How Causal Abstraction Underpins Computational Explanation

Causal abstraction offers a principled framework for mechanistic interpretability, aligning a high-level causal model with the low-level computation realized by a neural network through counterfactual intervention analysis. Existing methods such as distributed alignment search (DAS) learn expressive subspace interventions, but the relevant neural site is unknown a priori, so finding a handle requires a computationally burdensome search over candidate sites. We introduce PLOT (Progressive Localization via Optimal Transport), a transport-based framework that localizes causal variables from the output effect geometry of abstract and neural interventions. PLOT fits an optimal transport coupling between abstract variables and candidate neural sites, yielding a global soft correspondence that can be calibrated into intervention handles. In simple settings, a single coupling over individual neurons suffices. In larger models, PLOT is applied progressively, moving from coarse sites such as tokens, timesteps, or layers to finer supports such as coordinate groups or PCA spans, and optionally guiding DAS based on the localized signal. Across experiments of increasing complexity, transport-only PLOT handles are exceedingly fast and competitive on accuracy, while PLOT-guided DAS reaches DAS-level accuracy at a fraction of full DAS runtime, providing an efficient localization engine for causal abstraction research at scale.

Explanations are central to causal reasoning, and cognitive science has long established that the human drive to explain is itself a mechanism for learning about causality. Despite this, learning from those abductive signals is largely ignored in artificial intelligence. While explainable AI (XAI) increasingly draws on causal models to generate explanations, the converse direction about what explanations can do for causality remains largely unexplored. To fill this gap, we propose xWhyL, a formal framework connecting causality and XAI by learning causal models from explanations. We develop a mathematical theory that translates explanations into a learning signal complementary to observational data, and demonstrate how it enables overcoming the limits of observational causal discovery. As explanations can be derived from incorrect beliefs and clash with data, a tension we call the Causal Tug-of-War, we prove conditions under which our framework rejects misspecified explanations rather than absorbing them. Our practical instantiation, Causal Interactive Learning (CIL), shows how expert explanations can efficiently support causal discovery and distinguish correct from incorrect explanations.

We present a method for diagnosing interpretation in neural networks by identifying an input subspace where a proposed interpretation is highly faithful. Our method is particularly useful for causal-abstraction-style interpretability, where a high-level causal hypothesis is evaluated by interchange interventions. Rather than treating interchange intervention accuracy as a single global summary, we refine this framework by partitioning the input space into well-interpreted and under-interpreted regions according to pairwise interchange-intervention behavior. This turns causal abstraction from a purely global evaluation into a more diagnostic tool: it not only measures whether an interpretation works, but also reveals where it works, where it fails, and what distinguishes the two cases. This diagnostic view also provides practical heuristics for improving interpretations. By analyzing the structure of the well-interpreted and under-interpreted regions, we can identify missing distinctions in a high-level hypothesis, discover previously unmodeled intermediate variables, and combine complementary partial interpretations into a stronger one. We instantiate this idea as a simple four-step recipe and show that it yields informative error analyses across multiple causal abstraction settings. In a toy logic task, recursively applying the recipe recovers a high-level hypothesis from scratch. More broadly, our results suggest that partitioning the input space is a useful step toward more precise, constructive, and scalable mechanistic interpretability.