As AI systems are used in high-stakes applications, ensuring interpretability is crucial. Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) aims to reverse-engineer neural networks by extracting human-understandable algorithms to explain their behavior. This work examines a key question: for a given behavior, and under MI's criteria, does a unique explanation exist? Drawing on identifiability in statistics, where parameters are uniquely inferred under specific assumptions, we explore the identifiability of MI explanations. We identify two main MI strategies: (1) "where-then-what," which isolates a circuit replicating model behavior before interpreting it, and (2) "what-then-where," which starts with candidate algorithms and searches for neural activation subspaces implementing them, using causal alignment. We test both strategies on Boolean functions and small multi-layer perceptrons, fully enumerating candidate explanations. Our experiments reveal systematic non-identifiability: multiple circuits can replicate behavior, a circuit can have multiple interpretations, several algorithms can align with the network, and one algorithm can align with different subspaces. Is uniqueness necessary? A pragmatic approach may require only predictive and manipulability standards. If uniqueness is essential for understanding, stricter criteria may be needed. We also reference the inner interpretability framework, which validates explanations through multiple criteria. This work contributes to defining explanation standards in AI.

Reinforcement learning algorithms are usually stated without theoretical guarantees regarding their performance. Recently, Jin, Yang, Wang, and Jordan (COLT 2020) showed a polynomial-time reinforcement learning algorithm (namely, LSVI-UCB) for the setting of linear Markov decision processes, and provided theoretical guarantees regarding its running time and regret. In real-world scenarios, however, the space usage of this algorithm can be prohibitive due to a utilized linear regression step. We propose and analyze two modifications of LSVI-UCB, which alternate periods of learning and not-learning, to reduce space and time usage while maintaining sublinear regret. We show experimentally, on synthetic data and real-world benchmarks, that our algorithms achieve low space usage and running time, while not significantly sacrificing regret.

Recommender systems should adapt to user interests as the latter evolve. A prevalent cause for the evolution of user interests is the influence of their social circle. In general, when the interests are not known, online algorithms that explore the recommendation space while also exploiting observed preferences are preferable. We present online recommendation algorithms rooted in the linear multi-armed bandit literature. Our bandit algorithms are tailored precisely to recommendation scenarios where user interests evolve under social influence. In particular, we show that our adaptations of the classic LinREL and Thompson Sampling algorithms maintain the same asymptotic regret bounds as in the non-social case. We validate our approach experimentally using both synthetic and real datasets.