Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a human-grounded evaluation framework for sparse autoencoders (SAEs) that quantitatively assesses the alignment between SAE latents and human-annotated concepts, moving beyond traditional proxy metrics. The authors construct synthetic benchmarks, synCUB and synCOCO, to facilitate targeted attribute perturbations, and develop a coalition-based matching procedure called Fully-Binary Matching Pursuit (FBMP) that outperforms conventional one-to-one mappings. Key findings reveal that increased overcompleteness in SAEs can diminish interpretability, suggesting that moderate dictionary sizes optimize the trade-off between interpretability and performance.
Increased overcompleteness in sparse autoencoders can actually reduce their interpretability, challenging assumptions about model complexity.
Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are increasingly used to extract interpretable concepts from vision and vision language models, yet existing evaluation methods largely rely on proxy metrics or qualitative inspection rather than measuring semantic correspondence. We present a human-grounded evaluation framework that quantifies alignment between SAE latents and human-annotated concepts, without requiring user studies, and validate this matching through targeted attribute perturbations. To enable this intervention-style evaluation in vision, we construct synCUB and synCOCO, synthetic benchmarks of paired images that differ in exactly one attribute. We introduce Fully-Binary Matching Pursuit (FBMP), a coalition-based matching procedure that supports many-to-one mappings between SAE latents and annotated concepts, and consistently outperforms one-to-one baselines. For functional validation, we propose a Targeted Attribute Perturbation Alignment Score (TAPAScore), which tests whether matched concepts respond selectively and in the expected direction under targeted image-level attribute perturbations. Under sanity checks, our matching and TAPAScore are the only evaluated metrics that reliably distinguish trained SAEs from untrained ones. Across SAEs trained on CLIP and DINOv2 embeddings, we find that increased overcompleteness can reduce perturbation alignment, indicating a reduction in interpretability. Our evaluation framework suggests that moderate dictionary sizes provide the best trade-off, yielding the most interpretable SAEs. Code and datasets are available at https://github.com/JonasKlotz/sae-concept-eval.
