ICON Decomposition: Auditing Deep Neural Networks with Multivariate Variance-based Concept-level Explanations

Deep neural networks often exploit spurious associations, a failure known as shortcut learning. Auditing for shortcuts requires testing many candidate concepts, such as acquisition settings or demographics. Current concept-based explainability methods test one concept at a time, asking whether it is decodable from a layer. These methods flag concepts that are merely correlated with the outcome or with each other, and their scores are not comparable across layers or concept types. We introduce ICON decomposition, which quantifies how much of a layer's variance each concept explains given all other concepts and the outcome, and how much none of them explains, yielding layer-comparable, calibrated scores that suppress false positives. On simulated data, ICON recovers concept importance more accurately than seven existing methods. On skin-cancer models with inserted artifacts, it detects induced shortcuts where baselines report false positives. On two brain-imaging models, ICON's sparse explanations are validated by retraining and out-of-distribution tests.

Identifying Confusion Trends in Concept-based XAI for Multi-Label Classification

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) deployed in high-risk domains, such as healthcare and autonomous driving, must be not only accurate but also understandable to ensure user trust. In real-world computer vision tasks, these models often operate on complex images containing background noise and are heavily annotated. To make such models explainable, Concept-based Explainable AI (CXAI) methods need to be assessed for their applicability and problem-solving capacity. In this work, we explore CXAI use cases in multi-label classification by training two DNNs, VGG16 and ResNet50, on the 20 most annotated labels in the MS-COCO dataset (Microsoft Common Objects in Context). We apply two CXAI methods, CRP (Concept Relevance Propagation) and CRAFT (Concept Recursive Activation FacTorization), to generate concept-level explanations and investigate the overall evaluations. Our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) CXAI highlights learning weaknesses in DNNs, (2) higher concept distinctiveness reduces label and concept confusion, and (3) environmental concepts expose dataset-induced biases. Our results demonstrate the potential of CXAI to enhance the understanding of model generalizability and to diagnose bias instigated by the dataset.

Contrastive Concept Importance: Explaining Pairwise Class Decisions Through Automatically Extracted Concept Representations

Concept-based explanations are a prevalent way to explain the decisions of complex black-box methods through semantically meaningful, human-interpretable concepts. To attribute the contribution of such concepts to a model's decisions, feature attribution methods are used to quantify how strongly each concept contributes to a model output. These attributions are typically computed for a single output class and therefore answer a non-contrastive "why P?" question. In many situations, however, such as cases of misclassification, class confusion, and low-margin predictions, the more natural question to ask is "why P rather than Q?". We introduce contrastive concept importance (CCI), which attributes the logit margin between a target class and a contrast, or foil, class to concepts in an automatically extracted visual concept basis. The resulting scores are signed, indicating whether a concept supports the target over the foil or the foil over the target, and can be decomposed into target-logit and foil-logit effects. This makes it possible to distinguish globally important concepts from concepts that specifically influence a class-pair distinction, including whether their effect is shared, one-sided, or directly contrastive. We evaluate the method on ImageNet class pairs using CRAFT-style concept bases, insertion and deletion curves, logit-wise decomposition analysis, and semantic class hierarchy. The results show that contrastive concept importance reveals class-pair-specific model behavior that is not captured by ordinary concept importance alone, and that highly contrastive concepts can be evaluated against semantic superclass structure to assess whether they affect fine-grained distinctions rather than broad category evidence.

ConceptSMILE: Auditing the Trustworthiness of Concept-Based Explainable AI

Concept-based explainable artificial intelligence (AI) can make model reasoning more human-understandable, but concept-level outputs are not automatically trustworthy. We introduce ConceptSMILE, a model-agnostic perturbation-based auditing framework for evaluating the reliability of concept-based explanations. Rather than replacing SMILE, ConceptSMILE extends its perturbation-based logic from feature- or region-level attribution to the auditing of human-understandable concept explanations. The framework perturbs input regions, measures concept-response shifts, applies locality weighting, and fits an XGBoost surrogate to approximate local concept behaviour. Reliability is assessed through attribution accuracy, surrogate fidelity, faithfulness, stability, and consistency. We evaluate ConceptSMILE on retinal fundus images by comparing MedSAM-derived visual concepts with VLM-based semantic concepts. Results show that reliability varies across concepts and pathways: MedSAM achieves stronger spatial attribution and the highest surrogate fidelity ($R^2 = 0.8503$, $R_w^2 = 0.8465$), while the VLM pathway shows stronger vessel faithfulness and stronger stability under selected artefact conditions. ConceptSMILE provides an independent audit layer for evaluating the trustworthiness of concept-based XAI.