REVIEW 1 cited by
Is Disentanglement all you need? Comparing Concept-based & Disentanglement Approaches
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Concept-based explanations have emerged as a popular way of extracting human-interpretable representations from deep discriminative models. At the same time, the disentanglement learning literature has focused on extracting similar representations in an unsupervised or weakly-supervised way, using deep generative models. Despite the overlapping goals and potential synergies, to our knowledge, there has not yet been a systematic comparison of the limitations and trade-offs between concept-based explanations and disentanglement approaches. In this paper, we give an overview of these fields, comparing and contrasting their properties and behaviours on a diverse set of tasks, and highlighting their potential strengths and limitations. In particular, we demonstrate that state-of-the-art approaches from both classes can be data inefficient, sensitive to the specific nature of the classification/regression task, or sensitive to the employed concept representation.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
DeCoDe: Defer-and-Complement Decision-Making via Decoupled Concept Bottleneck Models
DeCoDe combines concept bottleneck models with learning to defer to select per-instance among AI-only, human-only, and AI+human strategies, reporting accuracy gains over binary deferral baselines on three image datasets.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.