Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Knowledge graphs for empirical concept retrieval

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

arxiv 2404.07008 v1 pith:FIH5YM5X submitted 2024-04-10 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords conceptconceptsknowledgegraphsconcept-baseddatasetsdefinedexplainability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Concept-based explainable AI is promising as a tool to improve the understanding of complex models at the premises of a given user, viz.\ as a tool for personalized explainability. An important class of concept-based explainability methods is constructed with empirically defined concepts, indirectly defined through a set of positive and negative examples, as in the TCAV approach (Kim et al., 2018). While it is appealing to the user to avoid formal definitions of concepts and their operationalization, it can be challenging to establish relevant concept datasets. Here, we address this challenge using general knowledge graphs (such as, e.g., Wikidata or WordNet) for comprehensive concept definition and present a workflow for user-driven data collection in both text and image domains. The concepts derived from knowledge graphs are defined interactively, providing an opportunity for personalization and ensuring that the concepts reflect the user's intentions. We test the retrieved concept datasets on two concept-based explainability methods, namely concept activation vectors (CAVs) and concept activation regions (CARs) (Crabbe and van der Schaar, 2022). We show that CAVs and CARs based on these empirical concept datasets provide robust and accurate explanations. Importantly, we also find good alignment between the models' representations of concepts and the structure of knowledge graphs, i.e., human representations. This supports our conclusion that knowledge graph-based concepts are relevant for XAI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Concept-Based Mechanistic Interpretability Using Structured Knowledge Graphs

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    BAGEL trains per-layer logistic-regression probes on CLIP-defined concepts and compares per-class concept probabilities with dataset-level concept frequencies, visualizing the alignment in a knowledge graph.

Pith tools