Loss Invariance Determines What Concept Layers Encode: Volume Grounding in Echocardiography
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Objective: Concept bottleneck models route prediction through interpretable intermediate variables, and their validity is normally judged by how accurately those variables are predicted. We ask whether that judgement is sufficient, using left ventricular volumes as the concepts underlying ejection fraction estimation from echocardiographic video. Methods: A video transformer encoder was trained on a publicly available echocardiography dataset. End-systolic and end-diastolic volumes formed a concept layer from which ejection fraction was computed analytically, with no residual path to the output. We compared training under an ejection fraction objective alone against training with additional supervision of the volumes in millilitres, and evaluated both on 1276 held-out studies. Results: The concept bottleneck did not increase ejection fraction error relative to direct regression, at 6.89 against 7.13 mean absolute error. Without volume supervision, however, the spread of predicted volumes collapsed to 0.1 millilitres against reference spreads of 35.7 and 45.7 millilitres, while correlation was partly preserved. We show that this follows from an invariance property of the objective: ejection fraction is a ratio and is unchanged when both volumes are rescaled, so the loss determines the concept layer only up to scale. Supervision in absolute units reduced volume error from 89.8 to 25.8 millilitres at a cost of 0.4 in ejection fraction error. Conclusion: Concept accuracy alone can conceal a concept layer that carries no physical scale. Significance: Interpretable intermediate variables in clinical models should be validated against the invariance structure of the training objective, not only against prediction accuracy.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.
Builds on
14 of 18 references.
References · 14
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
- 2018Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representationscited by 941
- 2022Post-hoc Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 293
- 2021Promises and Pitfalls of Black-Box Concept Learning Modelscited by 131
- 2021Do Concept Bottleneck Models Learn as Intended?cited by 116
- 2024Incremental Residual Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 43
- 2023Towards Robust Metrics for Concept Representation Evaluationcited by 29
- 2024On the Concept Trustworthiness in Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 22
- 2025Shortcuts and Identifiability in Concept-based Models from a Neuro-Symbolic Lenscited by 13
- 2025There Was Never a Bottleneck in Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 8
- 2025Symbol Grounding in Neuro-Symbolic AI: A Gentle Introduction to Reasoning Shortcutscited by 7
- 2024Learning a Clinically-Relevant Concept Bottleneck for Lesion Detection in Breast Ultrasoundcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.