Sparse Autoencoders Map Brain-LLM Alignment onto Cortical Semantic Topography
Quick Take
Sparse autoencoders reveal brain-LLM alignment through cortical semantic topography mapping.
Key Points
- Intermediate LLM layers predict human brain responses effectively.
- Semantic features account for 94% of encoding performance.
- SAE features predict reading times and unexpected semantic content.
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2605. 23035v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Intermediate layers of large language models (LLMs) best predict human brain responses to language, one of the most robust findings in computational neurolinguistics, yet why remains mechanistically unexplained. We address this gap by bridging sparse autoencoders (SAEs) from mechanistic interpretability with neural encoding models, decomposing GPT-2 XL and Llama-3. 1-8B into 16K-32K interpretable features per layer. A human-validated taxonomy ($\kappa \geq 0.
74$) reveals that semantic features alone recover 94% of peak encoding performance ($r=0. 285$), substantially exceeding variance-matched baselines ($p<0. 001$, $d=1. 31$). Beyond this aggregate dominance, we test a novel cortical topography prediction: five semantic subcategories derived a priori from three independent neuroscience programs should map onto distinct brain regions. A formal convergence test confirms this alignment (Spearman $\rho=0. 72$, $p<0. 001$; hypergeometric $p=0.
007$), demonstrating that SAE-discovered features recapitulate known cortical semantic organization at a granularity inaccessible to prior methods. SAE features further predict human reading times beyond lexical controls ($\Delta\mathrm{logLik}=38. 4$, $p<0. 001$), and an exploratory prediction-error analysis provides preliminary evidence that the brain additionally encodes unexpected semantic content. Results generalize across English, Chinese, and French.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The reliability of LLM judges for evaluating deep research agents is critically assessed using the REFLECT benchmark.