The Curse of Multiple Mediators: Hidden Interaction Effects in Activation Patching

A central goal of mechanistic interpretability is to identify which internal components causally drive a language model's behavior. Because these importance estimates serve as the evidence for identifying circuits, systematic errors can lead to the misidentification of the underlying mechanisms. While activation patching provides a gold-standard causal metric, its computational cost is prohibitive at scale. Practitioners instead rely on attribution patching, a gradient-based, first-order approximation whose reliability remains poorly understood. In this work, we characterize the source of this unreliability, demonstrating that the dominant error stems from the non-linearities in the downstream network rather than local curvature at the patched component. This insight yields three practical tools: (i) a reliability score to detect untrustworthy estimates, (ii) error bounds quantifying potential attribution mis-specifications, and (iii) a Hessian-vector-product (HVP) correction that eliminates the leading-order error with only one additional backward pass. In evaluations across five model families (124M-9B parameters) and both random-token and naturalistic (name-swap) perturbations, HVP is the only second-order correction feasible at larger scale, where standard baselines like Integrated Gradients become computationally prohibitive. In comparative experiments, a multi-step HVP variant matches or exceeds the accuracy of Integrated Gradients at significantly lower compute, outperforming prior second-order baselines. These improvements lead to higher-fidelity circuit recovery on standard benchmarks and support a Screen-Flag-Fix workflow that targets computational effort only toward the components flagged as unreliable.

Mechanistic interpretability aims to reverse-engineer transformer computations by identifying causal circuits through activation patching. However, scaling these interventions across diverse prompts and task families produces high-dimensional, unstructured datasets that are difficult to compare systematically. We propose a framework that reframes mechanistic analysis as a graph machine-learning problem by representing activation-patching profiles as patch-effect graphs over model components. We introduce three graph-construction methods: direct-influence via causal mediation, partial-correlation, and co-influence and apply graph kernels to analyze the resulting structures. Evaluating this approach on GPT-2 Small using Indirect Object Identification (IOI) and related tasks, we find that patch-effect graphs preserve discriminative structural signals. Specifically, localized edge-slot features provide higher classification accuracy than global graph-shape descriptors. A screened paired-patching validation suggests that CI and PC selected candidate edges correspond to stronger activation-influence effects than random or low-rank candidates. Crucially, by evaluating these representations against rigorous prompt-only and raw patch-effect controls, we make the evidential scope of the benchmark explicit: graph features compress structured patching signal, while raw tensors and surface cues define strong baselines that any circuit-level claim should address. Ultimately, our framework provides a compression and evaluation pipeline for comparing patching-derived structures under controlled baselines, separating robust slice-discriminative evidence from stronger task-general causal-circuit 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.