Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) promise transparent reasoning by predicting through human-interpretable concepts, yet their effectiveness fundamentally depends on how well visual and textual representations are aligned or matched. Existing vision-language CBMs often rely on pre-aligned encoders or global cosine similarity, which obscures fine-grained concept localization and fails to reflect true semantic geometry. In this work, we rethink concept alignment as a dynamic cross-modal transport process instead of static projection and propose the Optimal Transport Flow Concept Bottleneck Model (OTF-CBM). It first learns a data-driven semantic cost via Inverse Optimal Transport to measure cross-modal distances, and then performs unbalanced optimal-transport-based flow matching to model semantic transitions between visual patches and textual concepts. With velocity-based concept activation, OTF-CBM captures interpretable geometric relations without ODE integration. Experiments further show that OTF-CBM achieves superior classification accuracy and concept faithfulness, offering a new geometric and dynamical perspective for interpretable cross-modal reasoning.
Tongqing Shi, Ge Yan, Tuomas Oikarinen +1cs.CV cs.LG
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) enhance the interpretability of deep learning networks by aligning the features extracted from images with natural concepts. However, existing CBMs are constrained in their ability to generalize beyond a fixed set of predefined classes and the risk of non-concept information leakage, where predictive signals outside the intended concepts are inadvertently exploited. In this paper, we propose Multimodal Concept Bottleneck Model (MM-CBM) to address these issues and extend CBMs into CLIP. MM-CBM utilizes dual Concept Bottleneck Layers (CBLs) to align both the image and text embeddings into interpretable features. This allows us to perform new vision tasks like zero-shot classification or image retrieval in an interpretable way. Compared to existing methods, MM-CBM achieves up to 51.26% accuracy improvement on average across four standard benchmarks. Our method maintains high accuracy, staying within ~5% of black-box performance while offering greater interpretability.