# Position: Mechanistic Interpretability Must Disclose Identification Assumptions for Causal Claims

Preprint · Zezheng Lin, Fengming Liu

- Archive id: arxiv:2605.08012
- Published: 2026-05-08
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08012
- Citations: 0
- Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08012
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.08012
- Provenance: arxiv

## Abstract

Mechanistic interpretability papers increasingly use causal vocabulary: circuits, mediators, causal abstraction, monosemanticity. Such claims require explicit identification assumptions. A purposive audit of 10 papers across four methodological strands finds no dedicated identification-assumptions section and a recurring pattern: validation metrics such as faithfulness, completeness, monosemanticity, alignment, or ablation effects are reported as causal support without stating the assumptions that make them identifying. A two-human-coder audit on $n=30$ reproduces the direction of the main finding: dedicated identification sections are absent, and validation-metric substitution is common, though exact Dim B/D counts are coding-rule sensitive. The paper proposes a disclosure norm: state whether the claim is causal, name the identification strategy, enumerate assumptions, stress at least one, and explain how conclusions shift if assumptions fail. Validation is not identification.

_Abstract reproduced under CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)._

Topics: [Mechanistic Interpretability](https://space-kitty.com/topics/interpretability)

---
Space Kitty Archive · https://space-kitty.com · API: https://space-kitty.com/api/v1 · MCP: https://space-kitty.com/mcp · Premium: $0.20/request via x402 (Base Sepolia (testnet)). Metadata: arXiv (CC0), OpenAlex (CC0), Europe PMC (CC BY/CC0 works), ClinicalTrials.gov.