# FlyHack: Stress-Testing Mechanistic Claims in a Connectome-Constrained Visual Model

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.13018 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13018/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- [Intriguing properties of neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6199/) (2013)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 small](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.00593/) (2022)
- [Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.14997/) (2023)
- [Attribution Patching Outperforms Automated Circuit Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10348/) (2023)
- [Have Faith in Faithfulness: Going Beyond Circuit Overlap When Finding Model Mechanisms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17806/) (2024)
- [AtP*: An efficient and scalable method for localizing LLM behaviour to components](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.00745/) (2024)
- [Tracr: Compiled Transformers as a Laboratory for Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05062/) (2023)
- [MIB: A Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13151/) (2025)
- [Everything, Everywhere, All at Once: Is Mechanistic Interpretability Identifiable?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20914/) (2025)
- [InterpBench: Semi-Synthetic Transformers for Evaluating Mechanistic Interpretability Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.14494/) (2024)
- [Optimal ablation for interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.09951/) (2024)
- [Transformer Circuit Faithfulness Metrics are not Robust](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08734/) (2024)
- [Do vision models perceive illusory motion in static images like humans?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.09853/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Connectome-constrained neural networks make biological components directly accessible to intervention, but their mechanistic conclusions can still depend on the comparison model, intervention, circuit representation and trained solution. We stress-test these dependencies in flyvis, a Drosophila motion-vision model, using its 50-model ensemble, task-matched causal CNN controls and replicated interventions. At the level of model behaviour, three-level reverse-phi reversal in flyvis is strongly period- and velocity-dependent and also appears in task-matched CNNs; neither family reproduces the fly's stationary-sawtooth response. Adversarial direction reversal requires a perturbation bound of 0.21--0.27 times stimulus contrast in flyvis versus 0.13--0.25 in CNNs, but the gap over a parameter-matched CNN largely closes for larger CNNs. At the level of mechanism, matching attribution to the intervention matters: for held-out-mean replacement, first-order edge attribution patching reaches pooled AUROC 0.970 and Spearman 0.872, versus 0.933 and 0.126 when its zero-aligned score is evaluated against the same ground truth. Circuit conclusions also vary with representation and ensemble member. Greedy cell-type sets meet a model-relative T4/T5 tuning criterion in 25 of 50 models, while T4/T5 output silencing reduces the tested optic-flow behaviour to at most two of eight clips in 40. In six models where the cell-type search first succeeds, the corresponding connection sets can be pruned to 13--31 added classes; under an additional two-sided response-amplitude check, only two of those six first-success cell-type sets still meet the tuning threshold. These results support a narrower use of connectome-constrained models: they make mechanistic hypotheses directly testable, but the resulting claims must be scoped to the model family, intervention, representation and trained solution.