Papers › Understanding Inter-Concept Relationships in Concept-Based Models

Understanding Inter-Concept Relationships in Concept-Based Models

28 May 2024arXiv:2405.18217archive 2025-07-28

Naveen Raman, Mateo Espinosa Zarlenga, Mateja Jamnik

Concept-based explainability methods provide insight into deep learning systems by constructing explanations using human-understandable concepts. While the literature on human reasoning demonstrates that we exploit relationships between concepts when solving tasks, it is unclear whether concept-based methods incorporate the rich structure of inter-concept relationships. We analyse the concept representations learnt by concept-based models to understand whether these models correctly capture inter-concept relationships. First, we empirically demonstrate that state-of-the-art concept-based models produce representations that lack stability and robustness, and such methods fail to capture inter-concept relationships. Then, we develop a novel algorithm which leverages inter-concept relationships to improve concept intervention accuracy, demonstrating how correctly capturing inter-concept relationships can improve downstream tasks.

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

28 samples harvested; 17 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 11 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: 28 of the 28 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 naveenr414/Concept-Learning. “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