mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Hierarchical Concept Embedding & Pursuit for Interpretable Image Classification

arXiv 2602.11448 ↗First posted 11 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.CVcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Interpretable-by-design models are gaining traction in computer vision because they provide faithful explanations for their predictions. In image classification, these models typically recover human-interpretable concepts from an image and use them for classification. Sparse concept recovery methods leverage the latent space of vision-language models to represent image embeddings as sparse combinations of concept embeddings. However, by ignoring the hierarchical structure of semantic concepts, these methods may produce correct predictions with explanations that are inconsistent with the hierarchy. In this work, we propose Hierarchical Concept Embedding & Pursuit (HCEP), a framework that induces a hierarchy of concept embeddings in the latent space and performs hierarchical sparse coding to recover the concepts present in an image. Given a hierarchy of semantic concepts, we introduce a geometric construction for the corresponding hierarchy of embeddings. Under the assumption that the true concepts form a rooted path in the hierarchy, we derive sufficient conditions for their recovery in the embedding space. We further show that hierarchical sparse coding reliably recovers hierarchical concept embeddings, whereas standard sparse coding fails. Experiments on real-world datasets show that HCEP improves concept precision and recall compared to existing methods while maintaining competitive classification accuracy. Moreover, when the number of samples available for concept estimation and classifier training is limited, HCEP achieves superior classification accuracy and concept recovery. Our results demonstrate that incorporating hierarchical structure into sparse concept recovery leads to more faithful and interpretable image classification models.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 86 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2026.

Builds on

43 of 86 references.

References · 43

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  3. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  4. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  5. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  6. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  7. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
  8. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  9. 2023Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Trainingcited by 3,048
  10. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  11. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
  12. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
31 more
  1. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  2. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
  3. 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,022
  4. 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
  5. 2018This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 731
  6. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
  7. 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
  8. 2017Poincar'e Embeddings for Learning Hierarchical Representationscited by 674
  9. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 668
  10. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  11. 2018Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networkscited by 505
  12. 2022Visual Classification via Description from Large Language Modelscited by 331
  13. 2023Interpreting CLIP's Image Representation via Text-Based Decompositioncited by 189
  14. 2024The Geometry of Categorical and Hierarchical Concepts in Large Language Modelscited by 151
  15. 2023Hyperbolic Image-Text Representationscited by 132
  16. 2024Interpreting CLIP with Sparse Linear Concept Embeddings (SpLiCE)cited by 116
  17. 2022Impossibility Theorems for Feature Attributioncited by 78
  18. 2024On the Origins of Linear Representations in Large Language Modelscited by 76
  19. 2025Interpreting CLIP with Hierarchical Sparse Autoencoderscited by 54
  20. 2019Inferring Concept Hierarchies from Text Corpora via Hyperbolic Embeddingscited by 49
  21. 2023Linear Spaces of Meanings: Compositional Structures in Vision-Language Modelscited by 48
  22. 2025From Flat to Hierarchical: Extracting Sparse Representations with Matching Pursuitcited by 45
  23. 2024Concept Bottleneck Large Language Modelscited by 41
  24. 2023Variational Information Pursuit for Interpretable Predictionscited by 25
  25. 2024Probing the Latent Hierarchical Structure of Data via Diffusion Modelscited by 25
  26. 2024Chain-of-Layer: Iteratively Prompting Large Language Models for Taxonomy Induction from Limited Examplescited by 24
  27. 2025Large Language Models Encode Semantics and Alignment in Linearly Separable Representationscited by 14
  28. 2024DERM12345: A Large, Multisource Dermatoscopic Skin Lesion Dataset with 38 Subclassescited by 10
  29. 2023Learning Interpretable Queries for Explainable Image Classification with Information Pursuitcited by 5
  30. 2025Analyzing Hierarchical Structure in Vision Models with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 5
  31. 2024Compositional Structures in Neural Embedding and Interaction Decompositionscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Supervised sparse auto-encoders for interpretable and compositional representations
  2. 2025Interpreting the linear structure of vision-language model embedding spaces
  3. 2024Conceptual Learning via Embedding Approximations for Reinforcing Interpretability and Transparency
  4. 2026Intrinsic Concept Extraction Based on Compositional Interpretability
  5. 2026Concepts from Representations: Post-hoc Concept Bottleneck Models via Sparse Decomposition of Visual Representations
  6. 2024Understanding Visual Concepts Across Models
  7. 2026When Structured Sparse Autoencoders Learn Consistent Concepts Across Modalities
  8. 2025Uncovering Conceptual Blindspots in Generative Image Models Using Sparse Autoencoders