Beyond Accuracy: Introducing a Symbolic-Mechanistic Approach to Interpretable Evaluation
Organizations: University of California, Santa Cruz 606 Engineering Loop, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA
Abstract
Accuracy-based evaluation cannot reliably distinguish genuine generalization from shortcuts like memorization, leakage, or brittle heuristics, especially in small-data regimes. In this position paper, we argue for mechanism-aware evaluation that combines task-relevant symbolic rules with mechanistic interpretability, yielding algorithmic pass/fail scores that show exactly where models generalize versus exploit patterns. We demonstrate this on NL-to-SQL by training two identical architectures under different conditions: one without schema information (forcing memorization), one with schema (enabling grounding). Standard evaluation shows the memorization model achieves 94% field-name accuracy on unseen data, falsely suggesting competence. Our symbolic-mechanistic evaluation reveals this model violates core schema generalization rules, a failure invisible to accuracy metrics.
Figures & tables
| Train | Eval | Exact | Field |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schema | Schema | Match | Acc |
| ✗ | ✗ | 72.1% | 93.5% |
| ✗ | ✓ | 10.4% | 83.6% |
| ✓ | ✗ | 0.0% | 40.4% |
| ✓ | ✓ | 94.0% | 99.1% |
| Category | Effect ( ) | PASS S | PASS N |
|---|---|---|---|
| DB-Synonyms | +0.53 | 55% | 25% |
| DB-Scramble | +0.51 | 75% | 70% |
| Non-DB-Syn | +0.57 | 80% | 45% |
| Non-DB-Scr | +2.28 | 95% | 85% |
| Super-Scr | +0.77 | 75% | 70% |
| Overall | +0.93 | 76% | 59% |
Shortcut Learning
Shortcut learning occurs when models exploit easy but unreliable cues instead of the task-relevant evidence needed to generalize.
See all 159 papers