Papers › On the Concept Trustworthiness in Concept Bottleneck Models

On the Concept Trustworthiness in Concept Bottleneck Models

21 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.14349archive 2025-07-28

Qihan Huang, Jie Song, Jingwen Hu, Haofei Zhang, Yong Wang, Mingli Song

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs), which break down the reasoning process into the input-to-concept mapping and the concept-to-label prediction, have garnered significant attention due to their remarkable interpretability achieved by the interpretable concept bottleneck. However, despite the transparency of the concept-to-label prediction, the mapping from the input to the intermediate concept remains a black box, giving rise to concerns about the trustworthiness of the learned concepts (i.e., these concepts may be predicted based on spurious cues). The issue of concept untrustworthiness greatly hampers the interpretability of CBMs, thereby hindering their further advancement. To conduct a comprehensive analysis on this issue, in this study we establish a benchmark to assess the trustworthiness of concepts in CBMs. A pioneering metric, referred to as concept trustworthiness score, is proposed to gauge whether the concepts are derived from relevant regions. Additionally, an enhanced CBM is introduced, enabling concept predictions to be made specifically from distinct parts of the feature map, thereby facilitating the exploration of their related regions. Besides, we introduce three modules, namely the cross-layer alignment (CLA) module, the cross-image alignment (CIA) module, and the prediction alignment (PA) module, to further enhance the concept trustworthiness within the elaborated CBM. The experiments on five datasets across ten architectures demonstrate that without using any concept localization annotations during training, our model improves the concept trustworthiness by a large margin, meanwhile achieving superior accuracy to the state-of-the-arts. Our code is available at https://github.com/hqhQAQ/ProtoCBM.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

8 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 8 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from hqhQAQ/ProtoCBM. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections