EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Senthooran Rajamanoharan
dblp:118/5915
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-author · 4 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
4 papers |
Trustworthy machine learning · 81% Representation and self-supervised learning · 15% Information extraction and text analysis · 2% |
Topics — the 9 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
3.4 | 4 | 2025 | Dense SAE Latents Are Features, Not Bugs · NeurIPS 2025 Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probing · ICML 2025 Do I Know This Entity? Knowledge Awareness and Hallucinations in Language Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › mechanistic interpretability
sparse autoencoder |
2.5 | 3 | 2025 | Dense SAE Latents Are Features, Not Bugs · NeurIPS 2025 Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probing · ICML 2025 Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse Autoencoders · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
mechanistic interpretability |
1.6 | 2 | 2025 | Do I Know This Entity? Knowledge Awareness and Hallucinations in Language Models · ICLR 2025 Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse Autoencoders · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
language model interpretability |
1.1 | 2 | 2025 | Dense SAE Latents Are Features, Not Bugs · NeurIPS 2025 Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probing · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
activation probing |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probing · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning
feature extraction |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Dense SAE Latents Are Features, Not Bugs · NeurIPS 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
hallucination |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Do I Know This Entity? Knowledge Awareness and Hallucinations in Language Models · ICLR 2025 |
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › representation learning › unsupervised representation learning › sparse coding
sparse feature learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse Autoencoders · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
named entity recognition |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Do I Know This Entity? Knowledge Awareness and Hallucinations in Language Models · ICLR 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
sparse autoencoder · 2.6probing · 0.9causal steering · 0.9attention analysis · 0.9ablation · 0.9l1 penalty · 0.8gated sparse autoencoder · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Do I Know This Entity? Knowledge Awareness and Hallucinations in Language ModelsabstractHallucinations in large language models are a widespread problem, yet the mechanisms behind whether models will hallucinate are poorly understood, limiting our ability to solve this problem. Using sparse autoencoders as an interpretability tool, we discover that a key part of these mechanisms is entity recognition, where the model detects if an entity is one it can recall facts about. Sparse autoencoders uncover meaningful directions in the representation space, these detect whether the model recognizes an entity, e.g. detecting it doesn't know about an athlete or a movie. This shows that models can have self-knowledge: internal representations about their own capabilities. These directions are causally relevant: capable of steering the model to refuse to answer questions about known entities, or to hallucinate attributes of unknown entities when it would otherwise refuse. We demonstrate that despite the sparse autoencoders being trained on the base model, these directions have a causal effect on the chat model's refusal behavior, suggesting that chat finetuning has repurposed this existing mechanism. Furthermore, we provide an initial exploration into the mechanistic role of these directions in the model, finding that they disrupt the attention of downstream heads that typically move entity attributes to the final token. Javier Ferrando, Oscar Obeso, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Neel Nanda |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2025 | Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse ProbingabstractSparse autoencoders (SAEs) are a popular method for interpreting concepts represented in large language model (LLM) activations. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the validity of their interpretations due to the lack of a ground truth for the concepts used by an LLM, and a growing number of works have presented problems with current SAEs. One alternative source of evidence would be demonstrating that SAEs improve performance on downstream tasks beyond existing baselines. We test this by applying SAEs to the real-world task of LLM activation probing in four regimes: data scarcity, class imbalance, label noise, and covariate shift. Due to the difficulty of detecting concepts in these challenging settings, we hypothesize that SAEs’ basis of interpretable, concept-level latents should provide a useful inductive bias. However, although SAEs occasionally perform better than baselines on individual datasets, we are unable to design ensemble methods combining SAEs with baselines that consistently outperform ensemble methods solely using baselines. Additionally, although SAEs initially appear promising for identifying spurious correlations, detecting poor dataset quality, and training multi-token probes, we are able to achieve similar results with simple non-SAE baselines as well. Though we cannot discount SAEs’ utility on other tasks, our findings highlight the shortcomings of current SAEs and the need to rigorously evaluate interpretability methods on downstream tasks with strong baselines. Subhash Kantamneni, Joshua Engels, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Max Tegmark, Neel Nanda |
ICML | 3 |
| 2025 | Dense SAE Latents Are Features, Not BugsabstractSparse autoencoders (SAEs) are designed to extract interpretable features from language models by enforcing a sparsity constraint. Ideally, training an SAE would yield latents that are both sparse and semantically meaningful. However, many SAE latents activate frequently (i.e., are *dense*), raising concerns that they may be undesirable artifacts of the training procedure. In this work, we systematically investigate the geometry, function, and origin of dense latents and show that they are not only persistent but often reflect meaningful model representations. We first demonstrate that dense latents tend to form antipodal pairs that reconstruct specific directions in the residual stream, and that ablating their subspace suppresses the emergence of new dense features in retrained SAEs---suggesting that high density features are an intrinsic property of the residual space. We then introduce a taxonomy of dense latents, identifying classes tied to position tracking, context binding, entropy regulation, letter-specific output signals, part-of-speech, and principal component reconstruction. Finally, we analyze how these features evolve across layers, revealing a shift from structural features in early layers, to semantic features in mid layers, and final to output-oriented signals in the last layers of the model. Our findings indicate that dense latents serve functional roles in language model computation and should not be dismissed as training noise. Xiaoqing Sun, Alessandro Stolfo, Joshua Engels, Ben Wu 0001, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Mrinmaya Sachan, Max Tegmark |
NeurIPS | 5 |
| 2024 | Improving Sparse Decomposition of Language Model Activations with Gated Sparse AutoencodersabstractRecent work has found that sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are an effective technique for unsupervised discovery of interpretable features in language models' (LMs) activations, by finding sparse, linear reconstructions of those activations. We introduce the Gated Sparse Autoencoder (Gated SAE), which achieves a Pareto improvement over training with prevailing methods. In SAEs, the L1 penalty used to encourage sparsity introduces many undesirable biases, such as shrinkage -- systematic underestimation of feature activations. The key insight of Gated SAEs is to separate the functionality of (a) determining which directions to use and (b) estimating the magnitudes of those directions: this enables us to apply the L1 penalty only to the former, limiting the scope of undesirable side effects. Through training SAEs on LMs of up to 7B parameters we find that, in typical hyper-parameter ranges, Gated SAEs solve shrinkage, are similarly interpretable, and require half as many firing features to achieve comparable reconstruction fidelity. Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Arthur Conmy, Lewis Smith, Tom Lieberum, Vikrant Varma, János Kramár, Rohin Shah, Neel Nanda |
NeurIPS | 1 |