← Back to article

Equation 15 · What Interpretability Actually Costs to Do at Scale

What does this equation mean?

kk

Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.

the because published topk configurations keep. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.

Read it piece by piece

kk

Symbol k

the because published topk configurations keep.

Understand this part →

How to interpret it

Read this expression with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.

What the article says around this equation

Because published TopK configurations keep k in the tens to low hundreds while n runs into the millions, n ≫\gg k and the encoding term dominates almost entirely: CSAEC_{\mathrm{SAE}} ≈\approx 2dnT . That single approximation explains something the paper reports without deriving: convergence — the point at which more tokens stop buying lower reconstruction error — is reached later as n grows, empirically as Θ\Theta(n0.65n^{0.65}) tokens for GPT-4-scale autoencoders [ 1 ] . Cost scales with the product of dictionary width and token count, and pushing width up forces token count up too if the dictionary is to be trained to convergence rather than merely trained. The paper is explicit that this collided…
Read the full surrounding passage
Because published TopK configurations keep k in the tens to low hundreds while n runs into the millions, n ≫\gg k and the encoding term dominates almost entirely: CSAEC_{\mathrm{SAE}} ≈\approx 2dnT . That single approximation explains something the paper reports without deriving: convergence — the point at which more tokens stop buying lower reconstruction error — is reached later as n grows, empirically as Θ\Theta(n0.65n^{0.65}) tokens for GPT-4-scale autoencoders [ 1 ] . Cost scales with the product of dictionary width and token count, and pushing width up forces token count up too if the dictionary is to be trained to convergence rather than merely trained. The paper is explicit that this collided with a real constraint: at their largest scale they state plainly that “because of compute constraints, we were unable to train our 16 million latent autoencoder to” the convergence frontier they used for smaller runs [ 1 ] . Sharkey and colleagues, surveying the field’s open problems, draw the economic conclusion directly: sparse dictionary learning “will probably be relatively expensive to train compared to the original model” it is being used to interpret, and that expense compounds because a separate dictionary is typically needed for every layer an investigator wants to see into [ 2 ] .

Read the equation in its article →

Sources cited in the surrounding passage

These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.

Return to What Interpretability Actually Costs to Do at Scale

Browse the mathematical compendium →