Organizations: Middle East Technical University (METU) · Helmholtz Munich · Munich Center for Machine Learning · Munich Data Science Institute · Technical University of Munich (TUM) · Max Planck Institute for Informatics, SIC · RTG Neuroexplicit Models · Robotics & AI Center (ROMER), METU
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) ground predictions in human-understandable concepts but face fundamental limitations: the absence of a metric to pre-evaluate concept relevance, the "linearity problem" causing recent CBMs to bypass the concept bottleneck entirely, an accuracy gap compared to opaque models, and finally the lack of systematic study on the impact of different visual backbones and VLMs. We introduce CBM-Suite, a methodological framework to systematically addresses these challenges. First, we propose an entropy-based metric to quantify the intrinsic suitability of a concept set for a given dataset. Second, we resolve the linearity problem by inserting a non-linear layer between concept activations and the classifier, which ensures that model accuracy faithfully reflects concept relevance. Third, we narrow the accuracy gap by leveraging a distillation loss guided by a linear teacher probe. Finally, we provide comprehensive analyses on how different vision encoders, vision-language models, and concept sets interact to influence accuracy and interpretability in CBMs. Extensive evaluations show that CBM-Suite yields more accurate models and provides insights for improving concept-based interpretability.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Common issues among CBM approaches. (i) Models can achieve high accuracy even with irrelevant or random concepts due to concept leakage. (ii) Overlooking the importance of non-linearity reduces CBMs to mere linear probes. (iii) Introducing a concept bottleneck layer often leads to an accuracy gap compared to opaque models. (iv) Although CBMs are modular by design, evaluations do not consider different encoder choices.
Figure 2: Linearity problem undermines interpretability. Linear CBMs attain high accuracy (85+% on ImageNet100 dataset) with random strings ( left ) and Roman Law terminology ( right ).
Figure 3: Histogram of concept activations computed with SAIL for relevant and irrelevant concept sets on ImageNet100 and Places365, illustrating the difference in activation distributions between meaningful and random concepts.
Figure 4: Overview of the CBM-Suite, designed to address the key pitfalls of conventional Concept Bottleneck Models. First, the most relevant concept set for the dataset is selected using the Goodness of Concepts metric. Then, a non-linear concept encoder is trained to construct a trustworthy CBM. Next, the final classifier module is trained under teacher supervision. Finally, CBM-Suite provides a comprehensive evaluation suite across different vision encoders and vision-language models.
Task Agnostic ↓
Concept Set
IN100
CUB200
Places365
Relevant
3.660
4.305
3.077
Irrelevant
4.504
4.491
4.505
Random words
4.565
4.553
4.566
Task Specific ↓
Concept Set
IN100
CUB200
Places365
Table 1: Goodness of concepts : suitability of different concept sets for different datasets. Relevant concepts are GPT-generated in ImageNet100 (IN100) and Places365 and GT attributes in CUB200. The irrelevant concept set consists of Roman Law terminology. Random strings denote non-word concepts. Bold / underline indicate lowest/highest entropy (best/worst).
Figure 5: Effect of non-linear concept encoders. We report classification accuracy on ImageNet100 and Places365 using both relevant and irrelevant concept sets. Linear CBM and Non-linear CBM differ only in the concept encoder layer, i.e . , the latter includes a non-linear function. Error bars represent the standard deviation over ten independent runs with random initializations.
Figure 6: Effect of knowledge distillation on CBM performance. Classification accuracy on ImageNet100 and Places365 datasets. Distilled CBM significantly outperforms Vanilla CBM by incorporating distillation loss alongside the elastic loss, approaching Oracle performance. Error bars represent the standard deviation over ten independent runs with random initializations.
Backbone
LP
VLM
CLIP [ 21 ]
SAIL [ 35 ]
FLAIR [ 30 ]
SigLIP [ 34 ]
ResNet [ 8 ]
91.30
89.16
85.56
87.00
90.12
DINOv2 [ 3 ]
92.72
92.22
89.28
89.68
91.74
Franca [ 27 ]
94.10
93.66
88.40
90.08
93.68
Perc. Enc. [ 1 ]
96.56
95.84
93.56
93.84
96.14
Table 2: Backbone choice matters more than VLM selection. Performance accuracies (%) of different VLM and vision backbones on ImageNet100 dataset. Perc.Enc. consistently outperforms other backbones across all methods with performance generally varying more across backbones (rows) than VLMs (columns). SigLIP performs best among VLMs in 3 of 4 cases, with the Perc.Enc. + SigLIP combination yielding best overall performance.
Models
CUB200 [ 28 ]
CIFAR100 [ 12 ]
Places365 [ 36 ]
ImageNet [ 6 ]
LaBo
81.00%
86.82%
-
83.97%
LFCBM
74.31%
65.13%
43.68%
71.95%
CBM-Suite
86.73%
92.50%
54.64%
81.56%
Table 3: Quantitative comparison with state-of-the-art CBMs. Results for LaBo and LFCBM are taken from their respective papers. CBM-Suite uses the best-performing vision backbone–VLM pair for each dataset.
Figure 7: Top concepts are well-matched with their respective classes. Illustration of the Top-5 concepts, ranked by their contribution to the final prediction for randomly selected classes, along with representative images from ImageNet, CIFAR100, CUB200, and Places365, demonstrating that the selected backbone–VLM pairs capture meaningful semantic structure across domains.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Concept Encoder
Classifier
η
Scheduler
α
β
Temperature
η
Scheduler
ImageNet100
0.001
✓
1
1
2
0.0001
-
CUB200
0.0001
-
1
0.5
4
0.001
✓
Places365
0.0001
-
1
2
2
0.001
✓
CIFAR100
0.001
✓
1
1
4
0.0001
-
Appendix
Table 4: Hyperparameter settings for each dataset, including learning rates ( η ) and scheduler usage for the concept encoder and classifier, along with the α and β loss weights and distillation temperature Identical settings are used across all vision backbones and VLMs.
Roman Law Concepts
Random Words
Jurisprudential
historians
gsankm
sjklrveogjc
administrative
impede
ehxrpq
pdbhhidbnvjig
bureaucratization
individual
swsbkzguqjil
cygmao
centuries
iudicum
odbhhqr
foqmegkdcp
civil
knowledge
rwkkmbezusn
fdqumo
delegation
latitude
qkfns
hkeeyhw
Appendix
Table 5: Sample of 30 concepts from the two concept sets used in our experiments. Roman Law concepts extracted from the content of the relevant Wikipedia page, and a set of randomly generated strings.
Figure 8: Histogram of concept activations computed with different VLMs for the relevant and irrelevant concept sets on ImageNet100, highlighting differences in activation distributions across models when evaluated on meaningful versus random concepts.
Task Agnostic ↓
Concept Set
Top-10
Top-100
Top-250
Relevant
1.751
3.660
4.521
Irrelevant
2.254
4.504
5.376
Random
2.284
4.565
5.465
Appendix
Table 6: Robustness of the goodness of concepts metric to varying cutoff values on ImageNet100.
ImageNet100
Concept Set
CLIP
SAIL
FLAIR
SigLIP
Relevant
4.479
3.660
4.545
4.494
Irrelevant
4.480
4.504
4.511
4.534
Random words
4.555
4.565
4.565
4.522
Appendix
Table 7: Task-agnostic goodness of concepts: suitability of different concept sets for different datasets. Relevant concepts are GPT-generated in ImageNet100 and Places365 and ground-truth attributes in CUB200. The irrelevant concept set consists of Roman Law terminology. Random strings denote non-word concepts. Lower entropy indicates better alignment.
ImageNet100
Concept Set
CLIP
SAIL
FLAIR
SigLIP
Relevant
4.517
3.738
4.578
4.522
Irrelevant
4.529
4.545
4.572
4.559
Random words
4.576
4.579
4.589
4.556
Appendix
Table 8: Task-specific goodness of concepts: suitability of different concept sets for different datasets. Relevant concepts are GPT-generated in ImageNet100 and Places365 and ground-truth attributes in CUB200. The irrelevant concept set consists of Roman Law terminology. Random strings denote non-word concepts. Lower entropy indicates better alignment.
Figure 9: Concept set refinement. Entropy-guided removal (blue) outperforms random removal (red, averaged over 10 trials) and preferentially eliminates random concepts, demonstrating the effectiveness of the goodness-of-concepts metric. Solid lines correspond to the entropy (left y-axis), while dashed lines correspond to the number of removed random words (right y-axis).
Configuration
Accuracy (%)
Linear
87.96
Linear + Distillation
90.37
Non-linear
82.27
Non-linear + Distillation
85.56
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study disentangling the effects of linearity and knowledge distillation.
Figure 10: Illustration of the Top-5 concepts, ranked by their contribution to the final prediction for randomly selected classes, along with representative images from ImageNet100, CIFAR100, CUB200, and Places365, highlighting model interpretability across diverse domains.
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) provide interpretability by routing predictions through a layer of human-understandable concepts. However, defining an optimal concept set for a specific dataset remains an open challenge. Existing approaches rely on expensive expert annotations or LLM-generated lists based solely on class names. Even "open-vocabulary" variants typically depend on static concept sets, which restrict discovery and introduce label bias. Furthermore, traditional CBMs often suffer from information leakage, where unmodeled visual features bypass the bottleneck and compromise the integrity of the explanations. To overcome these limitations, we propose Caption Bottleneck Models (CaBM), a framework that circumvents the need for predefined concept sets by replacing rigid concept layers with free-form natural language. By representing images via LMM-generated captions and training a classifier strictly on this text, CaBM ensures a leakage-free architecture by construction. Additionally, by analyzing the text classifier post-training, CaBM autonomously discovers high-quality, dataset-specific concepts. Our results across fine- and coarse-grained benchmarks demonstrate that CaBM achieves competitive accuracy while preserving interpretability without the constraints of external dictionaries or manual labeling.
Seref Baris Cagliyan, Umut Ozdemir, Merve Tapli +1
Dept. of Computer Eng., Middle East Technical University (METU) · Robotics & AI Center (ROMER), METU
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) aim for ante-hoc interpretability by learning a bottleneck layer that predicts interpretable concepts before the decision. State-of-the-art approaches typically select which concepts to learn via human specification, open knowledge graphs, prompting an LLM, or using general CLIP concepts. However, concepts defined a-priori may not have sufficient predictive power for the task or even be learnable from the available data. As a result, these CBMs often significantly trail their black-box counterpart when controlling for information leakage. To address this, we introduce a novel CBM pipeline named Mechanistic CBM (M-CBM), which builds the bottleneck directly from a black-box model's own learned concepts. These concepts are extracted via Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) and subsequently named and annotated on a selected subset of images using a Multimodal LLM. For fair comparison and leakage control, we also introduce the Number of Contributing Concepts (NCC), a decision-level sparsity metric that extends the recently proposed NEC metric. Across diverse datasets, we show that M-CBMs consistently surpass prior CBMs at matched sparsity, while improving concept predictions and providing concise explanations. Our code is available at https://github.com/Antonio-Dee/M-CBM.
Antonio De Santis, Schrasing Tong, Marco Brambilla +1
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) aim to deliver interpretable predictions by routing decisions through a human-understandable concept layer, yet they often suffer reduced accuracy and concept leakage that undermines faithfulness. We introduce an explicit Information Bottleneck regularizer on the concept layer that penalizes I(X;C) while preserving task-relevant information in I(C;Y), encouraging minimal-sufficient concept representations. We derive two practical variants (a variational objective and an entropy-based surrogate) and integrate them into standard CBM training without architectural changes or additional supervision. Evaluated across six CBM families and three benchmarks, the IB-regularized models consistently outperform their vanilla counterparts. Information-plane analyses further corroborate the intended behavior. These results indicate that enforcing a minimal-sufficient concept bottleneck improves both predictive performance and the reliability of concept-level interventions. The proposed regularizer offers a theoretic-grounded, architecture-agnostic path to more faithful and intervenable CBMs, resolving prior evaluation inconsistencies by aligning training protocols and demonstrating robust gains across model families and datasets.
Karim Galliamov, Syed M Ahsan Kazmi, Adil Khan +1
University of Amsterdam · University of West of England · University of Hull +1