aiqbench analysis
This research exposes a critical flaw in mechanistic interpretability where standard faithfulness metrics can incorrectly rank circuits that reproduce model behavior poorly, creating an objective-level recovery gap. The study demonstrates that context distortion during intervention causes these misrankings and proposes restoring original signals to repair the evaluation process. These findings are essential for researchers relying on automated circuit discovery, as they highlight why optimizing attribution alone is insufficient without correcting the underlying evaluation objectives.
Are We Recovering Mechanisms? Objective-Level Recovery Gaps in Mechanistic Interpretability
arXiv:2610.02098v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mechanistic interpretability aims to recover the internal computations responsible for model behavior. Progress in automated circuit discovery is often framed as a search problem: better attribution or optimization should identify better mechanisms. This assumes that the evaluation objective can recognize a better circuit once it is found. We show that intervention-defined faithfulness can instead prefer an equally sized circuit that reproduces the model's behavior less well, creating an objective-level recovery gap. Across four human-reference tasks and InterpBench, we compare validation faithfulness with behavior on held-out prompts under fixed ordinary resampling. The behavioral criterion is agreement with the intact model, including its mistakes, except on Greater-Than, where we use semantic accuracy. Controlled reference edits reveal misranking without any discovery algorithm, and outputs of EAP, EAP-IG, ACDC, and Edge-SP exhibit the same failure. Under resampling, KL misranks 9.4%-41.2% of candidate pairs across these methods on the human-reference tasks. We investigate context distortion as an explanation: replacing excluded signals changes the inputs on which retained components operate. Restoring selected signals from the recipient's intact-model execution repairs 96 of 100 persistent KL misrankings from the discovery pool on both validation and held-out prompts. The circuits and their original behavioral scores remain unchanged. These findings show why better discovery alone is insufficient when its objective rewards the wrong candidate.
Title:Are We Recovering Mechanisms? Objective-Level Recovery Gaps in Mechanistic Interpretability
Abstract:Mechanistic interpretability aims to recover the internal computations responsible for model behavior. Progress in automated circuit discovery is often framed as a search problem: better attribution or optimization should identify better mechanisms. This assumes that the evaluation objective can recognize a better circuit once it is found. We show that intervention-defined faithfulness can instead prefer an equally sized circuit that reproduces the model's behavior less well, creating an objective-level recovery gap. Across four human-reference tasks and InterpBench, we compare validation faithfulness with behavior on held-out prompts under fixed ordinary resampling. The behavioral criterion is agreement with the intact model, including its mistakes, except on Greater-Than, where we use semantic accuracy. Controlled reference edits reveal misranking without any discovery algorithm, and outputs of EAP, EAP-IG, ACDC, and Edge-SP exhibit the same failure. Under resampling, KL misranks 9.4%-41.2% of candidate pairs across these methods on the human-reference tasks. We investigate context distortion as an explanation: replacing excluded signals changes the inputs on which retained components operate. Restoring selected signals from the recipient's intact-model execution repairs 96 of 100 persistent KL misrankings from the discovery pool on both validation and held-out prompts. The circuits and their original behavioral scores remain unchanged. These findings show why better discovery alone is insufficient when its objective rewards the wrong candidate.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.02098 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.02098v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.02098 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage

Introducing PIRAMID: Physics-Informed Research for Ambitious Mechanistic Interpretability
LessWrong · Jul 25, 2026

Fault tolerant distributed training on Amazon EKS using NVRx
AWS · Sep 16, 2026
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 18, 2026

Lattice-Based Cryptography Explained
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 15, 2026