms of normalized MSE, but they also generally have residual stream norm more than an order of magnitude larger than other positions ( Figure 30 shows that in GPT-2 small, the exception is only at early layers and the final layer of GPT-2 small). This phenomenon was explained in [Sun et al., 2024, Xiao et al., 2023], which demonstrate that these activations serve as crucial attention resting states.

First token positions have significantly worse downstream loss and KL after ablating to autoencoder reconstruction at layers with these large norms (Figure 27), despite having better normalized MSE. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the large norm directions at the first position are important for loss on other tokens but not the current token. This position then potentially gets subtracted back out at the final layer as the model focuses on current-token prediction.