Interpreting "Interpretability" and Explaining "Explainability" in Machine Learning in Physics

Post-hoc explanation methods are routinely used to interpret scientific machine learning models, with the deliverable understood to be insight into the phenomenon the model has been trained on. The transition may be taken to be secured once the model is reliable enough and the explanation faithful enough. We argue it is not. Reliability checks that the model's predictions match the phenomenon's outcomes, and faithfulness checks that the explanation matches the model, but neither checks whether the model works as the phenomenon works, which is what a claim about structure requires. The chain can support candidate hypotheses under external corroboration, but it cannot, on its own, support claims about how the phenomenon is in fact structured.

As Artificial Intelligence models grow in complexity, interpretability has become an indispensable tool for understanding, debugging, and controlling their computations. However, interpretability lacks general theories to deductively design interpretable methods. This gap between theories and methods results in a fragmented literature and inconsistent evaluation protocols. To fill this gap, we introduce the Standard Interpretable Model (SIM), a general theory grounded in Lagrangian mechanics that enables the deductive design of interpretable methods. Specifically, the SIM summarises, in a set of premises, what interpretability is for a target user. From these premises, the SIM systematically derives interpretability symmetries and corresponding constraints, which shape the landscape of a Lagrangian whose minima correspond to optimal interpretable models. To reach the minima, one can either update the parameter values of an opaque model to make it more interpretable or compile constraints into an interpretable architecture. We empirically show that the SIM identifies and solves limitations of existing methods (including traditional, concept-based, and mechanistic interpretability), highlights underexplored research directions, and informs the design of core programming interfaces. Beyond being a research method, the deductive nature of the SIM offers pedagogical grounding for interpretability curricula and may shift the scientific community's perspective of a discipline that has long been fragmented.

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.