Guaranteed Optimal Compositional Explanations for Neurons
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Compositional explanations are a family of methods that aim to describe the spatial alignment between neurons' receptive field activations and concepts through logical rules, typically computed via a search over all possible concept combinations. Since computing the spatial alignment over the entire state space is computationally infeasible, the literature commonly adopts assumptions related to the structure of the combinations and beam search to restrict the state space. However, beam search cannot provide any theoretical guarantees of optimality, and it remains unclear how close current explanations are to the true optimum. In this theoretical paper, we address this gap by introducing the first framework for computing guaranteed optimal compositional explanations over the entire state space spanned by the adopted assumptions. Specifically, we propose: (i) a decomposition that identifies the factors influencing the spatial alignment, (ii) a heuristic to estimate the alignment at any stage of the search, and (iii) the first algorithm that can compute optimal compositional explanations in a time comparable to exhaustive beam search. Using this framework, we demonstrate that 10-40% of explanations previously obtained with beam search are suboptimal when overlapping concepts are involved. Finally, we evaluate a beam-search variant guided by our proposed decomposition and heuristic, showing that it matches or improves runtime over prior methods while offering greater flexibility in hyperparameters and computational resources.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Nov 2025.
Builds on
24 of 43 references.
References · 24
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
- 2016The Cityscapes Dataset for Semantic Urban Scene Understandingcited by 4,427
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
- 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 703
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
- 2020Understanding the Role of Individual Units in a Deep Neural Networkcited by 254
- 2020Compositional Explanations of Neuronscited by 172
- 2022CLIP-Dissect: Automatic Description of Neuron Representations in Deep Vision Networkscited by 144
- 2016Multifaceted Feature Visualization: Uncovering the Different Types of Features Learned By Each Neuron in Deep Neural Networkscited by 106
12 more
- 2023Identifying Interpretable Subspaces in Image Representationscited by 32
- 2023Labeling Neural Representations with Inverse Recognitioncited by 31
- 2024PURE: Turning Polysemantic Neurons Into Pure Features by Identifying Relevant Circuitscited by 29
- 2023Disentangling Neuron Representations with Concept Vectorscited by 28
- 2024Linear Explanations for Individual Neuronscited by 19
- 2022HINT: Hierarchical Neuron Concept Explainercited by 17
- 2023Towards a fuller understanding of neurons with Clustered Compositional Explanationscited by 15
- 2024WWW: A Unified Framework for Explaining What, Where and Why of Neural Networks by Interpretation of Neuron Conceptscited by 14
- 2025Disentangling Polysemantic Channels in Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 6
- 2021Detection Accuracy for Evaluating Compositional Explanations of Unitscited by 3
- 2024Explaining Deep Neural Networks by Leveraging Intrinsic Methodscited by 3
- 2024Towards Utilising a Range of Neural Activations for Comprehending Representational Associationscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.