Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the conditions under which sparse autoencoder (SAE)-based explanations can be considered faithful representations of underlying language models (LMs). By establishing a post-hoc generalization framework, the authors derive an upper bound on the expected risk of the base model, which incorporates factors like proxy risk and reconstruction errors. The findings reveal that SAE-based features can retain meaningful predictive information, with empirical results demonstrating the framework's effectiveness on various models, particularly highlighting the depth-dependent certifiability of Llama-3-8B.
SAE-based explanations can be certified for faithfulness, revealing that later layers of language models are significantly easier to interpret without sacrificing predictive accuracy.
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly used to extract interpretable features from language models (LMs), yet a central question remains: when can an SAE-based explanation be treated as a faithful view of an underlying frozen LM We study this through a post-hoc generalization framework that certifies the LM via a sparse proxy, obtained by replacing a native hidden activation with its pretrained SAE reconstruction. Our framework derives an upper bound on the base model's expected risk using four measurable quantities: proxy risk, SAE reconstruction gap, concept-pool mismatch, and sparse complexity. We interpret this certificate as an operational criterion for explanatory faithfulness. In particular, a non-vacuous bound indicates that the extracted sparse features retain meaningful predictive information, while small reconstruction and mismatch errors indicate that the proxy remains behaviorally close to the original model. Empirically, we show that the bound becomes non-vacuous on GPT-2 Small, Gemma-2B, and Llama-3-8B at practical sample sizes. A detailed layerwise analysis of Llama-3-8B reveals a strong depth dependence, with later layers becoming much easier to certify, associated with both stronger local fidelity and weaker downstream error amplification. Finally, through feature-shuffling ablations, we show that the decomposition distinguishes genuine semantic alignment from mere statistical sparsity, providing a useful diagnostic for when SAE-based explanations become less reliable.
