Avoiding Leakage Poisoning: Concept Interventions Under Distribution Shifts
About
In this paper, we investigate how concept-based models (CMs) respond to out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs. CMs are interpretable neural architectures that first predict a set of high-level concepts (e.g., stripes, black) and then predict a task label from those concepts. In particular, we study the impact of concept interventions (i.e., operations where a human expert corrects a CM's mispredicted concepts at test time) on CMs' task predictions when inputs are OOD. Our analysis reveals a weakness in current state-of-the-art CMs, which we term leakage poisoning, that prevents them from properly improving their accuracy when intervened on for OOD inputs. To address this, we introduce MixCEM, a new CM that learns to dynamically exploit leaked information missing from its concepts only when this information is in-distribution. Our results across tasks with and without complete sets of concept annotations demonstrate that MixCEMs outperform strong baselines by significantly improving their accuracy for both in-distribution and OOD samples in the presence and absence of concept interventions.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classification | CUB | -- | 93 | |
| Classification | CIFAR10 | Accuracy88.79 | 68 | |
| Task Classification | AwA | Task Accuracy100 | 35 | |
| Task Classification | AWA Inc | Task Accuracy97.58 | 35 | |
| Task Classification | CUB Inc | Task Accuracy87.52 | 35 | |
| Animal Classification | AwA | Task Accuracy89.52 | 8 | |
| Animal Classification | AWA Inc | Task Accuracy86.05 | 8 | |
| Fine-grained Bird Classification | CUB | Task Accuracy48.65 | 8 | |
| Fine-grained Bird Classification | CUB Inc | Task Accuracy35.97 | 8 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR10 | Task Accuracy76.61 | 8 |