Are We Recovering Mechanisms? Objective-Level Recovery Gaps in Mechanistic Interpretability

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Mechanistic interpretability aims to recover the internal computations responsible for model behavior. Progress in automated circuit discovery is often framed as a search problem: better attribution or optimization should identify better mechanisms. This assumes that the evaluation objective can recognize a better circuit once it is found. We show that intervention-defined faithfulness can instead prefer an equally sized circuit that reproduces the model's behavior less well, creating an objective-level recovery gap. Across four human-reference tasks and InterpBench, we compare validation faithfulness with behavior on held-out prompts under fixed ordinary resampling. The behavioral criterion is agreement with the intact model, including its mistakes, except on Greater-Than, where we use semantic accuracy. Controlled reference edits reveal misranking without any discovery algorithm, and outputs of EAP, EAP-IG, ACDC, and Edge-SP exhibit the same failure. Under resampling, KL misranks 9.4%-41.2% of candidate pairs across these methods on the human-reference tasks. We investigate context distortion as an explanation: replacing excluded signals changes the inputs on which retained components operate. Restoring selected signals from the recipient's intact-model execution repairs 96 of 100 persistent KL misrankings from the discovery pool on both validation and held-out prompts. The circuits and their original behavioral scores remain unchanged. These findings show why better discovery alone is insufficient when its objective rewards the wrong candidate.