Towards a Deeper Understanding of Concept Bottleneck Models Through End-to-End Explanation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) first map raw input(s) to a vector of human-defined concepts, before using this vector to predict a final classification. We might therefore expect CBMs capable of predicting concepts based on distinct regions of an input. In doing so, this would support human interpretation when generating explanations of the model's outputs to visualise input features corresponding to concepts. The contribution of this paper is threefold: Firstly, we expand on existing literature by looking at relevance both from the input to the concept vector, confirming that relevance is distributed among the input features, and from the concept vector to the final classification where, for the most part, the final classification is made using concepts predicted as present. Secondly, we report a quantitative evaluation to measure the distance between the maximum input feature relevance and the ground truth location; we perform this with the techniques, Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP), Integrated Gradients (IG) and a baseline gradient approach, finding LRP has a lower average distance than IG. Thirdly, we propose using the proportion of relevance as a measurement for explaining concept importance.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2023.
Builds on
9 of 21 references.
References · 9
- 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
- 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,679
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,022
- 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
- 2016Top-down Neural Attention by Excitation Backpropcited by 318
- 2021Do Concept Bottleneck Models Learn as Intended?cited by 114
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2024On the Concept Trustworthiness in Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 22
- 2025If Concept Bottlenecks are the Question, are Foundation Models the Answer?cited by 15
- 2024Do Concept Bottleneck Models Respect Localities?cited by 10
- 2024Can we Constrain Concept Bottleneck Models to Learn Semantically Meaningful Input Features?cited by 4
- 2024Rethinking Distance Metrics for Counterfactual Explainabilitycited by 1
- 2026SL-CBM: Enhancing Concept Bottleneck Models with Semantic Locality for Better Interpretabilitycited by 1
- 2025Towards Robust and Reliable Concept Representations: Reliability-Enhanced Concept Embedding Modelcited by 0
- 2026SL-CBM: Enhancing Concept Bottleneck Models with Semantic Locality for Better Interpretability19 Jan 2026
- 2025If Concept Bottlenecks are the Question, are Foundation Models the Answer?28 Apr 2025
- 2025Towards Robust and Reliable Concept Representations: Reliability-Enhanced Concept Embedding Model3 Feb 2025
- 2024Rethinking Distance Metrics for Counterfactual Explainability18 Oct 2024
- 2024On the Concept Trustworthiness in Concept Bottleneck Models21 Mar 2024
- 2024Can we Constrain Concept Bottleneck Models to Learn Semantically Meaningful Input Features?1 Feb 2024
- 2024Do Concept Bottleneck Models Respect Localities?2 Jan 2024