Clarity: The Flexibility-Interpretability Trade-Off in Sparsity-aware Concept Bottleneck Models

Diego Marcos; Konstantinos P. Panousis

arxiv: 2601.21944 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-29 · 💻 cs.LG

Clarity: The Flexibility-Interpretability Trade-Off in Sparsity-aware Concept Bottleneck Models

Konstantinos P. Panousis , Diego Marcos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 10:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG

keywords concept bottleneck modelsinterpretabilitysparsitysemantic alignmenttrade-offClarity metricdeep learningconcept representations

0 comments

The pith

Sparsity in concept bottleneck models allows better task performance at the expense of semantic alignment.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Concept Bottleneck Models use intermediate concept representations to make decisions more interpretable. This paper shows that when these models use sparsity to encourage concise concept use, they often achieve higher accuracy by allowing the concepts to drift away from their intended meanings. The authors propose Clarity as a new way to measure this balance between performance, sparsity, and how precisely the activations match semantics. Their tests on various models and sparsity methods reveal that this deviation is common and that different approaches handle the trade-off differently. A human evaluation supports that Clarity better reflects what people actually trust in the model outputs.

Core claim

The paper establishes that sparsity-aware Concept Bottleneck Models exhibit a flexibility-interpretability trade-off, where the capacity to optimize task performance comes from deviating from semantic alignment, as quantified by the Clarity metric which integrates downstream performance with sparsity and precision of concept activations. This holds across VLM- and attribute predictor-based CBMs and various sparsity strategies, with different methods showing distinct behaviors at similar performance levels, and Clarity correlating better with human trust.

What carries the argument

Clarity metric, which quantifies the interplay between task performance and the sparsity plus precision of concept activations in CBMs.

If this is right

Models can achieve higher task performance by allowing concept representations to deviate from ground-truth semantics.
Different sparsity-inducing strategies like l1, l0, and Bernoulli-based lead to varying degrees of this deviation even at matched performance.
Standard metrics may not capture the true interpretability as well as Clarity does.
The human study shows stronger alignment of Clarity with trust judgments than conventional measures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Designers of interpretable AI systems may need to explicitly choose between maximizing accuracy and preserving semantic fidelity depending on the application.
The trade-off could inform the development of hybrid methods that try to recover alignment without sacrificing gains.
Similar flexibility costs might appear in other sparse representation learning settings outside vision tasks.

Load-bearing premise

Ground-truth concept annotations in the evaluation datasets accurately reflect the semantic meanings that the models' concept representations are supposed to capture.

What would settle it

Finding a sparsity-aware CBM that achieves top task performance while maintaining high semantic alignment and high Clarity scores would challenge the existence of the trade-off.

read the original abstract

The widespread adoption of deep learning models in computer vision has intensified concerns about interpretability. Despite strong performance, these models are often treated as black boxes, with limited systematic investigation of their decision-making processes. While many interpretability methods exist, objective evaluation of learned representations remains limited, particularly for approaches that rely on sparsity to "induce" interpretability. In this work, we investigate how modeling choices in Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) affect the semantic alignment of concept representations. We introduce Clarity, a novel metric that captures the interplay between downstream performance and the sparsity and precision of concept activations. Using an interpretability assessment framework grounded in datasets with ground-truth concept annotations, we evaluate both VLM- and attribute predictor-based CBMs across three amortized sparsity-inducing strategies ($\ell_1$, $\ell_0$, and Bernoulli-based), alongside several widely used sparsity-aware CBM methods from the literature. Our experiments reveal a critical flexibility-interpretability trade-off: a model's capacity to optimize task performance by deviating from semantic alignment. We demonstrate that under this trade-off, different methods exhibit markedly different behaviors even at comparable performance levels. Finally, we validate our framework through a principled human study, which confirms that Clarity aligns significantly more closely with human trust than standard evaluation metrics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Clarity metric shows a performance-interpretability trade-off in CBMs but depends on ground-truth annotations being complete enough to capture real semantics.

read the letter

The paper's key point is that they have come up with Clarity, a metric for sparsity-aware Concept Bottleneck Models that links task performance to the sparsity and precision of concept activations against ground-truth labels. This lets them show a trade-off where models gain flexibility for better performance by straying from semantic alignment. They do a good job running comparisons across VLM-based and attribute-based CBMs with three different sparsity strategies: l1, l0, and Bernoulli-based. They also include several existing sparsity-aware CBM methods for context. The human study is a strong addition, as it shows Clarity matches human trust judgments more closely than typical metrics like accuracy or sparsity counts alone. The experiments appear to use multiple datasets with ground-truth concept annotations, which grounds the evaluation. This setup allows them to quantify how different modeling choices affect semantic alignment in practice. Where it could be softer is in the reliance on those ground-truth annotations being complete. The stress-test concern holds some weight here because if the annotations miss valid concepts, especially in more flexible VLM models that might pick up on compositional or finer details, then the deviation score could overstate the loss of interpretability. Models might be aligning to real semantics not captured in the labels, which would artifactually strengthen the observed trade-off. The abstract does not mention any analysis of annotation coverage or noise, so this is worth probing in the full methods. That said, the human study provides some independent check that helps support the overall framework. Overall, this is aimed at the interpretable ML community working on vision models and CBMs. Readers looking for evaluation tools beyond standard benchmarks will get value from the Clarity framework and the trade-off analysis. The work shows clear thinking on the problem and honest engagement with the literature on CBMs, so it deserves a serious referee. I would recommend putting it through peer review, focusing on the robustness of the metric to annotation limitations.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Clarity, a novel metric that quantifies the interplay between downstream task performance, sparsity, and precision of concept activations in sparsity-aware Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs). It evaluates VLM-based and attribute-predictor-based CBMs under ℓ1, ℓ0, and Bernoulli sparsity strategies on ground-truth annotated datasets, reports that models achieve higher performance by deviating from semantic alignment (the flexibility-interpretability trade-off), shows method-specific behaviors at comparable performance, and validates via human study that Clarity correlates more strongly with human trust than standard metrics.

Significance. If the Clarity metric and trade-off hold under scrutiny, the work would meaningfully advance evaluation practices in interpretable ML by moving beyond isolated accuracy or sparsity measures to a joint metric grounded in semantic alignment. The human study is a clear strength that provides external validation. The result could inform sparsity method selection in CBMs, but its impact is tempered by dependence on the completeness of ground-truth annotations.

major comments (2)

[§3 and §4] §3 (Clarity definition) and §4 (evaluation framework): Clarity's precision component is computed against fixed ground-truth concept annotations. This assumes the annotations exhaustively represent all semantically valid alignments that a model could legitimately learn. For VLM-based CBMs, learned concepts may be finer-grained or compositional and thus unannotated, causing high-performing models to be scored as deviating and artifactually strengthening the reported negative correlation between alignment and performance. A sensitivity analysis or alternative alignment measure is needed.
[§4] §4 (experimental results): The manuscript reports differences in Clarity across methods at matched performance levels but does not include error bars, standard deviations across runs, or statistical significance tests. Without these, it is unclear whether the claimed method-specific behaviors under the trade-off are robust or could be explained by training variance.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'three amortized sparsity-inducing strategies (ℓ1, ℓ0, and Bernoulli-based)' is clear, but the main text should explicitly map each to the corresponding implementation details (e.g., which Bernoulli variant) for reproducibility.
[Figures] Figures: several plots comparing Clarity versus performance lack axis labels for the Clarity scale or explicit legend entries for all CBM variants, reducing immediate readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3 and §4] §3 (Clarity definition) and §4 (evaluation framework): Clarity's precision component is computed against fixed ground-truth concept annotations. This assumes the annotations exhaustively represent all semantically valid alignments that a model could legitimately learn. For VLM-based CBMs, learned concepts may be finer-grained or compositional and thus unannotated, causing high-performing models to be scored as deviating and artifactually strengthening the reported negative correlation between alignment and performance. A sensitivity analysis or alternative alignment measure is needed.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation regarding the dependence on ground-truth annotations. Our framework is intentionally defined on datasets that provide such annotations to enable quantitative measurement of semantic alignment. We acknowledge that VLM-based models may discover finer-grained or compositional concepts not present in the annotations, which could affect the precision component. To address this, we will add a sensitivity analysis in the revised manuscript by systematically subsampling the ground-truth concept set and recomputing Clarity scores to evaluate the robustness of the flexibility-interpretability trade-off. We will also expand the discussion to clarify the scope and limitations of annotation-based evaluation. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (experimental results): The manuscript reports differences in Clarity across methods at matched performance levels but does not include error bars, standard deviations across runs, or statistical significance tests. Without these, it is unclear whether the claimed method-specific behaviors under the trade-off are robust or could be explained by training variance.

Authors: We agree that reporting variability and statistical tests is necessary to support the robustness of the observed method-specific behaviors. In the revised manuscript, we will rerun all experiments across multiple random seeds, include error bars and standard deviations for Clarity values at matched performance levels, and add statistical significance tests (e.g., paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests) to confirm that the differences between sparsity strategies are not attributable to training variance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain; Clarity and trade-off are empirical observations

full rationale

The paper introduces Clarity as an independently defined metric based on downstream performance, sparsity, and precision of concept activations, then reports an experimental trade-off observed across VLM- and attribute-based CBMs on ground-truth annotated datasets. No equations, self-definitional reductions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract or description that would make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by construction. The human study is presented as external validation, keeping the framework self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that ground-truth annotations provide a valid proxy for semantic alignment and on the definition of Clarity as a composite of performance, sparsity, and precision.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Ground-truth concept annotations in the datasets accurately reflect semantic alignment of model activations
Invoked in the interpretability assessment framework to evaluate concept precision.

invented entities (1)

Clarity metric no independent evidence
purpose: To quantify the interplay between downstream performance, sparsity, and precision of concept activations
Newly defined composite metric introduced in the paper; no independent evidence outside this work is provided in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5532 in / 1274 out tokens · 47059 ms · 2026-05-16T10:02:53.267401+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Clarity = 3·Acc·Sparsity·Prec / (Acc·Sparsity + Acc·Prec + Sparsity·Prec)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/BranchSelection.lean branch_selection unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

sparsity-inducing strategies (ℓ1, ℓ0, Bernoulli-based)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.