Formal Concept Analysis

Deep learning models for multi-modal breast cancer diagnosis achieve high predictive accuracy but remain clinically unacceptable without actionable, counterfactual explanations. Attribution-based methods (LIME, SHAP) are categorically inapplicable to this purpose, as they generate no alternative instances and thus cannot be evaluated on counterfactual quality metrics. This investigation provides empirical evidence that FCA-Guided Counterfactual (FCA-CF) framework that uses a Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) concept lattice as a hard structural constraint on counterfactual search, operating over a multi-modal TCGA-BRCA dataset. We benchmark against four genuine counterfactual methods: Wachter-style CF, DiCE, FACE, and NICE, evaluated on 60 benign-predicted TCGA-BRCA instances. The FCA-CF framework achieves Validity = 1.0000 (100% of counterfactuals successfully flip the prediction), Sparsity = 2.37 features changed (best among all valid methods), and Proximity = 0.900 (normalised L2-based, matching NICE as joint best). The classifier achieves Accuracy = 0.980, F1 = 0.976, ROC-AUC = 0.9947. Ablation analysis confirms that the FCA lattice constraint is the primary sparsity driver (removing it increases sparsity by +40%, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.78), while Phase C greedy refinement accounts for the largest individual contribution (+113% sparsity increase when disabled, p < 0.001, d = 5.01). FCA-guided counterfactual generation achieves a clinically important Pareto-dominant outcome; it is simultaneously the sparsest and among the most proximate of all valid methods, with perfect validity. The emergent sparsity property arising from lattice topology rather than numerical penalty terms constitutes a structurally novel contribution to the counterfactual explanation literature.

Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.

Ontology construction requires deciding which objects, attributes, and structural relations should be accepted as valid knowledge. Language models can propose such structures from text, but their outputs can still be unsupported or inconsistent. This paper proposes a retrieval-augmented small language model (SLM) framework that uses formal concept analysis (FCA) as a symbolic verification loop for knowledge expansion. Starting from seed attributes, FCA proposes implications over a growing formal context. A retrieval-grounded SLM oracle then validates each implication or returns a counterexample. The oracle also supports incidence judgments, consistency checks, and attribute proposals, making accepted implications, counterexamples, contradictions, and corrections inspectable. In a rare ataxia setting constructed from Orphadata resources, retrieval-grounded 10-seed runs obtain relation F1 of 0.29-0.52 and closure-based implication F1 of 0.22-0.30. Larger seed sets increase the number of evaluated implications and often improve implication F1. The lower implication scores reflect a stricter evaluation of derived implications, where one missed or extra relation can affect several implication judgments. Ablations show that incidence judgments in a fixed object-attribute setting can improve closure-based implication scores. However, identifying positive object-attribute pairs remains difficult even when the candidate objects and attributes are fixed.

Crises alter both how people move and how they communicate. During emergencies such as wildfires and pandemics, changes in mobility patterns and online emotional discourse evolve jointly, yet they are typically studied in isolation. This paper presents a unified and interpretable pipeline that integrates mobility and social media data to identify cross-domain behavioral patterns in crisis settings. The framework is evaluated through two case studies: a short-horizon analysis of the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires (prototype case) and a longitudinal analysis of UAE COVID-19 behavior from March 2020 to December 2021 (primary case, 671 days). The pipeline aligns heterogeneous daily signals, transforms them into binary behavioral states, applies Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) to extract co-occurrence structure, mines association rules, and validates rule stability through chronological holdout testing. A structured policy-translation layer renders robust rules as operational briefs specifying triggers, lead times, and action playbooks. Results reveal clear cross-domain behavioral structure in both crises. In the wildfire case, traffic stress, fear/anger sentiment, and governance discourse are tightly coupled within a 33-day window, with key rules reaching 100% confidence and lift scores up to 2.5. In the COVID case, repeated mobility adaptation and sentiment volatility yield 8 stable same-day rules (88% holdout pass rate) and 40 clean predictive rules with 2--7 day lead horizons. The work demonstrates that interpretable multimodal fusion can produce both scientifically credible and policy-actionable crisis intelligence.

Knowledge extraction from symbolic data often produces abstractions that are formally defined but not immediately interpretable by users. Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) and Relational Concept Analysis (RCA) provide representative settings for this issue: they generate explicit conceptual structures, implications, and relational dependencies from object descriptions and relations. Although these structures are explainable by design, their concepts are often identified by technical labels, which limits their use as human-interpretable knowledge units. Assigning meaningful names to such concepts is therefore a key issue for interpretation, navigation, validation, and reuse by domain experts. This paper investigates concept naming in FCA and RCA from a symbolic knowledge representation perspective. We first characterize the linguistic and terminological challenges involved in naming generated symbolic abstractions, including ambiguity, discrimination, concision, and consistency across related concepts. We then propose a configurable framework for LLM-assisted concept naming. The framework relies on a variability model that controls which sources of information are exposed during naming, such as intent, extent, inherited information, neighboring concepts, implications, and relational attributes. It thereby makes explicit the semantic choices involved in moving from formal concept descriptions to human-readable names. The approach is illustrated as a proof of concept on a small relational dataset in the pizzeria domain. This illustration shows how different configurations influence the names suggested by an LLM, and how naming variability can reveal interpretation choices, relational dependencies, and possible modeling issues in the underlying symbolic data.

We propose a unified mathematical framework for a geometric understanding of concept learning and neuron interpretation in sparse autoencoders (SAEs). While SAEs improve interpretability of neural networks by learning sparse feature representations, a principled definition of ''concept'' and ''learning'' remains unclear. We formalize concepts as sets of data points and cast concept learning as a set-alignment problem between human-defined and model-induced concepts. This formulation distinguishes three increasingly strong notions of learning -- detection, separation, and approximation -- and yields geometric conditions, error bounds, and capacity constraints for when concepts can be represented by individual neurons or multi-neuron units. It also provides a set-theoretic account for common SAE phenomena, including feature splitting, feature absorption, feature families, and hierarchical concepts. Finally, we connect concept learning and neuron interpretation through formal concept analysis, showing that the two directions need not agree and that their many-to-many structure can be organized by concept lattices. Experiments on synthetic data with ReLU and Top-$K$ SAEs illustrate the theory and reveal the effects of SAE size and sparsity on concept learning.

Learning semantics is essential for deep learning models to be interpretable and better aligned with human reasoning. Concept-based models approach this by representing classes through meaningful semantic abstractions, but typically treat all concepts as a flat, unstructured set learned at a single neural network layer. This overlooks a fundamental property of human semantic understanding: concepts being organized hierarchically, from general to specific. While deep networks do learn a hierarchy of visual features, this structure is rarely aligned with explicit semantic hierarchies. Drawing on Formal Concept Analysis, we demonstrate that formal concept lattices provide principled semantic scaffolds to guide neural network learning. These lattices naturally identify where in the network concepts should be learned based on their level of generality. This allows the model to develop staged, semantically grounded representations throughout its depth. Empirical results on real-world datasets show that our models produce more interpretable embeddings, support more effective interventions, and learn concept representations that are both meaningful and hierarchically structured.

Graph-structured retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems can improve answer quality on multi-hop questions, but many current systems rely on large language models (LLMs) to extract entities, relations, and summaries during indexing. These calls add token and wall-clock costs that grow with corpus size. We present ContextRAG, a graph RAG system whose graph topology is constructed without LLM-based entity or relation extraction. ContextRAG derives a fuzzy concept graph over chunk embeddings using residual-quantization k-means and Formal Concept Analysis with Lukasiewicz residuated logic. Bridge-like and meet-derived context nodes are induced by soft fuzzy join and meet operations, rather than by LLM-written graph edges. On a 130-task UltraDomain subset, ContextRAG builds its index with 30 LLM calls and 22,073 tokens. In contrast, a local HiRAG reproduction stress test required 870 indexing calls and 3.54M tokens on a 20-task subset before failing during graph construction; linear extrapolation to 130 tasks implies over 23M indexing tokens. ContextRAG obtains 33.6% F1 overall and 36.8% F1 on multi-hop tasks. An activation analysis shows that queries retrieving at least one lattice-derived node in the top five achieve +3.9 percentage points F1 over queries that do not; this association is diagnostic rather than causal.