Mechanistic interpretability aims to explain neural model behaviour by reverse-engineering learned computational structure into human-understandable components. Without a formal framework, however, mechanistic explanations cannot be objectively verified, compared, or composed. We introduce compositional interpretability, a category-theoretic framework grounded in the principles of compositionality and minimum description length. Compositional interpretations are pairs of syntactic and semantic mappings that must commute to enforce consistency between a model's decomposition and its observed behaviour. We deconstruct explanation quality into measures of faithfulness and complexity to cast interpretability as a constrained optimisation problem, and introduce compressive refinement to systematically restructure models into simpler parts without altering their function. Finally, we derive a parsimony criterion under which syntactic compression theoretically guarantees more concise, human-aligned explanations. Our framework situates prominent mechanistic methods as subclasses of refinement, and clarifies why their compressibility heuristics tend to align with human interpretability. Our work provides a measurable, optimisable blueprint for automating the discovery and evaluation of mechanistic explanations.
Mechanistic interpretability has produced a rich inventory of component-level analyses that characterise what neural-network components encode and how they interact. Their outputs, however, are not easily reusable: selectivity tables, circuit diagrams, and feature lists remain locked in per-study notebooks - non-composable, not queryable in natural language, and not directly actionable for downstream audit or intervention. We study the representation layer that sits between these analyses and downstream use as a bottleneck that can be evaluated independently, and introduce Manifestation Units, a typed tuple protocol (E, S, R, D, G) extended with attention-head primitives (T) for transformer architectures, organising per-component statistics into structured fields populated automatically and queried through hybrid retrieval. Instantiated across generative vision (beta-VAE), discriminative vision (CNN), and language (GPT-2), the protocol supports two findings: typed structure substantially outperforms unstructured baselines on retrieval, and CNN filters retrieved by the schema satisfy causal sufficiency and necessity criteria under matched-budget controls. The schema absorbs attention-head primitives without modification, set-recovers known IOI circuit members under retrieval-budget-matched controls, and reveals an irreducible two-field core (S+R) with remaining fields either redundant or actively interfering. We present this as schema infrastructure for mechanistic interpretability rather than frontier-scale validation.
Mechanistic interpretability produces circuit-level causal analyses of neural network behaviour, but discovered circuits often remain isolated experimental artefacts: there is no shared formal representation for what circuits compute, how they relate, or when two findings provide evidence for the same mechanism. This work provides a formal infrastructure for cumulative mechanistic science by treating circuit interpretation as inductive theory construction. Each circuit is characterised at two levels: a Causal Functional Signature (CFS), which grounds component behaviour in causal attribution evidence and token role profiles, and an architectural signature τarch, learned by inductive logic programming (ILP) from scale-invariant structural predicates. Together, these constitute a formal coherence layer that makes mechanistic claims explicit, comparable via θ-subsumption, and portable across model scales. CFS reveals qualitatively distinct computational strategies across task types, including attention-mediated copying versus MLP-mediated binding. ILP signatures achieve substantially better structural separation than graph kernel and feature-vector baselines, and support principled transfer across model scales and architecture families.
We review the concepts of interpretability and explainability as they apply to machine learning in physics. We define interpretability as concerning the structural transparency of a model (the ability to understand or approximate its inner workings) and explainability as concerning the scientific content of a model (the ability to map it onto domain knowledge). We discuss the trade-offs each entails (interpretability vs. expressivity; explainability vs. adaptability), the contexts in which each is needed, and the intrinsic and post-hoc tools available for achieving them. Throughout, we emphasize that machine-learned models are subject to the same scientific questions as classical models, differing only in scale, and that interpretability and explainability are best understood as deliberate modeling choices rather than inherent properties. We also emphasize the importance of task specification and intervention plans as a core aspect of model design.