Cause and Effect: Hierarchical Concept-based Explanation of Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many scenarios, human decisions are explained based on some high-level concepts. In this work, we take a step in the interpretability of neural networks by examining their internal representation or neuron's activations against concepts. A concept is characterized by a set of samples that have specific features in common. We propose a framework to check the existence of a causal relationship between a concept (or its negation) and task classes. While the previous methods focus on the importance of a concept to a task class, we go further and introduce four measures to quantitatively determine the order of causality. Moreover, we propose a method for constructing a hierarchy of concepts in the form of a concept-based decision tree which can shed light on how various concepts interact inside a neural network towards predicting output classes. Through experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in explaining the causal relationship between a concept and the predictive behaviour of a neural network as well as determining the interactions between different concepts through constructing a concept hierarchy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".