analiza aiqbench
This study reveals a critical flaw in interpreting concept bottleneck models where loss function invariance can cause intermediate variables to collapse into uninformative scales despite maintaining high prediction accuracy. The findings demonstrate that validating interpretable AI layers requires checking their adherence to the physical units and mathematical properties of the underlying concepts, not just regression error metrics. For medical imaging applications relying on explainability, this underscores the necessity of explicit supervision in absolute units to ensure models encode physically meaningful quantities rather than arbitrary ratios.
Loss Invariance Determines What Concept Layers Encode: Volume Grounding in Echocardiography
arXiv:2607.25748v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Objective: Concept bottleneck models route prediction through interpretable intermediate variables, and their validity is normally judged by how accurately those variables are predicted. We ask whether that judgement is sufficient, using left ventricular volumes as the concepts underlying ejection fraction estimation from echocardiographic video. Methods: A video transformer encoder was trained on a publicly available echocardiography dataset. End-systolic and end-diastolic volumes formed a concept layer from which ejection fraction was computed analytically, with no residual path to the output. We compared training under an ejection fraction objective alone against training with additional supervision of the volumes in millilitres, and evaluated both on 1276 held-out studies. Results: The concept bottleneck did not increase ejection fraction error relative to direct regression, at 6.89 against 7.13 mean absolute error. Without volume supervision, however, the spread of predicted volumes collapsed to 0.1 millilitres against reference spreads of 35.7 and 45.7 millilitres, while correlation was partly preserved. We show that this follows from an invariance property of the objective: ejection fraction is a ratio and is unchanged when both volumes are rescaled, so the loss determines the concept layer only up to scale. Supervision in absolute units reduced volume error from 89.8 to 25.8 millilitres at a cost of 0.4 in ejection fraction error. Conclusion: Concept accuracy alone can conceal a concept layer that carries no physical scale. Significance: Interpretable intermediate variables in clinical models should be validated against the invariance structure of the training objective, not only against prediction accuracy.
Abstract:Objective: Concept bottleneck models route prediction through interpretable intermediate variables, and their validity is normally judged by how accurately those variables are predicted. We ask whether that judgement is sufficient, using left ventricular volumes as the concepts underlying ejection fraction estimation from echocardiographic video. Methods: A video transformer encoder was trained on a publicly available echocardiography dataset. End-systolic and end-diastolic volumes formed a concept layer from which ejection fraction was computed analytically, with no residual path to the output. We compared training under an ejection fraction objective alone against training with additional supervision of the volumes in millilitres, and evaluated both on 1276 held-out studies. Results: The concept bottleneck did not increase ejection fraction error relative to direct regression, at 6.89 against 7.13 mean absolute error. Without volume supervision, however, the spread of predicted volumes collapsed to 0.1 millilitres against reference spreads of 35.7 and 45.7 millilitres, while correlation was partly preserved. We show that this follows from an invariance property of the objective: ejection fraction is a ratio and is unchanged when both volumes are rescaled, so the loss determines the concept layer only up to scale. Supervision in absolute units reduced volume error from 89.8 to 25.8 millilitres at a cost of 0.4 in ejection fraction error. Conclusion: Concept accuracy alone can conceal a concept layer that carries no physical scale. Significance: Interpretable intermediate variables in clinical models should be validated against the invariance structure of the training objective, not only against prediction accuracy.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.25748 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.25748v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.25748 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 340 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

How do neural networks regress cubic polynomials? Apparently, they use a trick invented in Milan 500 years ago
LessWrong · 22 iul. 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · 7 iun. 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · 25 iul. 2026

Opaque recurrence, and other AI terms that you should probably know
TechCrunch · 7 sept. 2026