Position: Mechanistic Interpretability Must Disclose Identification Assumptions for Causal Claims

Mechanistic interpretability often evaluates explanations by intervening on a model: swapping hidden states, patching activations, ablating components, or comparing a compressed model to the original one. These experiments are usually summarized by a point estimate, even though the evaluation may be monitored while it runs or adapted toward suspected failures. This makes it hard to tell whether a reported fidelity or patching effect is a stable causal claim or a consequence of finite sampling and evaluation choices. We introduce Certified Interventional Fidelity (CIF), a statistical layer for interventional interpretability evaluations. CIF first writes the quantity being reported as a causal estimand: an expectation of a bounded score over a stated input distribution and a stated intervention distribution. It then provides confidence intervals and anytime-valid confidence sequences for this estimand, including under adaptive intervention sampling via bounded mixture importance weighting. We instantiate CIF with Hoeffding-style sequences and variance-adaptive betting sequences, the latter reducing certification cost by 10-30x in our experiments. On MNIST abstractions and GPT-2 Small IOI circuits, CIF certifies high-fidelity claims, shows when apparent method differences are not statistically supported, and makes sensitivity to the intervention distribution explicit.

A central goal of science is to produce valid explanations of complex systems: high-level causal accounts that faithfully reflect the behavior of lower-level mechanisms. Yet no consensus exists on how to measure whether a proposed high-level explanation is actually valid. We introduce a benchmark of ten complex systems spanning both discrete and continuous state spaces, as well as static and dynamical regimes, each equipped with consensual ground-truth causal explanations and invalid contrastive conditions. Within a unified causal abstraction framework, we systematically evaluate over thirty candidate metrics drawn from observational, functional, information-theoretic, and causal families. Our results show that only the latter reliably discriminates valid from invalid abstractions, and only when incorporating faithfulness testing over unmapped variables. Building on these findings, we introduce the Causal Abstraction Error (CAE), a continuous validity metric with an explicit faithfulness test, which passes all discrimination tests across every system and can converge with as few as 30 sampled interventions. We offer it as a general-purpose metric for the discovery and validation of high-level explanations.

For many real-world systems, causal ground truth is difficult to obtain, making claims about causal effects hard to assess. We develop methods for evaluating collections of $\binom{n}{2}$ bivariate causal statements over a set of $n$ variables. In the setting of acyclic linear statements, any such collection can be extended to a unique multivariate causal model, but we argue that this induced model is implausible if it imposes substantial additional confounding to explain observed correlations. We introduce a compatibility score that quantifies this notion of plausibility, notably without relying on the faithfulness assumption. Additionally, we define an incompatibility score for purely graphical bivariate causal statements, based on global consistency constraints that are derived from acyclicity and faithfulness assumptions. We give theoretical and empirical evidence that both scores can successfully distinguish correct from incorrect causal statements in generic settings. Moreover, we demonstrate the practical applicability of our methods by analyzing causal claims made by large language models. Our work aims to provide a foundation for assessing the reliability of causal information derived from human experts or artificial intelligence in settings where alternative forms of validation are unavailable.