Methods · Comparison with Alternative Feature Extraction Methods

Independent Component Analysis (ICA)

Survey sections: §6.9.3 Independent Component Analysis

Independent Component Analysis (ICA; Hyvärinen & Oja, 2000) decomposes activations H∈Rd×nH \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times n} as H≈WSH \approx WS, where n is the number of data points.

Assumptions and requirements

In ICA, each column in W∈Rd×mW \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times m} is a mixing vector, and m is the number of different source signals; each row in S∈Rm×nS \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n} is a source signal (a signal has n data points), with m source signals in total. These signals are optimised to be independent of one another. Thus, if model activations are linear mixtures of statistically independent “foundational features”, ICA can provably recover those features.

Evaluation considerations

More recently, however, Liu & Han (2026) showed that ICA can achieve performance comparable to that of SAEs, arguing that its previously reported underperformance may stem from limitations of classical ICA implementations poorly suited to the scale and statistical structure of neural network activations.

Limitations

Moreover, underlying features may not be statistically independent, which further limits the applicability of classical ICA. Although early studies applied it to analyse neural network activations, they did not find interpretability gains over SAEs (Cunningham et al., 2024).

Related methods

Compare side by side →

Key papers

Cited in §6.9.3.

Other methods in Comparison with Alternative Feature Extraction Methods

Non-Negative Matrix Factorisation (NMF) · Principal Component Analysis (PCA) · Supervised Feature Extraction Methods (DAS, SMDS, probes) · Dictionary Learning Baselines (K-SVD)