Towards Automatic Concept-based Explanations
Open accessAbstract
Interpretability has become an important topic of research as more machine learning (ML) models are deployed and widely used to make important decisions. Most of the current explanation methods provide explanations through feature importance scores, which identify features that are important for each individual input. However, how to systematically summarize and interpret such per sample feature importance scores itself is challenging. In this work, we propose principles and desiderata for \emph{concept} based explanation, which goes beyond per-sample features to identify higher-level human-understandable concepts that apply across the entire dataset. We develop a new algorithm, ACE, to automatically extract visual concepts. Our systematic experiments demonstrate that \alg discovers concepts that are human-meaningful, coherent and important for the neural network's predictions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Saliency is an integral method to achieve perceptive interpretability, formulating its explanation based on the relative importance of all input features.
“One of the integral methods to achieve perceptive interpretability is saliency which formulates its explanation based on the relative importance of all the input features.”
From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [40]
Cites
U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 · Cited by 99,404 · see citing works
Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps
Simonyan, K., Vedaldi, A., & Zisserman, A. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1312.6034 · Cited by 5,370 · see citing works
Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08608 · Cited by 3,121 · see citing works
Self-citationEuropean Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision Making and a “Right to Explanation”
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741 · Cited by 2,131 · see citing works
Interpretation of Neural Networks Is Fragile
Ghorbani, A., Abid, A., & Zou, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33013681 · Cited by 765 · see citing works
Self-citationManipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Toward Medical XAI
Tjoa, E., & Guan, C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2020.3027314 · Cited by 2,524 · see citing works
Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., & Hussain, A. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 · Cited by 2,062 · see citing works
Explainable artificial intelligence: an analytical review
Angelov, P. P., Soares, E. A., Jiang, R., Arnold, N. I., & Atkinson, P. M. (2021) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1424 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
Towards relatable explainable AI with the perceptual process
Zhang, W., & Lim, B. Y. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501826 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective
Ngo, R., Chan, L., & Mindermann, S. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.00626 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Emergent World Representations: Exploring a Sequence Model Trained on a Synthetic Task
Li, K., Hopkins, A. K., Bau, D., Viégas, F., Pfister, H., & Wattenberg, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13382 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Validating Automatic Concept-Based Explanations for AI-Based Digital Histopathology
Sauter, D., Lodde, G., Nensa, F., Schadendorf, D., Livingstone, E., & Kukuk, M. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22145346 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
A survey of post-hoc xai methods from a visualization perspective: Challenges and opportunities
Bhati, D., Amiruzzaman, M., Zhao, Y., Guercio, A., & Le, T. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3581136 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ghorbani, A., Wexler, J., Zou, J., & Kim, B.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1902.03129
- OpenAlex
- W2951384661
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1763191)
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- concept-based explanations, explainable AI, interpretability, feature importance, neural network interpretability, ACE algorithm
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
