cs.LGJun 30, 2026

Representation as a Bottleneck for Mechanistic Interpretability: The Manifestation Unit Protocol

Authors: Hussein Chouman, Wataru Sasaki, Tomokazu Matsui, Hirohiko Suwa, Keiichi Yasumoto

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 9, 2026cs.LG

From Mechanistic to Compositional Interpretability

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.
Ward Gauderis, Thomas Dooms, Steven T. Homer +2
Mechanistic InterpretabilityModel InterpretabilityCompositionality
AskPDF
May 8, 2026cs.CL

How Much Do Circuits Tell Us? Measuring the Consistency and Specificity of Language Model Circuits

The circuits framework in mechanistic interpretability aims to identify sparse subgraphs of model components that are causally responsible for a behavior, typically evaluated by measuring necessity and sufficiency. But these criteria say little about whether a circuit consistently captures how a model performs a task, or if it is specific to that task. We study these two properties, consistency and specificity, across six tasks and five models, extracting circuits at the component level (attention heads and MLP blocks) and at the level of individual MLP neurons. We find that component-level circuits are highly consistent and causally important on most tasks, but they are not specific: ablating one task's circuit damages another task's performance about as much as that task's own circuit does. Neuron-level circuits, on the other hand, exhibit higher task-specificity but are far less consistent within tasks. This is explained by circuit overlap: component-level circuits share most of their components across all task pairs, related or not, while neuron-level circuits overlap only between closely related tasks. In a case study of the components shared by the task circuits of Llama-3.2-3B, we show that they consist mostly of MLP blocks, while the few attention heads within turn out to be generic attention-sink heads. Overall, our findings raise questions about the degree to which circuits can support targeted understanding of, and intervention on, model behavior.
Michael Li, Nishant Subramani
Mechanistic InterpretabilityCircuitsAblationReuseReusable Skills
AskPDF
Sep 21, 2026cs.CV

Topographic Training Concentrates Causal Circuits Without Improving Neuron Monosemanticity

Mechanistic interpretability of vision transformers seeks to decompose model computation into human-readable units, but learned representations entangle many concepts in each neuron. Feature superposition is widely treated as the central obstacle to this decomposition, yet most mitigations (sparse autoencoders, dictionary learning) are post-hoc and leave the underlying network unchanged. We ask whether a spatial-locality training loss (TopoLoss) can act as a lightweight, training-time prior that improves interpretability of standard mech-interp tools. Training ViT on ImageNet-100 across multiple TopoLoss weights αα, we measure causal sufficiency of topographic clusters via activation patching and feature geometry via sparse autoencoders fit to the same residual stream. At α=1.0α=1.0, topographic clusters are 2.79×\times more causally sufficient than random unit sets of the same size, with the effect increasing monotonically in αα. SAE L0 sparsity decreases by 11% and dead-feature fraction rises 19-fold, yet standard neuron-level monosemanticity scores are unchanged, indicating that topographic pressure acts at circuit level, concentrating causal mass into spatially local structures without disentangling individual neurons. This dissociation suggests current neuron-level monosemanticity metrics are insensitive to a class of real interpretability gains, and positions cheap architectural priors as a viable training-time complement to post-hoc tooling.
Gautam Ranka, Shubham Santosh Pandere, Aiden Dsouza
Visual Semantics
AskPDF