Concept frustration: Aligning human concepts and machine representations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29654v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:17:21 GMT
• Title: Concept frustration: Aligning human concepts and machine representations
• Abstract summary: We introduce a framework for comparing supervised human concepts with unsupervised intermediate representations extracted from foundation model embeddings.<n>Motivated by the role of conceptual leaps in scientific discovery, we formalise the notion of concept frustration.<n>We develop task-aligned similarity measures that detect concept frustration between supervised concept-based models and unsupervised representations.
• Score: 39.50576817657001
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Aligning human-interpretable concepts with the internal representations learned by modern machine learning systems remains a central challenge for interpretable AI. We introduce a geometric framework for comparing supervised human concepts with unsupervised intermediate representations extracted from foundation model embeddings. Motivated by the role of conceptual leaps in scientific discovery, we formalise the notion of concept frustration: a contradiction that arises when an unobserved concept induces relationships between known concepts that cannot be made consistent within an existing ontology. We develop task-aligned similarity measures that detect concept frustration between supervised concept-based models and unsupervised representations derived from foundation models, and show that the phenomenon is detectable in task-aligned geometry while conventional Euclidean comparisons fail. Under a linear-Gaussian generative model we derive a closed-form expression for Bayes-optimal concept-based classifier accuracy, decomposing predictive signal into known-known, known-unknown and unknown-unknown contributions and identifying analytically where frustration affects performance. Experiments on synthetic data and real language and vision tasks demonstrate that frustration can be detected in foundation model representations and that incorporating a frustrating concept into an interpretable model reorganises the geometry of learned concept representations, to better align human and machine reasoning. These results suggest a principled framework for diagnosing incomplete concept ontologies and aligning human and machine conceptual reasoning, with implications for the development and validation of safe interpretable AI for high-risk applications.

Related papers

• Rethinking Concept Bottleneck Models: From Pitfalls to Solutions [53.84388497227224]
  Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) ground predictions in human-understandable concepts.<n>CBM-Suite is a methodological framework to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T19:37:49Z)
• FaCT: Faithful Concept Traces for Explaining Neural Network Decisions [56.796533084868884]
  Deep networks have shown remarkable performance across a wide range of tasks, yet getting a global concept-level understanding of how they function remains a key challenge.<n>We put emphasis on the faithfulness of concept-based explanations and propose a new model with model-inherent mechanistic concept-explanations.<n>Our concepts are shared across classes and, from any layer, their contribution to the logit and their input-visualization can be faithfully traced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T13:35:46Z)
• Towards Better Generalization and Interpretability in Unsupervised Concept-Based Models [9.340843984411137]
  This paper introduces a novel unsupervised concept-based model for image classification, named Learnable Concept-Based Model (LCBM)<n>We demonstrate that LCBM surpasses existing unsupervised concept-based models in generalization capability and nearly matches the performance of black-box models.<n>Despite the use of concept embeddings, we maintain model interpretability by means of a local linear combination of concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T16:26:41Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [68.62012304574012]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their reliability, fairness and potential for misuse.<n>We propose an evaluation framework to assess model reliability by analyzing responses to global and local perturbations in the embedding space.<n>Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and tracing the provenance of embedded biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• Learning Discrete Concepts in Latent Hierarchical Models [73.01229236386148]
  Learning concepts from natural high-dimensional data holds potential in building human-aligned and interpretable machine learning models.<n>We formalize concepts as discrete latent causal variables that are related via a hierarchical causal model.<n>We substantiate our theoretical claims with synthetic data experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T18:01:03Z)
• Understanding Inter-Concept Relationships in Concept-Based Models [12.229150338065828]
  We analyse 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T14:20:49Z)
• Interpretability is in the Mind of the Beholder: A Causal Framework for Human-interpretable Representation Learning [22.201878275784246]
  Focus in Explainable AI is shifting from explanations defined in terms of low-level elements, such as input features, to explanations encoded in terms of interpretable concepts learned from data. How to reliably acquire such concepts is, however, still fundamentally unclear. We propose a mathematical framework for acquiring interpretable representations suitable for both post-hoc explainers and concept-based neural networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T14:26:20Z)
• Interpretable Neural-Symbolic Concept Reasoning [7.1904050674791185]
  Concept-based models aim to address this issue by learning tasks based on a set of human-understandable concepts. We propose the Deep Concept Reasoner (DCR), the first interpretable concept-based model that builds upon concept embeddings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T09:58:15Z)
• Concept Gradient: Concept-based Interpretation Without Linear Assumption [77.96338722483226]
  Concept Activation Vector (CAV) relies on learning a linear relation between some latent representation of a given model and concepts. We proposed Concept Gradient (CG), extending concept-based interpretation beyond linear concept functions. We demonstrated CG outperforms CAV in both toy examples and real world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-31T17:06:46Z)
• GlanceNets: Interpretabile, Leak-proof Concept-based Models [23.7625973884849]
  Concept-based models (CBMs) combine high-performance and interpretability by acquiring and reasoning with a vocabulary of high-level concepts. We provide a clear definition of interpretability in terms of alignment between the model's representation and an underlying data generation process. We introduce GlanceNets, a new CBM that exploits techniques from disentangled representation learning and open-set recognition to achieve alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-31T08:53:53Z)
• Formalising Concepts as Grounded Abstractions [68.24080871981869]
  This report shows how representation learning can be used to induce concepts from raw data. The main technical goal of this report is to show how techniques from representation learning can be married with a lattice-theoretic formulation of conceptual spaces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-13T15:22:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.