# Measuring the (Un)Faithfulness of Concept-Based Explanations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10833 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10833/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 47 of its 57 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 47)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11929/) (2020)
- [Segment Anything](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.02643/) (2023)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottlenecks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.04381/) (2018)
- [Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1411.7766/) (2014)
- [Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.11279/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [Concept Bottleneck Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.04612/) (2020)
- [RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07421/) (2018)
- [This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.10574/) (2018)
- [Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05796/) (2017)
- [Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04093/) (2024)
- [Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07538/) (2018)
- [Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02508/) (2019)
- [Age Progression/Regression by Conditional Adversarial Autoencoder](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08423/) (2017)
- [Post-hoc Concept Bottleneck Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.15480/) (2022)
- [Label-Free Concept Bottleneck Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06129/) (2023)
- [On Completeness-aware Concept-Based Explanations in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.07969/) (2019)
- [Object Detectors Emerge in Deep Scene CNNs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6856/) (2014)
- [CRAFT: Concept Recursive Activation FacTorization for Explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.10154/) (2022)
- [Net2Vec: Quantifying and Explaining how Concepts are Encoded by Filters in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.03454/) (2018)
- [Invertible Concept-based Explanations for CNN Models with Non-negative Concept Activation Vectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.15417/) (2020)
- [Probabilistic Concept Bottleneck Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01574/) (2023)
- [What I Cannot Predict, I Do Not Understand: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Explainability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04417/) (2021)
- [When Explanations Lie: Why Many Modified BP Attributions Fail](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.09818/) (2019)
- [The effectiveness of feature attribution methods and its correlation with automatic evaluation scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.14944/) (2021)
- [The Out-of-Distribution Problem in Explainability and Search Methods for Feature Importance Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.00786/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [On the Faithfulness of Post-Hoc Concept Bottleneck Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30498/) (2026)
- [Concept-based explanation of gene expression prediction from H&E images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.16669/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Deep vision models perform input-output computations that are hard to interpret. Concept-based explanation methods (CBEMs) increase interpretability by re-expressing parts of the model with human-understandable semantic units, or concepts. Checking if the derived explanations are faithful -- that is, they represent the model's internal computation -- requires a surrogate that combines concepts to compute the output. Simplifications made for interpretability inevitably reduce faithfulness, resulting in a tradeoff between the two. State-of-the-art unsupervised CBEMs (U-CBEMs) are seemingly more interpretable, while also being more faithful to the model. However, we observe that the reported improvement in faithfulness artificially results from either (1) using overly complex surrogates, which introduces an unmeasured cost to the explanation's interpretability, or (2) relying on deletion-based approaches that, as we demonstrate, do not properly measure faithfulness. We propose Surrogate Faithfulness (SURF), which (1) replaces prior complex surrogates with a simple, linear surrogate that measures faithfulness without changing the explanation's interpretability and (2) introduces well-motivated metrics that assess loss across all output classes, not just the predicted class. We validate SURF with a measure-over-measure study by proposing a simple sanity check -- explanations with random concepts should be less faithful -- which prior surrogates fail. SURF enables the first reliable faithfulness benchmark of U-CBEMs, revealing that many visually compelling U-CBEMs are not faithful. Code is released at https://github.com/skumar-ml/surf-eval .