Aligning human-interpretable concepts with the internal representations learned by modern machine learning systems remains a central challenge for interpretable AI. We introduce a geometric framework for comparing supervised human concepts with unsupervised intermediate representations extracted from foundation model embeddings. Motivated by the role of conceptual leaps in scientific discovery, we formalise the notion of concept frustration: a contradiction that arises when an unobserved concept induces relationships between known concepts that cannot be made consistent within an existing ontology. We develop task-aligned similarity measures that detect concept frustration between supervised concept-based models and unsupervised representations derived from foundation models, and show that the phenomenon is detectable in task-aligned geometry while conventional Euclidean comparisons fail. Under a linear-Gaussian generative model we derive a closed-form expression for Bayes-optimal concept-based classifier accuracy, decomposing predictive signal into known-known, known-unknown and unknown-unknown contributions and identifying analytically where frustration affects performance. Experiments on synthetic data and real language and vision tasks demonstrate that frustration can be detected in foundation model representations and that incorporating a frustrating concept into an interpretable model reorganises the geometry of learned concept representations, to better align human and machine reasoning. These results suggest a principled framework for diagnosing incomplete concept ontologies and aligning human and machine conceptual reasoning, with implications for the development and validation of safe interpretable AI for high-risk applications.

Bottleneck Models (CBMs) have gained popularity since their introduction.

Ahumansupervisorcaninterpret and understand the label predictions by inspecting the concept predictions.

To address this, we propose Concept Embedding Models, a novel family of concept bottleneck models which goes beyond the current accuracy-vs-interpretability trade-off by learning interpretable highdimensional conceptrepresentations.

Concept-based learning, a promising approach in machine learning, emphasizes the value of high-level representations called concepts. However, despite growing interest in concept-bottleneck models (CBMs), there is a lack of clear understanding regarding the properties of concept sets and their impact on model performance. In this work, we define concepts within the machine learning context, highlighting their core properties: 'expressiveness' and'model-aware inductive bias', and we make explicit the underlying assumption of CBMs. We establish theoretical results for concept-bottleneck models (CBMs), revealing how these properties guide the design of concept sets that optimize model performance. Specifically, we demonstrate that well-chosen concept sets can improve sample efficiency and out-of-distribution robustness in the appropriate regimes. Based on these insights, we propose a method to effectively identify informative and non-redundant concepts. We validate our approach with experiments on CIFAR-10 and MetaShift, showing that concept-bottleneck models outperform the foundational embedding counterpart, particularly in low-data regimes and under distribution shifts. We also examine failure modes and discuss how they can be tackled.

The lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of deep learning systems presents a significant challenge in modern artificial intelligence (AI), as it impairs users' ability to rely on and verify these systems. To address this challenge, Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) have made significant progress by incorporating human-interpretable concepts into deep learning architectures. This approach allows predictions to be traced back to specific concept patterns that users can understand and potentially intervene on. However, existing CBMs' task predictors are not fully interpretable, preventing a thorough analysis and any form of formal verification of their decision-making process prior to deployment, thereby raising significant reliability concerns. To bridge this gap, we introduce Concept-based Memory Reasoner (CMR), a novel CBM designed to provide a human-understandable and provably-verifiable task prediction process. Our approach is to model each task prediction as a neural selection mechanism over a memory of learnable logic rules, followed by a symbolic evaluation of the selected rule. The presence of an explicit memory and the symbolic evaluation allow domain experts to inspect and formally verify the validity of certain global properties of interest for the task prediction process. Experimental results demonstrate that CMR achieves better accuracy-interpretability trade-offs to state-of-the-art CBMs, discovers logic rules consistent with ground truths, allows for rule interventions, and allows pre-deployment verification.