Causal opacity denotes the difficulty in understanding the "hidden" causal structure underlying the decisions of deep neural network (DNN) models. This leads to the inability to rely on and verify state-of-the-art DNN-based systems, especially in high-stakes scenarios. For this reason, circumventing causal opacity in DNNs represents a key open challenge at the intersection of deep learning, interpretability, and causality. This work addresses this gap by introducing Causal Concept Graph Models (Causal CGMs), a class of interpretable models whose decision-making process is causally transparent by design. Our experiments show that Causal CGMs can: (i) match the generalisation performance of causally opaque models, (ii) enable human-in-the-loop corrections to mispredicted intermediate reasoning steps, boosting not just downstream accuracy after corrections but also the reliability of the explanations provided for specific instances, and (iii) support the analysis of interventional and counterfactual scenarios, thereby improving the model's causal interpretability and supporting the effective verification of its reliability and fairness.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) propose to enhance the trustworthiness of AI systems by constraining their decisions on a set of human understandable concepts. However, CBMs typically rely on datasets with assumedly accurate concept labels—an assumption often violated in practice which we show can significantly degrade performance. To address this, we introduce the Concept Preference Optimization (CPO) objective, a new loss function based on Direct Preference Optimization, which effectively mitigates the negative impact of concept mislabeling on CBM performance. We provide an analysis on some key properties of the CPO objective showing it directly optimizes for the concept’s posterior distribution, and contrast it against Binary Cross Entropy (BCE) where we show CPO is inherently less sensitive to concept noise. We empirically confirm our analysis finding that CPO consistently outperforms BCE in three real-world datasets with and without added label noise

In this paper, we investigate how concept-based models (CMs) respond to out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs. CMs are interpretable neural architectures that first predict a set of high-level concepts (e.g., "stripes", "black") and then predict a task label from those concepts. In particular, we study the impact of concept interventions (i.e., operations where a human expert corrects a CM’s mispredicted concepts at test time) on CMs’ task predictions when inputs are OOD. Our analysis reveals a weakness in current state-of-the-art CMs, which we term leakage poisoning, that prevents them from properly improving their accuracy when intervened on for OOD inputs. To address this, we introduce MixCEM, a new CM that learns to dynamically exploit leaked information missing from its concepts only when this information is in-distribution. Our results across tasks with and without complete sets of concept annotations demonstrate that MixCEMs outperform strong baselines by significantly improving their accuracy for both in-distribution and OOD samples in the presence and absence of concept interventions.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are interpretable machine learning models that ground their predictions on human-understandable concepts, allowing for targeted interventions in their decision-making process. However, when intervened on, CBMs assume the availability of humans that can identify the need to intervene and always provide correct interventions. Both assumptions are unrealistic and impractical, considering labor costs and human error-proneness. In contrast, Learning to Defer (L2D) extends supervised learning by allowing machine learning models to identify cases where a human is more likely to be correct than the model, thus leading to deferring systems with improved performance. In this work, we gain inspiration from L2D and propose Deferring CBMs (DCBMs), a novel framework that allows CBMs to learn when an intervention is needed. To this end, we model DCBMs as a composition of deferring systems and derive a consistent L2D loss to train them. Moreover, by relying on a CBM architecture, DCBMs can explain the reasons for deferring on the final task. Our results show that DCBMs can achieve high predictive performance and interpretability by deferring only when needed.

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.

This workshop aims to spearhead research on Human-Interpretable Artificial Intelligence (HI-AI) by providing: (i) a general overview of the key aspects of HI-AI, in order to equip all researchers with the necessary background and set of definitions; (ii) novel and interesting ideas coming from both invited talks and top paper contributions; (iii) the chance to engage in dialogue with prominent scientists during poster presentations and coffee breaks. The workshop welcomes contributions covering novel interpretable-by-design or post-hoc approaches, as well as theoretical analysis of existing works. Additionally, we accept visionary contributions speculating on the future potential of this field. Finally, we welcome contributions from related fields such as Ethical AI, Knowledge-driven Machine learning, Human-machine Interaction, but also applications in Medicine and Industry, and analyses from Regulatory experts.

Recent work on interpretability has focused on concept-based explanations, where deep learning models are explained in terms of high-level units of information, referred to as concepts. Concept learning models, however, have been shown to be prone to encoding impurities in their representations, failing to fully capture meaningful features of their inputs. While concept learning lacks metrics to measure such phenomena, the field of disentanglement learning has explored the related notion of underlying factors of variation in the data, with plenty of metrics to measure the purity of such factors. In this paper, we show that such metrics are not appropriate for concept learning and propose novel metrics for evaluating the purity of concept representations in both approaches. We show the advantage of these metrics over existing ones and demonstrate their utility in evaluating the robustness of concept representations and interventions performed on them. In addition, we show their utility for benchmarking state-of-the-art methods from both families and find that, contrary to common assumptions, supervision alone may not be sufficient for pure concept representations.

Placing a human in the loop may help abate the risks of deploying AI systems in safety-critical settings (e.g., a clinician working with a medical AI system). However, mitigating risks arising from human error and uncertainty within such human-AI interactions is an important and understudied issue. In this work, we study human uncertainty in the context of concept-based models, a family of AI systems that enable human feedback via concept interventions where an expert intervenes on human-interpretable concepts relevant to the task. Prior work in this space often assumes that humans are oracles who are always certain and correct. Yet, real-world decision-making by humans is prone to occasional mistakes and uncertainty. We study how existing concept-based models deal with uncertain interventions from humans using two novel datasets: UMNIST, a visual dataset with controlled simulated uncertainty based on the MNIST dataset, and CUB-S, a relabeling of the popular CUB concept dataset with rich, densely-annotated soft labels from humans. We show that training with uncertain concept labels may help mitigate weaknesses of concept-based systems when handling uncertain interventions. These results allow us to identify several open challenges, which we argue can be tackled through future multidisciplinary research on building interactive uncertainty-aware systems. To facilitate further research, we release a new elicitation platform, UElic, to collect uncertain feedback from humans in collaborative prediction tasks.

Deep learning methods are highly accurate, yet their opaque decision process prevents them from earning full human trust. Concept-based models aim to address this issue by learning tasks based on a set of human-understandable concepts. However, state-of-the-art concept-based models rely on high-dimensional concept embedding representations which lack a clear semantic meaning, thus questioning the interpretability of their decision process. To overcome this limitation, we propose the Deep Concept Reasoner (DCR), the first interpretable concept-based model that builds upon concept embeddings. In DCR, neural networks do not make task predictions directly, but they build syntactic rule structures using concept embeddings. DCR then executes these rules on meaningful concept truth degrees to provide a final interpretable and semantically-consistent prediction in a differentiable manner. Our experiments show that DCR: (i) improves up to +25% w.r.t. state-of-the-art interpretable concept-based models on challenging benchmarks (ii) discovers meaningful logic rules matching known ground truths even in the absence of concept supervision during training, and (iii), facilitates the generation of counterfactual examples providing the learnt rules as guidance.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) tackle the opacity of neural architectures by constructing and explaining their predictions using a set of high-level concepts. A special property of these models is that they permit concept interventions, wherein users can correct mispredicted concepts and thus improve the model's performance. Recent work, however, has shown that intervention efficacy can be highly dependent on the order in which concepts are intervened on and on the model's architecture and training hyperparameters. We argue that this is rooted in a CBM's lack of train-time incentives for the model to be appropriately receptive to concept interventions. To address this, we propose Intervention-aware Concept Embedding models (IntCEMs), a novel CBM-based architecture and training paradigm that improves a model's receptiveness to test-time interventions. Our model learns a concept intervention policy in an end-to-end fashion from where it can sample meaningful intervention trajectories at train-time. This conditions IntCEMs to effectively select and receive concept interventions when deployed at test-time. Our experiments show that IntCEMs significantly outperform state-of-the-art concept-interpretable models when provided with test-time concept interventions, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach.

Deploying AI-powered systems requires trustworthy models supporting effective human interactions, going beyond raw prediction accuracy. Concept bottleneck models promote trustworthiness by conditioning classification tasks on an intermediate level of human-like concepts. This enables human interventions which can correct mispredicted concepts to improve the model's performance. However, existing concept bottleneck models are unable to find optimal compromises between high task accuracy, robust concept-based explanations, and effective interventions on concepts---particularly in real-world conditions where complete and accurate concept supervisions are scarce. To address this, we propose Concept Embedding Models, a novel family of concept bottleneck models which goes beyond the current accuracy-vs-interpretability trade-off by learning interpretable high-dimensional concept representations. Our experiments demonstrate that Concept Embedding Models (1) attain better or competitive task accuracy w.r.t. standard neural models without concepts, (2) provide concept representations capturing meaningful semantics including and beyond their ground truth labels, (3) support test-time concept interventions whose effect in test accuracy surpasses that in standard concept bottleneck models, and (4) scale to real-world conditions where complete concept supervisions are scarce.

Cloud services have recently started undergoing a major shift from monolithic applications, to graphs of hundreds or thousands of loosely-coupled microservices. Microservices fundamentally change a lot of assumptions current cloud systems are designed with, and present both opportunities and challenges when optimizing for quality of service (QoS) and cloud utilization.