Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines? · HackerPapers discussionshttps://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2602.14111/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMTSanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines? — HN submissionhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139142urn:hackerpapers:submission:2602.14111:47139142Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:34:12 GMT<p>Sanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines?</p><p></p><p>2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. <a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2602.14111/">Paper and source history</a>. A submission is not an endorsement.</p>cs.LGSanity Checks for Sparse Autoencoders: Do SAEs Beat Random Baselines? — mentioned by adebayojhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47135101urn:hackerpapers:mention:2602.14111:47135101Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:00:31 GMT<p>You are exactly right, it is guiding the model, during training, with concepts and the dictionary. This is important because dictionary learning for interpretability (post hoc) is not currently reliable: https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2602.14111</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2602.14111/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.LG