mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Can we Constrain Concept Bottleneck Models to Learn Semantically Meaningful Input Features?

arXiv 2402.00912 ↗First posted 1 Feb 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CVcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are regarded as inherently interpretable because they first predict a set of human-defined concepts which are used to predict a task label. For inherent interpretability to be fully realised, and ensure trust in a model's output, it's desirable for concept predictions to use semantically meaningful input features. For instance, in an image, pixels representing a broken bone should contribute to predicting a fracture. However, current literature suggests that concept predictions often rely on irrelevant input features. We hypothesise that this occurs when dataset labels include inaccurate concept annotations, or the relationship between input features and concepts is unclear. In general, the effect of dataset labelling on concept representations remains an understudied area. In this paper, we demonstrate that CBMs can learn to map concepts to semantically meaningful input features, by utilising datasets with a clear link between the input features and the desired concept predictions. This is achieved, for instance, by ensuring multiple concepts do not always co-occur and, therefore provide a clear training signal for the CBM to distinguish the relevant input features for each concept. We validate our hypothesis on both synthetic and real-world image datasets, and demonstrate under the correct conditions, CBMs can learn to attribute semantically meaningful input features to the correct concept predictions.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2024.

Builds on

22 of 30 references.

References · 22

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  3. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
  4. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
  5. 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,720
  6. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  7. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  8. 2019CheXpert: A Large Chest Radiograph Dataset with Uncertainty Labels and Expert Comparisoncited by 1,423
  9. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
  10. 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
  11. 2018This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 737
  12. 2022Language in a Bottle: Language Model Guided Concept Bottlenecks for Interpretable Image Classificationcited by 312
10 more
  1. 2023Label-Free Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 285
  2. 2021Promises and Pitfalls of Black-Box Concept Learning Modelscited by 131
  3. 2021Do Concept Bottleneck Models Learn as Intended?cited by 116
  4. 2022Interactive Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 79
  5. 2022GlanceNets: Interpretabile, Leak-proof Concept-based Modelscited by 73
  6. 2020Weakly Supervised Lesion Localization With Probabilistic-CAM Poolingcited by 36
  7. 2023Towards Robust Metrics for Concept Representation Evaluationcited by 29
  8. 2021Is Disentanglement all you need? Comparing Concept-based & Disentanglement Approachescited by 17
  9. 2024Do Concept Bottleneck Models Respect Localities?cited by 10
  10. 2023Towards a Deeper Understanding of Concept Bottleneck Models Through End-to-End Explanationcited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3.

4 papers.