Hyperbolic Concept Bottleneck Models
Extracted source text · arXiv 2605.06440
\documentclass{article}
% if you need to pass options to natbib, use, e.g.:
% \PassOptionsToPackage{numbers, compress}{natbib}
% before loading neurips_2026
% The authors should use one of these tracks.
% Before accepting by the NeurIPS conference, select one of the options below.
% 0. "default" for submission
\PassOptionsToPackage{numbers, compress}{natbib}
\usepackage[preprint]{neurips_2026}
% Recommended, but optional, packages for figures and better typesetting:
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{booktabs} % for professional tables
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{colortbl} % Required for row color
\definecolor{Gray}{gray}{0.95} % Light gray for "Ours"
\usepackage{arydshln}
\usepackage{placeins}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
% hyperref makes hyperlinks in the resulting PDF.
% If your build breaks (sometimes temporarily if a hyperlink spans a page)
% please comment out the following usepackage line and replace
% \usepackage{icml2026} with \usepackage[nohyperref]{icml2026} above.
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{graphicx} % Required for \resizebox
\usepackage{booktabs} % Required for \toprule, \midrule, \bottomrule
\usepackage{pifont} % Required for the check and cross marks
\usepackage{xcolor}
\newcommand{\gain}[1]{\textcolor[HTML]{2E7D32}{\scriptsize #1}}
% Define the checkmark and crossmark commands
\newcommand{\cmark}{\ding{51}}
\newcommand{\xmark}{\ding{55}}
% Attempt to make hyperref and algorithmic work together better:
\newcommand{\theHalgorithm}{\arabic{algorithm}}
% REMOVE LATER
\newcommand{\ssm}[1]{\textcolor{magenta}{[\textbf{SSM}: #1]}}
\newcommand{\du}[1]{\textcolor{red}{[\textbf{DU}: #1]}}
\newcommand{\psmm}[1]{\textcolor{orange}{[\textbf{PM}: #1]}}
% the "default" option is equal to the "main" option, which is used for the Main Track with double-blind reviewing.
% 1. "main" option is used for the Main Track
% \usepackage[main]{neurips_2026}
% 2. "position" option is used for the Position Paper Track
% \usepackage[position]{neurips_2026}
% 3. "eandd" option is used for the Evaluations & Datasets Track
% \usepackage[eandd]{neurips_2026}
% if you need to opt-in for a single-blind submission in the E&D track:
%\usepackage[eandd, nonanonymous]{neurips_2026}
% 4. "creativeai" option is used for the Creative AI Track
% \usepackage[creativeai]{neurips_2026}
% 5. "sglblindworkshop" option is used for the Workshop with single-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[sglblindworkshop]{neurips_2026}
% 6. "dblblindworkshop" option is used for the Workshop with double-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[dblblindworkshop]{neurips_2026}
% After being accepted, the authors should add "final" behind the track to compile a camera-ready version.
% 1. Main Track
% \usepackage[main, final]{neurips_2026}
% 2. Position Paper Track
% \usepackage[position, final]{neurips_2026}
% 3. Evaluations & Datasets Track
% \usepackage[eandd, final]{neurips_2026}
% 4. Creative AI Track
% \usepackage[creativeai, final]{neurips_2026}
% 5. Workshop with single-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[sglblindworkshop, final]{neurips_2026}
% 6. Workshop with double-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[dblblindworkshop, final]{neurips_2026}
% Note. For the workshop paper template, both \title{} and \workshoptitle{} are required, with the former indicating the paper title shown in the title and the latter indicating the workshop title displayed in the footnote.
% For workshops (5., 6.), the authors should add the name of the workshop, "\workshoptitle" command is used to set the workshop title.
% \workshoptitle{WORKSHOP TITLE}
% "preprint" option is used for arXiv or other preprint submissions
% \usepackage[preprint]{neurips_2026}
% to avoid loading the natbib package, add option nonatbib:
% \usepackage[nonatbib]{neurips_2026}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref} % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url} % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs} % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts} % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac} % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype} % microtypography
\usepackage{xcolor} % colors
% Note. For the workshop paper template, both \title{} and \workshoptitle{} are required, with the former indicating the paper title shown in the title and the latter indicating the workshop title displayed in the footnote.
\title{Hyperbolic Concept Bottleneck Models}
% The \author macro works with any number of authors. There are two commands
% used to separate the names and addresses of multiple authors: \And and \AND.
%
% Using \And between authors leaves it to LaTeX to determine where to break the
% lines. Using \AND forces a line break at that point. So, if LaTeX puts 3 of 4
% authors names on the first line, and the last on the second line, try using
% \AND instead of \And before the third author name.
% \author{%
% Daniel Uyterlinde \\
% Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam\\
% Amsterdam, Netherlands\\
% \texttt{daniel.uijterlinde@student.uva.nl} \\
% % examples of more authors
% \And
% Swasti Mishra \\
% Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam \\
% Amsterdam, Netherlands\\
% \texttt{daniel.uijterlinde@student.uva.nl} \\
% \AND
% Pascal Mettes \\
% Informatics Institute \\
% University of Amsterdam\\
% Netherlands\\
% \texttt{daniel.uijterlinde@student.uva.nl} \\
% % \And
% % Coauthor \\
% % Affiliation \\
% % Address \\
% % \texttt{email} \\
% % \And
% % Coauthor \\
% % Affiliation \\
% % Address \\
% % \texttt{email} \\
% }
\author{%
Daniel Uyterlinde \quad Swasti S. Mishra \quad Pascal Mettes \\
Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands \\
\texttt{daniel.uijterlinde@student.uva.nl, \{s.s.mishra, p.s.m.mettes\}@uva.nl}
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
% Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) constrain classifier inputs to human-understandable concepts, but typically activate them via cosine similarity in flat Euclidean space — treating concepts as independent dimensions despite their inherently hierarchical structure. Hyperbolic vision-language models, by contrast, encode this structure geometrically: parent concepts subsume their children through entailment cone containment. While prior work has exploited this geometry as a pre-training objective, we show it can be read out directly as a test-time concept activation. Building on this insight, we introduce Hyperbolic Concept Bottleneck Models (HypCBM), a post-hoc framework, with two main contributions. First, we introduce a geometric entailment activation mechanism which maps images to sparse, hierarchy- and specificity-aware concept activations. Second, we generalize user interventions to be hierarchically faithful, automatically propagating corrections through the concept hierarchy based on an adaptive scaling law. Together, these yield activations that are intrinsically sparse, specificity-aware, and propagate user corrections coherently through the concept hierarchy without learned modules or auxiliary supervision. Empirically, HypCBM rivals Euclidean models trained on 20$\times$ more data under strict concept budgets, with stronger hierarchical consistency and substantially improved robustness to input corruptions.
% Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) have become a popular approach to enable interpretability in neural networks by constraining the classifier inputs to a set of human-understandable concepts. While effective, current models embed these concepts in flat Euclidean space, treating them as independent, orthogonal dimensions. Concepts, however, are not independent but highly structured and organized in semantic hierarchies. To resolve this mismatch, we propose Hyperbolic Concept Bottleneck Models (HypCBM), a novel post-hoc framework that leverages hyperbolic geometry to ground the bottleneck in semantic structure. We introduce a geometric entailment activation mechanism which maps images to sparse, hierarchy-aware concept activations. Furthermore, we generalize user interventions to be hierarchically faithful, automatically propagating corrections through the concept hierarchy based on an adaptive scaling law. Empirically, we find that hyperbolic geometry acts as a strong inductive bias that can compensate for data scale: HypCBM often rivals Euclidean models trained on 20$\times$ more data in sparse regimes, with stronger hierarchical consistency and improved robustness to input corruptions.
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) have become a popular approach to enable interpretability in neural networks by constraining classifier inputs to a set of human-understandable concepts. While effective, current models embed concepts in flat Euclidean space, treating them as independent, orthogonal dimensions. Concepts, however, are highly structured and organized in semantic hierarchies. To resolve this mismatch, we propose Hyperbolic Concept Bottleneck Models (HypCBM), a post-hoc framework that grounds the bottleneck in this structure by reformulating concept activation as asymmetric geometric containment in hyperbolic space. Rather than treating entailment cones as a pre-training penalty, we show they encode a natural test-time activation signal: the margin of inclusion within a concept's entailment cone yields sparse, hierarchy-aware activations without any additional supervision or learned modules. We further introduce an adaptive scaling law for hierarchically faithful interventions, propagating user corrections coherently through the concept tree. Empirically, HypCBM rivals post-hoc Euclidean models trained on 20$\times$ more data in sparse regimes required for human interpretability, with stronger hierarchical consistency and improved robustness to input corruptions.
\end{abstract}
\input{1-introduction}
\input{2-related-work}
\input{3-method}
\input{4-experiments}
\input{5-discussion}
\input{6-conclusions}
\bibliography{ref}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\input{A-appendix}
% \subsection{Retrieval of style files}
% The style files for NeurIPS and other conference information are available on the website at
% \begin{center}
% \url{https://neurips.cc}.
% \end{center}
% The file \verb+neurips_2026.pdf+ contains these instructions and illustrates the various formatting requirements your NeurIPS paper must satisfy.
% The only supported style file for NeurIPS 2026 is \verb+neurips_2026.sty+, rewritten for \LaTeXe{}. \textbf{Previous style files for \LaTeX{} 2.09, Microsoft Word, and RTF are no longer supported.}
% The \LaTeX{} style file contains three optional arguments:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item \verb+final+, which creates a camera-ready copy,
% \item \verb+preprint+, which creates a preprint for submission to, e.g., arXiv, \item \verb+nonatbib+, which will not load the \verb+natbib+ package for you in case of package clash.
% \end{itemize}
% \paragraph{Preprint option}
% If you wish to post a preprint of your work online, e.g., on arXiv, using the NeurIPS style, please use the \verb+preprint+ option. This will create a nonanonymized version of your work with the text ``Preprint. Work in progress.'' in the footer. This version may be distributed as you see fit, as long as you do not say which conference it was submitted to. Please \textbf{do not} use the \verb+final+ option, which should \textbf{only} be used for papers accepted to NeurIPS.
% At submission time, please omit the \verb+final+ and \verb+preprint+ options. This will anonymize your submission and add line numbers to aid review. Please do \emph{not} refer to these line numbers in your paper as they will be removed during generation of camera-ready copies.
% The file \verb+neurips_2026.tex+ may be used as a ``shell'' for writing your paper. All you have to do is replace the author, title, abstract, and text of the paper with your own.
% The formatting instructions contained in these style files are summarized in Sections \ref{gen_inst}, \ref{headings}, and \ref{others} below.
% \section{General formatting instructions}
% \label{gen_inst}
% The text must be confined within a rectangle 5.5~inches (33~picas) wide and
% 9~inches (54~picas) long. The left margin is 1.5~inch (9~picas). Use 10~point
% type with a vertical spacing (leading) of 11~points. Times New Roman is the
% preferred typeface throughout, and will be selected for you by default.
% Paragraphs are separated by \nicefrac{1}{2}~line space (5.5 points), with no
% indentation.
% The paper title should be 17~point, initial caps/lower case, bold, centered
% between two horizontal rules. The top rule should be 4~points thick and the
% bottom rule should be 1~point thick. Allow \nicefrac{1}{4}~inch space above and
% below the title to rules. All pages should start at 1~inch (6~picas) from the
% top of the page.
% For the final version, authors' names are set in boldface, and each name is
% centered above the corresponding address. The lead author's name is to be listed
% first (left-most), and the co-authors' names (if different address) are set to
% follow. If there is only one co-author, list both author and co-author side by
% side.
% Please pay special attention to the instructions in Section \ref{others}
% regarding figures, tables, acknowledgments, and references.
% \section{Headings: first level}
% \label{headings}
% All headings should be lower case (except for first word and proper nouns),
% flush left, and bold.
% First-level headings should be in 12-point type.
% \subsection{Headings: second level}
% Second-level headings should be in 10-point type.
% \subsubsection{Headings: third level}
% Third-level headings should be in 10-point type.
% \paragraph{Paragraphs}
% There is also a \verb+\paragraph+ command available, which sets the heading in
% bold, flush left, and inline with the text, with the heading followed by 1\,em
% of space.
% \section{Citations, figures, tables, references}
% \label{others}
% These instructions apply to everyone.
% \subsection{Citations within the text}
% The \verb+natbib+ package will be loaded for you by default. Citations may be
% author/year or numeric, as long as you maintain internal consistency. As to the
% format of the references themselves, any style is acceptable as long as it is
% used consistently.
% The documentation for \verb+natbib+ may be found at
% \begin{center}
% \url{http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/natbib/natnotes.pdf}
% \end{center}
% Of note is the command \verb+\citet+, which produces citations appropriate for
% use in inline text. For example,
% \begin{verbatim}
% \citet{hasselmo} investigated\dots
% \end{verbatim}
% produces
% \begin{quote}
% Hasselmo, et al.\ (1995) investigated\dots
% \end{quote}
% If you wish to load the \verb+natbib+ package with options, you may add the
% following before loading the \verb+neurips_2026+ package:
% \begin{verbatim}
% \PassOptionsToPackage{options}{natbib}
% \end{verbatim}
% If \verb+natbib+ clashes with another package you load, you can add the optional
% argument \verb+nonatbib+ when loading the style file:
% \begin{verbatim}
% \usepackage[nonatbib]{neurips_2026}
% \end{verbatim}
% As submission is double blind, refer to your own published work in the third
% person. That is, use ``In the previous work of Jones et al.\ [4],'' not ``In our
% previous work [4].'' If you cite your other papers that are not widely available
% (e.g., a journal paper under review), use anonymous author names in the
% citation, e.g., an author of the form ``A.\ Anonymous'' and include a copy of the anonymized paper in the supplementary material.
% \subsection{Footnotes}
% Footnotes should be used sparingly. If you do require a footnote, indicate
% footnotes with a number\footnote{Sample of the first footnote.} in the
% text. Place the footnotes at the bottom of the page on which they appear.
% Precede the footnote with a horizontal rule of 2~inches (12~picas).
% Note that footnotes are properly typeset \emph{after} punctuation
% marks.\footnote{As in this example.}
% \subsection{Figures}
% \begin{figure}
% \centering
% \fbox{\rule[-.5cm]{0cm}{4cm} \rule[-.5cm]{4cm}{0cm}}
% \caption{Sample figure caption. Explain what the figure shows and add a key take-away message to the caption.}
% \end{figure}
% All artwork must be neat, clean, and legible. Lines should be dark enough for
% reproduction purposes. The figure number and caption always appear after the
% figure. Place one line space before the figure caption and one line space after
% the figure. The figure caption should be lower case (except for the first word and proper nouns); figures are numbered consecutively.
% You may use color figures. However, it is best for the figure captions and the
% paper body to be legible if the paper is printed in either black/white or in
% color.
% \subsection{Tables}
% All tables must be centered, neat, clean, and legible. The table number and
% title always appear before the table. See Table~\ref{sample-table}.
% Place one line space before the table title, one line space after the
% table title, and one line space after the table. The table title must
% be lower case (except for the first word and proper nouns); tables are
% numbered consecutively.
% Note that publication-quality tables \emph{do not contain vertical rules}. We
% strongly suggest the use of the \verb+booktabs+ package, which allows for
% typesetting high-quality, professional tables:
% \begin{center}
% \url{https://www.ctan.org/pkg/booktabs}
% \end{center}
% This package was used to typeset Table~\ref{sample-table}.
% \begin{table}
% \caption{Sample table caption. Explain what the table shows and add a key take-away message to the caption.}
% \label{sample-table}
% \centering
% \begin{tabular}{lll}
% \toprule
% \multicolumn{2}{c}{Part} \\
% \cmidrule(r){1-2}
% Name & Description & Size ($\mu$m) \\
% \midrule
% Dendrite & Input terminal & $\approx$100 \\
% Axon & Output terminal & $\approx$10 \\
% Soma & Cell body & up to $10^6$ \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
% \subsection{Math}
% Note that display math in bare TeX commands will not create correct line numbers for submission. Please use LaTeX (or AMSTeX) commands for unnumbered display math. (You really shouldn't be using \$\$ anyway; see \url{https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/503/why-is-preferable-to} and \url{https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/40492/what-are-the-differences-between-align-equation-and-displaymath} for more information.)
% \subsection{Final instructions}
% Do not change any aspects of the formatting parameters in the style files. In
% particular, do not modify the width or length of the rectangle the text should
% fit into, and do not change font sizes. Please note that pages should be
% numbered.
% \section{Preparing PDF files}
% Please prepare submission files with paper size ``US Letter,'' and not, for
% example, ``A4.''
% Fonts were the main cause of problems in the past years. Your PDF file must only
% contain Type 1 or Embedded TrueType fonts. Here are a few instructions to
% achieve this.
% \begin{itemize}
% \item You should directly generate PDF files using \verb+pdflatex+.
% \item You can check which fonts a PDF files uses. In Acrobat Reader, select the
% menu Files$>$Document Properties$>$Fonts and select Show All Fonts. You can
% also use the program \verb+pdffonts+ which comes with \verb+xpdf+ and is
% available out-of-the-box on most Linux machines.
% \item \verb+xfig+ ``patterned'' shapes are implemented with bitmap fonts. Use
% "solid" shapes instead.
% \item The \verb+\bbold+ package almost always uses bitmap fonts. You should use
% the equivalent AMS Fonts:
% \begin{verbatim}
% \usepackage{amsfonts}
% \end{verbatim}
% followed by, e.g., \verb+\mathbb{R}+, \verb+\mathbb{N}+, or \verb+\mathbb{C}+
% for $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{N}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. You can also use the following
% workaround for reals, natural and complex:
% \begin{verbatim}
% \newcommand{\RR}{I\!\!R} %real numbers
% \newcommand{\Nat}{I\!\!N} %natural numbers
% \newcommand{\CC}{I\!\!\!\!C} %complex numbers
% \end{verbatim}
% Note that \verb+amsfonts+ is automatically loaded by the \verb+amssymb+ package.
% \end{itemize}
% If your file contains type 3 fonts or non embedded TrueType fonts, we will ask
% you to fix it.
% \subsection{Margins in \LaTeX{}}
% Most of the margin problems come from figures positioned by hand using
% \verb+\special+ or other commands. We suggest using the command
% \verb+\includegraphics+ from the \verb+graphicx+ package. Always specify the
% figure width as a multiple of the line width as in the example below:
% \begin{verbatim}
% \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx} ...
% \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{myfile.pdf}
% \end{verbatim}
% See Section 4.4 in the graphics bundle documentation
% (\url{http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/required/graphics/grfguide.pdf})
% A number of width problems arise when \LaTeX{} cannot properly hyphenate a
% line. Please give LaTeX hyphenation hints using the \verb+\-+ command when
% necessary.
% \begin{ack}
% Use unnumbered first level headings for the acknowledgments. All acknowledgments
% go at the end of the paper before the list of references. Moreover, you are required to declare
% funding (financial activities supporting the submitted work) and competing interests (related financial activities outside the submitted work).
% More information about this disclosure can be found at: \url{https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/PaperInformation/FundingDisclosure}.
% Do {\bf not} include this section in the anonymized submission, only in the final paper. You can use the \texttt{ack} environment provided in the style file to automatically hide this section in the anonymized submission.
% \end{ack}
% \section*{References}
% References follow the acknowledgments in the camera-ready paper. Use unnumbered first-level heading for
% the references. Any choice of citation style is acceptable as long as you are
% consistent. It is permissible to reduce the font size to \verb+small+ (9 point)
% when listing the references.
% Note that the Reference section does not count towards the page limit.
% \medskip
% {
% \small
% [1] Alexander, J.A.\ \& Mozer, M.C.\ (1995) Template-based algorithms for
% connectionist rule extraction. In G.\ Tesauro, D.S.\ Touretzky and T.K.\ Leen
% (eds.), {\it Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 7},
% pp.\ 609--616. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
% [2] Bower, J.M.\ \& Beeman, D.\ (1995) {\it The Book of GENESIS: Exploring
% Realistic Neural Models with the GEneral NEural SImulation System.} New York:
% TELOS/Springer--Verlag.
% [3] Hasselmo, M.E., Schnell, E.\ \& Barkai, E.\ (1995) Dynamics of learning and
% recall at excitatory recurrent synapses and cholinergic modulation in rat
% hippocampal region CA3. {\it Journal of Neuroscience} {\bf 15}(7):5249-5262.
% }
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \appendix
% \section{Technical appendices and supplementary material}
% Technical appendices with additional results, figures, graphs, and proofs may be submitted with the paper submission before the full submission deadline (see above). You can upload a ZIP file for videos or code, but do not upload a separate PDF file for the appendix. There is no page limit for the technical appendices.
% Note: Think of the appendix as ``optional reading'' for reviewers. The paper must be able to stand alone without the appendix; for example, adding critical experiments that support the main claims to an appendix is inappropriate.
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \newpage
% \input{checklist.tex}
\end{document}
\section{Introduction}
The advent of large black-box models, particularly vision-language models \cite{radford2021learning, li2022blip, liu2023visual}, across high-stakes domains including healthcare \cite{li2023llava, moor2023med}, finance \cite{huang2024open}, and autonomous systems \cite{tian2024drivevlmconvergenceautonomousdriving}, has intensified the need for models whose predictions are transparent and interpretable. While various frameworks offer post-hoc explanations \cite{hu2023seat, hu2023improving, yang2024human}, Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) \cite{koh2020concept} have emerged as a canonical approach by enforcing an intermediate, interpretable bottleneck. By requiring the model to predict human-understandable concepts before making a final decision, this architecture exposes internal reasoning and, crucially, enables users to intervene and correct erroneous predictions at the concept level. CBMs have established themselves in interpretable learning, enabling domain experts to de-bias models and improve reliability through human-in-the-loop interaction \cite{shin2023closer}.
Although recent frameworks have improved CBM scalability and usability \cite{zarlenga2022conceptembeddingmodelsaccuracyexplainability, oikarinen2023labelfree, steinmann2024learninginterveneconceptbottlenecks}, they retain a limiting representational assumption: concept independence. In real-world settings, concepts are rarely independent, but visually co-occurring and semantically structured, exhibiting relationships ranging from synonymy to inherent hierarchies \cite{barbiero2024relational}. While some approaches enforce structure through auxiliary modules or constraints \cite{pittino2023hierarchical, panousis2024coarse, vemuri2025logiccbmslogicenhancedconceptbasedlearning}, the underlying bottleneck activations are derived from a flat Euclidean embedding space, where concepts are treated as independent, orthogonal directions. This geometry is fundamentally at odds with hierarchical logic: in a tree-like structure, the number of nodes grows exponentially with depth, yet Euclidean space cannot embed branching relationships without forcing parent and child concepts into overlapping or distorted regions \cite{10.1007/978-3-642-25878-7_34}. The result is redundant concept sets, logical inconsistencies (e.g., ``\textit{Dog}'' without ``\textit{Animal}''), and inefficient interventions.
Hyperbolic geometry offers a solution to this mismatch. Its exponential volume growth makes it the natural domain for hierarchical representation learning, a property that has driven advances in taxonomy embedding \cite{nickel2017poincare, ganea2018hyperbolic}, image embeddings \cite{khrulkov2020hyperbolic}, segmentation \cite{atigh2022hyperbolic}, and hierarchical classification \cite{dhall2020hierarchicalimageclassificationusing, 9157196}. Recently, hyperbolic vision-language models \cite{desai2023hyperbolic, pal2024compositional} have shown that this geometry can be aligned with semantic structure at scale: through entailment cone training objectives, parent concepts come to geometrically subsume their children. We show that this geometric structure encodes a natural concept activation signal that is hierarchically consistent by construction and directly interpretable at inference time, without any additional supervision or learned modules.
Building on this insight, we introduce Hyperbolic Concept Bottleneck Models (HypCBM). Rather than relying on symmetric distance metrics that distort hierarchical relationships, we reformulate concept activation as an asymmetric geometric containment problem in hyperbolic space. Specifically, our contributions are:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=0.5pt, topsep=0pt]
\item We propose a \textbf{hyperbolic entailment activation mechanism} that maps image representations to sparse, hierarchy-aware concept activations through entailment cone containment.
\item We introduce an \textbf{adaptive scaling law for hierarchical interventions} to propagate corrections coherently through the concept tree. Because hyperbolic volume expands exponentially with depth, a fixed entailment threshold fails; we formulate a scaling mechanism that adapts strictness to the geometric specificity of the parent concept.
\item We demonstrate that HypCBM consistently \textbf{improves accuracy} over existing post-hoc CBMs, rivaling Euclidean models trained on 20$\times$ more data in sparse regimes, while also enhancing data efficiency, robustness, and hierarchical consistency.
\end{itemize}
% We operationalize interpretability in CBMs in this work through four properties:
% (i) sparsity, ensuring concise explanations;
% (ii) hierarchical consistency, enforcing semantic coherence;
% (iii) intervention faithfulness, enabling predictable human corrections; and
% (iv) stability, requiring explanations to remain invariant under benign input perturbations.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Concept Bottleneck Models}
%\daniel{moved to related work}
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) represent a prominent paradigm in explainable machine learning. Unlike classical attribution methods (e.g., LIME \cite{ribeiro2016whyitrustyou}, SHAP \cite{lundberg2017unifiedapproachinterpretingmodel}), CBMs are interpretable-by-design. First proposed by \citet{koh2020concept}, CBMs align the predictive process of neural networks with human reasoning by introducing an intermediate layer of semantically meaningful concepts. This is done by decomposing the classification task into two mappings: a concept extractor $f:\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^K$ that maps raw inputs $\mathbf{x}$ to a concept activation vector $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}^K$, and an interpretable predictor $g:\mathbb{R}^K \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ predicting label $\mathbf{y}$ based solely on $\mathbf{c}$. This bottleneck crucially enables test-time intervention: a human expert can correct wrongly predicted concept activations to correct the final model prediction \cite{shin2023closer}.
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{\textbf{Taxonomy of popular CBM methods.} HypCBM uniquely achieves a structured bottleneck completely post-hoc without learned modules. A full overview is provided in Appendix~\ref{app:taxonomy}.}
\label{tab:cbm_taxonomy}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccl}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Post-hoc} & \textbf{Zero-shot Concepts} & \textbf{Structured Bottleneck} & \textbf{Learned Modules}\\
\midrule
LaBo \cite{yang2023languagebottlelanguagemodel} & \cmark & \cmark & \xmark & Optimized concept selection \\
VLG-CBM \cite{srivastava2025vlgcbmtrainingconceptbottleneck} & \xmark & \xmark & \xmark & Grounding + learned projection \\
Hierarchical CBM \cite{pittino2023hierarchical} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Supervised hierarchy layers \\
CRM \cite{debot2025interpretablehierarchicalconceptreasoning} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Graph reasoning \\
LogicCBM \cite{vemuri2025logiccbmslogicenhancedconceptbasedlearning} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Neuro-symbolic reasoning \\
PCBM \cite{yuksekgonul2023posthoc} / LF-CBM \cite{oikarinen2023labelfree} & \cmark & \cmark & \xmark & \textbf{None} \\
\midrule
\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & \textbf{None} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
Despite their promise, standard CBMs require dense concept supervision, limiting scalability. Early post-hoc interpretation methods such as TCAV \cite{kim2018interpretabilityfeatureattributionquantitative} mitigated this by training linear classifiers per concept, but still required per-concept annotation. Post-hoc CBMs (PCBMs) \cite{yuksekgonul2023posthoc} and their label-free variant LF-CBM \cite{oikarinen2023labelfree} eliminated this by exploiting the shared embedding space of pre-trained VLMs: concept vectors $\mathbf{v}_i$ are retrieved via the text encoder, and activation is computed as cosine similarity $c_i = \langle f(\mathbf{x}), \mathbf{v}_i \rangle$, converting any backbone into an interpretable model without additional training. Subsequent frameworks extended this through language-supervised bottlenecks \cite{yang2023languagebottlelanguagemodel}, learned concept embeddings \cite{zarlenga2022conceptembeddingmodelsaccuracyexplainability}, unsupervised concept discovery \cite{rao2024discoverthennametaskagnosticconceptbottlenecks}, and vision-grounded concept annotation \cite{srivastava2025vlgcbmtrainingconceptbottleneck}.
A separate line of work addresses the structural limitation of flat concept spaces by enforcing explicit semantic relationships. These approaches achieve structural validity through supervised hierarchy layers \cite{pittino2023hierarchical}, probabilistic coarse-to-fine modeling \cite{panousis2024coarse}, or neuro-symbolic rules and graph-based reasoning \cite{vemuri2025logiccbmslogicenhancedconceptbasedlearning, defelice2025causallyreliableconceptbottleneck, debot2025interpretablehierarchicalconceptreasoning}. However, all such methods require learned modules and depart from the post-hoc paradigm, entangling the effect of structural inductive bias with that of additional supervision. \textbf{Direct comparison with these methods is therefore neither fair nor feasible:} they require task-specific training incompatible with our post-hoc setting, and their auxiliary modules are designed for flat Euclidean spaces and cannot be natively extended to hyperbolic geometry.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/method.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Method overview.} \textbf{(1)} Generated concepts and the target image are encoded with a hyperbolic VLM onto the hyperbolic manifold, where they are hierarchically organized. \textbf{(2)} The activation of a concept is measured as the \textit{margin of inclusion} of the image embedding in the entailment cone of the concept. \textbf{(3)} An intervention on a parent concept $(\mathbf{c}_{\text{parent}})$ is propagated to all entailed children $(\mathbf{c}_{\text{child}})$.}
\label{fig:method}
\vspace{-1.4em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hyperbolic Vision-Language Models}
Standard vision-language models like CLIP \cite{radford2021learning} and ALIGN \cite{jia2021scaling} align image and text encoders via a symmetric contrastive objective. While remarkably effective for zero-shot generalization \cite{ramesh2022hierarchicaltextconditionalimagegeneration, Rombach_2022_CVPR}, their reliance on Euclidean geometry limits their ability to capture the intrinsic hierarchy of visual concepts \cite{desai2023hyperbolic}. Recent works address this by generalizing VLMs to hyperbolic space, whose exponential volume growth naturally accommodates tree-like semantic structures. MERU \cite{desai2023hyperbolic} pioneered this direction by redefining image-text alignment as an entailment problem, using hyperbolic entailment cones to enforce asymmetric containment. HyCoCLIP \cite{pal2024compositional} extended this to compositional object-part hierarchies, and HySAC \cite{poppi2025hyperbolicsafetyawarevisionlanguagemodels} applied the same principle for safety-aware representations. We leverage these pre-trained hyperbolic backbones as the geometric foundation for constructing hierarchically faithful concept bottlenecks. Given the rapid growth of entailment-based hyperbolic VLMs \cite{Ramasinghe_2024_CVPR, huynh2026argentadaptivehierarchicalimagetext}, HypCBM presents a zero-shot pathway to interpretability for this emerging model class, with concept hierarchy emerging naturally from the underlying geometry.
% As the landscape of entailment-based hyperbolic VLMs rapidly expands \cite{Ramasinghe_2024_CVPR, huynh2026argentadaptivehierarchicalimagetext}, HypCBM provides a zero-shot mechanism to turn this emerging class of models into interpretable classifiers.
Table~\ref{tab:cbm_taxonomy} positions HypCBM within this landscape. It is the only framework that achieves a structured bottleneck while remaining fully post-hoc with no learned modules. By treating the backbone as a frozen feature extractor, any empirical gains over post-hoc Euclidean baselines are attributable directly to the geometric formulation, free from confounding supervision artifacts.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:method}
We introduce HypCBM, a post-hoc framework that enriches concept bottlenecks with a hierarchical organization through hyperbolic geometry. We begin by formalizing the necessary preliminaries of hyperbolic space. We then detail the concept generation and encoding phase, followed by our two core technical contributions: a hyperbolic entailment activation mechanism and an adaptive strategy for hierarchically faithful concept interventions.
% \subsection{Preliminaries on Hyperbolic Geometry}
% We encode concepts and images in a hyperbolic embedding space: a Riemannian manifold of constant negative curvature $-c$, $c>0$. We utilize the Lorentz model (hyperboloid model), known for its superior numerical stability over the Poincaré ball \cite{nickel2018learning, numericstability-mishne2023}. The $n$-dimensional Lorentz model $\mathbb{L}^n_c$ is defined as:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathbb{L}^n= \left\{ \mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1} :
% \langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x} \rangle_{\mathbb{L}} =
% -\frac{1}{c},\ c > 0 \right\}.
% \end{equation}
% A point $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{L}^n_c$ decomposes into a time component
% $x_0$ and spatial component $\mathbf{\tilde{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^n$, where
% $x_0 = \sqrt{1/c + \|\mathbf{\tilde{x}}\|^2}$ is fully determined by
% $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}$. This allows us to work exclusively with the
% $n$-dimensional spatial component while respecting manifold geometry.
% Critically, this space encodes hierarchy via \textit{radial ordering}:
% generic concepts cluster near the origin, while specific concepts are
% pushed toward the boundary \cite{pal2024compositional}; the geometric
% structure our activation mechanism exploits directly.
\subsection{Preliminaries on Hyperbolic Geometry}
We encode concepts and images in a hyperbolic embedding space, a Riemannian manifold of constant negative curvature $-c$, with $c>0$. While several isometric models of hyperbolic space exist (e.g., the Poincaré ball), we utilize the Lorentz model (or hyperboloid model), known for its superior numerical stability for optimization compared to the Poincaré ball, particularly avoiding vanishing gradients near the boundary, and has become a popular choice for hyperbolic representation learning \cite{nickel2018learning, numericstability-mishne2023}.
Formally, the $n$-dimensional Lorentz model $\mathbb{L}^n_c$ is defined as the upper sheet of a two-sheeted hyperboloid in an ($n+1$)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime \cite{cannon1997hyperbolic}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{L}^n_c= \left\{ \mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1} : \langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x} \rangle_{\mathbb{L}} = -\frac{1}{c}, c > 0 \right\}.
\end{equation}
% A point $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{L}^n_c$ can be decomposed into a \textit{time} component $x_0$ and a \textit{space} component $\mathbf{x}_{1:n} \in \mathbb{R}^n$, which we denote as $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}$ for brevity. Crucially, the manifold constraint $\langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x} \rangle_{\mathbb{L}}=-1/c$ implies that the temporal coordinate is a dependent variable uniquely determined by the spatial coordinates:
% \begin{equation}
% x_0 = \sqrt{1/c + \|\mathbf{\tilde{x}}\|^2}.
% \end{equation} This allows us to represent hyperbolic embeddings using only their $n$-dimensional spatial components while implicitly respecting the manifold geometry.
A point $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{L}^n_c$ decomposes into a time component
$x_0$ and spatial component $\mathbf{\tilde{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^n$, where
$x_0 = \sqrt{1/c + \|\mathbf{\tilde{x}}\|^2}$ is fully determined by
$\mathbf{\tilde{x}}$. This allows us to work exclusively with the
$n$-dimensional spatial component while respecting manifold geometry.
Standard neural networks (like the CLIP image and text encoders) produce features $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ in a flat Euclidean space. To map these features onto the hyperbolic manifold, we utilize the exponential map at the origin, $\mathbf{o} = (\sqrt{1/c}, \mathbf{0})^\top$. This maps a tangent vector $\mathbf{v}$ (identified with $\mathbb{R}^n$) to $\mathbb{L}^n_c$ via:
\begin{equation}
\text{exp}_{\mathbf{0}}(\mathbf{v}) = \cosh(\sqrt{c} \|\mathbf{v}\|) \mathbf{0} + \frac{\sinh(\sqrt{c} \|\mathbf{v}\|)}{\sqrt{c} \|\mathbf{v}\|} \mathbf{v}.
\end{equation}
Inverse operations map points back to the tangent space via the logarithmic map $\text{log}_\mathbf{0}(\cdot)$, enabling standard Euclidean operations when necessary.
\subsection{Concept Generation and Encoding}
\label{sec:conceptgeneration}
Following the label-free, post-hoc paradigm of \citet{oikarinen2023labelfree}, we automate concept discovery without manual annotations in two steps: generating a candidate set of visually descriptive attributes and encoding them onto the hyperbolic manifold.
For concept generation, we prompt an LLM with dataset-specific class labels to produce visually descriptive attributes per class. These per-class lists are aggregated into a global set of unique textual descriptions $\mathcal{T}=\{t_1,\dots,t_M\}$. Full prompts and generation examples are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:concept bank}.
The resulting descriptions are embedded into hyperbolic space using the frozen text encoder $f_T: \mathcal{T} \to \mathbb{L}^n_c$ of any pre-trained hyperbolic VLM. The initial concept bank $\mathcal{C}_{\text{init}}$ of size $M$ is defined as:
% Our framework adopts the label-free, post-hoc paradigm of \citet{oikarinen2023labelfree}, which automates concept discovery without requiring manual annotations. This process consists of two steps: generating a candidate set of visually descriptive attributes and encoding these descriptions into the hyperbolic manifold.
% For the generation phase, we prompt GPT-3 with dataset-specific class labels to produce visually descriptive attributes. These per-class lists are then aggregated into a global, unique set of textual concept descriptions, $\mathcal{T}=\{t_1,\dots,t_M\}$. Full prompts and generation examples are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:concept bank}.
% To embed textual descriptions in hyperbolic space, we utilize the pre-trained, frozen encoders of any hyperbolic vision-language model.
% Let $f_T: \mathcal{T} \to \mathbb{L}^n_c$ denote the text encoder. We define the initial concept bank $\mathcal{C}_{\text{init}}$ of size $M$ by encoding the global vocabulary $\mathcal{T}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}_{\text{init}} = \left\{ \mathbf{c}_i \in \mathbb{L}^n_c \mid \mathbf{c}_i = f_T(t_i) \right\}_{i=1}^{M}.
\end{equation}
% Crucially, this embedding space encodes hierarchy via radial ordering: semantically generic concepts cluster near the origin, while specific concepts are pushed toward the boundary \cite{pal2024compositional}. We exploit this intrinsic organization to extract hierarchically faithful concept activations.
Crucially, each vector $\mathbf{c}_i$ is positioned according to the semantic hierarchy learned by the backbone during pre-training: specific concepts lie within the cones of their generic parents, with correspondingly larger spatial norms \cite{desai2023hyperbolic, pal2024compositional}. We exploit this intrinsic organization in the activation mechanism described next.
% Crucially, each vector $\mathbf{c}_i$ is positioned according to the semantic hierarchy learned during pre-training: generic concepts map near the origin, while specific attributes are pushed toward the boundary with larger spatial norms due to specific instances being entailed by general ones. We exploit this intrinsic organization in the activation mechanism described next.
\paragraph{Norm-Based Filtering.} While generated concept banks provide rich features, they often contain generic terms (e.g., `object', `entity') that lack discriminative power. By embedding concepts as vectors in a hyperbolic embedding space, we are able to filter out overly generic concepts simply by computing their distance to the origin. Overly generic concepts inflate the size of the concept bank without adding significant predictive value since such concepts are applicable to many samples.
We therefore apply a geometric filter to prune them, defining the final concept bank $\mathcal{C}$ as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C} = \{ \mathbf{c} \in \mathcal{C}_{init} \mid \|\tilde{\mathbf{c}}\| \ge \tau \}.
\end{equation}
We set $\tau=0.27$ based on the HyCoCLIP \cite{pal2024compositional} concept embeddings, filtering the bottom $\approx20^{\text{th}}$ percentile of non-discriminative root concepts. To ensure a fair comparison, we utilize this resulting concept bank for both the Euclidean and hyperbolic models. We empirically validate in Appendix~\ref{sec:ablation} that this geometric filtering is critical for hyperbolic models, whereas Euclidean baselines show marginal gains from similar pruning. The final concept counts ($N_c$) per dataset are reported in Table~\ref{tab:main_results}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
% Panel A: Entailment Cone
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/cone.pdf}
\caption{Geometric Entailment}
\label{fig:entailmentcone}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
% Panel B: Scaling Law
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/scatter.pdf}
\caption{Concept-to-Concept Scaling Law}
\label{fig:scaling_law}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Geometry and Scaling of Hyperbolic Entailment.} \textbf{(a)} An image $\mathbf{z}$ activates concept $\mathbf{c}_i$ if the exterior angle $\phi(\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c}_i)$ falls within the scaled cone half-aperture $\eta \omega(\mathbf{c}_i)$. Here, $\eta$ denotes the strictness parameter $\eta_{\text{img}}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:activation}). \textbf{(b)} Empirical scaling law derived from WordNet. The entailment strictness $\eta_{\text{text}}$ required to geometrically capture true descendants scales linearly with the parent concept's norm ($r=0.729$).}
\vspace{-1em}
\label{fig:geometry_and_scaling}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Hyperbolic Entailment Activation}
\label{sec:activation}
Unlike standard symmetric distance metrics (e.g., Euclidean cosine similarity), HypCBM formulates concept activation as an asymmetric geometric containment problem on the Lorentz manifold. While prior work restricts entailment cones to pre-training penalties \cite{ganea2018hyperbolic, desai2023hyperbolic, pal2024compositional}, we show that the resulting geometric structure serves directly as an inference mechanism.
Specifically, the concept activation $a_i$ measures the degree to which image embedding $\mathbf{z}$ is geometrically contained within the entailment cone of concept $\mathbf{c}_i$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:entailmentcone}), yielding a sparse, geometrically grounded activation vector that is hierarchically consistent by construction.
The aperture of this cone is determined by the concept's specificity. Following
\citep{le2019inferringconcepthierarchiestext, desai2023hyperbolic}, we define the cone's
half-aperture $\omega(\mathbf{c}_i)$ as inversely proportional to the concept's spatial norm, with scaling constant $K=0.04$ balancing cone expressivity against saturation
(see Appendix~\ref{app:distribution}):
\begin{equation}
\omega(\mathbf{c}_i) = \sin^{-1} \left( \frac{2K}{\sqrt{c} \| \tilde{\mathbf{c}}_i \|} \right).
\end{equation}
To determine whether the image embedding $\mathbf{z}$ falls within the entailment cone, we compute the \textit{exterior angle} $\phi(\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c}_i)$ relative to the concept axis \cite{desai2023hyperbolic, pal2024compositional}:
\begin{equation}
\phi(\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c}_i) = \cos^{-1}\left(\frac{z_0 + (\mathbf{c}_i)_0 \, c \langle \mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c}_i \rangle_{\mathbb{L}}}{\|\tilde{\mathbf{c}}_i\| \sqrt{(c \langle \mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c}_i \rangle_{\mathbb{L}})^2 - 1}}\right).
\label{eq:exterior}
\end{equation}
Geometrically, the partial order relation is satisfied when this exterior angle is strictly smaller than the cone's half-aperture. We define the concept activation as the \textit{margin of inclusion}, normalized by the cone aperture:
\begin{equation}
a_{i} = \max\left(0, \eta_{\text{img}} - \frac{\phi(\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c}_i)}{\omega(\mathbf{c}_i)}\right),
\label{eq:activation}
\end{equation}
resulting in a naturally sparse, non-negative activation vector $\mathbf{a}=[a_1,\dots,a_{M}]^\top$ where $a_i > 0$ implies geometric entailment. Here, $\eta_{\text{img}}$ is a strictness parameter calibrated to separate true positive entailments from false associations (see Appendix~\ref{app:eta_img}). Normalizing by $\omega(\mathbf{c}_i)$ measures \emph{relative containment depth}, or the ratio of remaining margin to total cone aperture, making activations comparable across concepts of varying specificities: an identical activation value indicates the same relative geometric alignment regardless of whether the concept is generic or specific. Overly generic concepts with broad cones that would activate across most images are further suppressed by norm-based filtering (Section~\ref{sec:conceptgeneration}).
% Because general concepts have wider cones, they naturally yield higher absolute activations for a given angular distance, geometrically mirroring the logical certainty of semantic classification.
Finally, we predict class logits using a sparse linear layer $g(\mathbf{a}) = \mathbf{W}\mathbf{a} + \mathbf{b}$, where $\mathbf{W}$ is regularized with Elastic-Net ($\alpha=0.99$) to ensure decisions rely on a small set of active concepts, with sparsity controlled by regularization parameter $\lambda$.
\subsection{Hierarchically Faithful Concept Interventions}
\label{sec:method interventions}
A critical limitation of Euclidean CBMs is the lack of structural consistency during test-time interventions. Manually deactivating a parent concept (e.g., \textit{``Animal''}) leaves its child concepts (e.g., \textit{``Dog''}) active, resulting in logical paradoxes. HypCBM resolves this by automatically propagating interventions through the semantic concept hierarchy: when a user suppresses a parent concept, all geometric descendants are as well (see Fig.~\ref{fig:method}).
A concept $\mathbf{c}_{\text{child}}$ is identified as a descendant of $\mathbf{c}_{\text{parent}}$ if it falls within the parent's entailment cone under a text-to-text strictness threshold $\eta_{\text{text}}$. However, a fixed threshold is insufficient across hierarchy depths: due to the exponential volume growth of hyperbolic space, the entailment margin required to correctly capture true descendants varies with the parent's specificity.
To address this, we derive an adaptive scaling law for $\eta_{\text{text}}$ from 10k WordNet \citep{10.1145/219717.219748} pairs, finding that the required entailment margin scales linearly with the parent's norm (Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_law}, Appendix~\ref{app:eta_text}). When a user suppresses a concept $\mathbf{c}_{\text{parent}}$ (i.e., setting $a_{\text{parent}} \to 0$), we automatically suppress all $\mathbf{c}_{\text{child}}$ concepts satisfying:
\begin{equation}
\phi(\mathbf{c}_{\text{child}}, \mathbf{c}_{\text{parent}}) < \eta_{\text{text}}(\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}}_{\text{parent}}\|) \cdot \omega(\mathbf{\tilde{c}}_{\text{parent}}).
\end{equation}
This allows users to prune entire branches of spurious concepts with a single interaction, substantially reducing the number of interventions required to correct a prediction.
% \begin{figure}[h]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figures/interventionexample.pdf}
% \caption{\textbf{Hierarchical propagation of interventions:} HypCBM (right) propagates the deactivation of \textit{'commercial space}' to its entailed children ('\textit{venue}', '\textit{public space}'), correcting the prediction to '\textit{apartment building}'. The Euclidean baseline (left) leaves child concepts active and the prediction incorrect.}
% \label{fig:placeholder}
% \end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
% Left Panel: Global Top Activations
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/topactivations.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Top activating images.}}
\label{fig:top_activations}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill % Pushes them apart
% Right Panel: Local Explanation
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/localexpl.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Explaining Decisions.}}
\label{fig:local_explanation}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.2em}
\caption{We validate the interpretability of HypCBM through \textbf{(a)} inspection of the top activating images per concept to verify semantic alignment, and \textbf{(b)} decision explanations showing the top activating concepts for two images, from ImageNet (top) and SUN397 (bottom).}
\label{fig:qualitative}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure*}
\section{Experiments}
\vspace{-0.1em}
% \paragraph{Datasets.}
We evaluate HypCBM across three domains: \textbf{CIFAR-100} \cite{Krizhevsky09learningmultiple} for general object classification, \textbf{SUN397} \cite{5539970} for (hierarchical) scene understanding, and \textbf{ImageNet} \cite{5206848} to assess scalability to real-world complexity. Additional results on \textbf{CUB-200} \cite{WahCUB_200_2011} are provided in Appendix~\ref{additional results}. To isolate the impact of geometry, we control for training data by utilizing the pre-trained checkpoints from \citet{pal2024compositional}, ensuring both the hyperbolic HyCoCLIP and Euclidean CLIP \cite{radford2021learning} are trained on the same GrIT-20M dataset \cite{peng2023kosmos2groundingmultimodallarge}. We also report results for CLIP \cite{radford2021learning}, trained on 400M samples, to contextualize performance against a high-resource upper bound.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Accuracy at fixed concept budgets.} Test accuracy at strict concept budgets ($K$). HypCBM consistently outperforms Euclidean baselines (LF-CBM) on identical backbones (HyCoCLIP-20M) and often even baselines that use large-scale pre-trained backbones (CLIP-400M and CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$-400M). Linear probing accuracy is reported as an upper bound reference.}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lllccccccc}
\toprule
& & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Accuracy @ Concept Budget (ANEC-$K$)}} & \\
\cmidrule(lr){4-9}
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{10} & \textbf{20} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{Peak} & \textbf{LP} \\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{CIFAR-100}\\$(N_c=613)$}}
& LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 39.7 & 48.9 & 55.4 & 60.6 & 64.5 & 67.9 & 73.1 \\
& LF-CBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 25.6 & 34.6 & 56.3 & 61.6 & 62.6 & 69.5 & 76.3 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{44.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{54.4} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{60.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{72.2} & \cellcolor{Gray}76.3 \\
\cmidrule{2-10}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{28.0} & \textit{\underline{58.0}} & \textit{\underline{63.9}} & \textit{64.7} & \textit{67.0} & \textit{71.3} & \textit{82.6} \\
% & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP$^{RE}$-400M} & \textit{20.4} & \textit{26.0} & \textit{31.7} & \textit{46.6} & \textit{58.3} & \textit{70.2} & \textit{80.3} \\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{SUN397}\\$(N_c=1935)$}}
& LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 45.8 & 53.4 & 61.3 & 67.0 & 68.6 & 70.5 & 74.8 \\
& LF-CBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 34.3 & 44.2 & 50.4 & 59.1 & 61.5 & 72.1 & 75.9 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{49.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{58.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{65.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{72.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}75.9 \\
\cmidrule{2-10}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{40.0} & \textit{48.0} & \textit{58.8} & \textit{64.4} & \textit{66.8} & \textit{\underline{79.0}} & \textit{82.7} \\
% & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP$^{RE}$-400M} & \textit{26.9} & \textit{34.4} & \textit{40.1} & \textit{51.5} & \textit{59.9} & \textit{73.2} & \textit{80.5} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{ImageNet}\\$(N_c=2950)$}}
& LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 7.7 & 15.3 & 30.7 & 47.3 & 53.7 & 55.3 & 63.7 \\
& LF-CBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 10.2 & 15.5 & 26.0 & 40.6 & 46.2 & 57.9 & 65.4 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{17.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{34.6} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{44.2} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{52.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{56.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{58.1} & \cellcolor{Gray}65.4 \\
\cmidrule{2-10}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{17.4} & \textit{34.0} & \underline{\textit{51.8}} & \underline{\textit{52.6}} & \textit{54.0} & \textit{\underline{73.8}} & \textit{78.5} \\
% & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP$^{RE}$-400M} & & & & & & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:main_results}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{table*}
For all comparisons involving activation sparsity (Sections \ref{sec:consistency}-\ref{sec:corruptions}), the LF-CBM baseline is thresholded to match the average sparsity of HypCBM. This effectively binarizes the otherwise continuous activations into discrete active sets, ensuring a fair comparison.
All experiments are conducted on a single NVIDIA A100 GPU with curvature $c=0.1$, consistent with the pre-training configuration of the hyperbolic backbone, HyCoCLIP \cite{pal2024compositional}.
\subsection{Classification Accuracy at Fixed Concept Budgets (ANEC)}
Standard accuracy obscures interpretability costs, as a model can score well using dense activations across all concepts. We therefore report \textit{Accuracy at Number of Effective Concepts} (ANEC) \cite{srivastava2025vlgcbmtrainingconceptbottleneck}, which measures performance under a strict budget of $K$ active concepts.
%Standard accuracy metrics often obscure the interpretability cost of CBMs, as models can maximize performance by utilizing dense concept activation vectors. To measure informational efficiency, we report \textit{Accuracy at Number of Effective Concepts} (ANEC) \cite{srivastava2025vlgcbmtrainingconceptbottleneck}, which measures performance under a strict budget of $K$ active concepts.
We analyze the results in Table~\ref{tab:main_results} through three findings, and evaluate data efficiency across reduced training set sizes.
\paragraph{1. Better accuracy.} HypCBM consistently achieves higher peak performance than its Euclidean counterparts. Even when the bottleneck is relaxed ($K \to \text{all}$), HypCBM outperforms the standard LF-CBM baseline across all three datasets. For instance, on CIFAR-100, HypCBM reaches a peak accuracy of 72.2\%, surpassing LF-CBM (HyCoCLIP-20M, 69.5\%) by 2.7 percentage points and LF-CBM (CLIP-20M, 67.9\%) by over 4 percentage points. Since the backbone is identical in the former comparison, these gains are attributable directly to the geometric activation mechanism rather than representational capacity.
\paragraph{2. Sparsity leads to further gains.} While HypCBM performs best across the board, its advantages are most pronounced in the high-sparsity regime, critical for interpretability. When restricted to small concept budgets, the performance gap widens significantly; for instance, on ImageNet ($K=10$), HypCBM more than doubles the baseline accuracy (34.6\% vs. 15.3\%). These results rely on correct geometric alignment: applying a mismatched Euclidean activation mechanism to the hyperbolic backbone often degrades performance below the Euclidean baseline, showing the gains stem from our method as opposed to the backbone.
%Entailment-based activations therefore concentrate discriminative information far more efficiently than standard cosine similarity.
\paragraph{3. HypCBM compensates for scale.} HypCBM frequently matches or outperforms the OpenAI CLIP baseline, despite being trained on $20\times$ less data. For instance, on the hierarchical SUN397 benchmark at ANEC-20, HypCBM achieves 65.7\% accuracy, beating the Euclidean CLIP-400M baseline by nearly 7 percentage points (65.7\% vs. 58.8\%). HypCBM attains this performance with just 20 concepts, matching an accuracy level that the CLIP-400M baseline requires $\approx 70$ active concepts to reach. This demonstrates that entailment-based concept activations can compensate for substantial pre-training data disadvantages in sparse interpretable regimes.
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.29\linewidth}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Data Efficiency:} ANEC-20 at 1\% and 10\% training data, CIFAR-100.}
\vspace{-0.3em}
\label{tab:data_efficiency}
\small
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{1\%} & \textbf{10\%} \\
\midrule
LF-CBM & 30.2 & 45.9 \\
\rowcolor{Gray}
\textbf{HypCBM} & \textbf{43.4} & \textbf{54.7} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{wraptable}
\paragraph{4. Data efficiency.} HypCBM consistently outperforms LF-CBM
across all training data regimes (Table~\ref{tab:data_efficiency}). With
only 1\% of CIFAR-100 available as training data, HypCBM achieves an ANEC-20 of 43.4\%, surpassing LF-CBM by over 13 percentage points, with low variance across seeds confirming result stability. This demonstrates that entailment-based concept
activations remain effective even under severe data constraints. Full
accuracy-sparsity curves with standard deviations are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:data-efficiency}.
\subsection{Hierarchical Consistency}
\label{sec:consistency}
Beyond accuracy, interpretable models should exhibit logical coherence: if a fine-grained concept is active (\textit{`school'}), its parent (\textit{`building'}) must be too. We quantify \textbf{Hierarchical Consistency} as:
\begin{equation}
\text{Consistency} = 1 - \frac{\sum \mathbf{1}[a_{\text{child}}=1
\land a_{\text{parent}}=0]}{\sum \mathbf{1}[a_{\text{child}}=1]}
\end{equation}
We evaluate on SUN397 and ImageNet using parent-child relations validated via WordNet, and use sparsity-matched baselines to prevent trivially achieving 100\% consistency by activating all concepts.
\paragraph{Results.} Table~\ref{tab:consistency} reveals a consistent pattern: HypCBM's relative advantage over the Euclidean baseline grows as $\eta_{\text{img}}$ tightens. At $\eta_{\text{img}}=1.2$ the baseline degrades sharply (0.08 on SUN397) while HypCBM more than doubles its consistency, confirming that entailment-based activations prioritize hierarchically valid concepts even under severe budget constraints.
To disentangle the two components of our approach, Appendix~\ref{app:consistency-extended} includes two ablations. First, replacing cosine similarity with our entailment activation on the \emph{identical} HyCoCLIP-20M backbone nearly doubles consistency at every threshold, isolating the activation mechanism as the primary driver of gains independent of backbone choice. Second, comparing against a hierarchy-aware Euclidean model \citep{alper2024hierarcaps} trained on 20$\times$ more data shows that HypCBM matches or exceeds it at the strictest budgets, suggesting the hyperbolic manifold contributes an inductive bias beyond what entailment-aligned training alone provides.
% \begin{table}[t]
% \centering
% \caption{\textbf{Hierarchical Consistency.} (Left) HypCBM (HyCoCLIP-20M) consistently outperforms the Euclidean LF-CBM (CLIP-20M) baseline across $N$ validated WordNet pairs, with relative gains exceeding $+100\%$ at the strictest budget. (Right) Using the \emph{identical} HyCoCLIP backbone,
% replacing cosine similarity with our entailment activation nearly doubles consistency, isolating the activation mechanism as the source of the gains.}
% \label{tab:consistency}
% \resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
% \begin{tabular}{
% l
% r@{\hspace{6pt}}c@{\hspace{6pt}}c
% @{\hspace{14pt}}
% r@{\hspace{6pt}}c@{\hspace{6pt}}c
% @{\hspace{20pt}}
% >{\hspace{0pt}}p{0pt}<{\hspace{0pt}}
% @{\hspace{10pt}}
% r@{\hspace{6pt}}c
% }
% \toprule
% & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Hierarchical Consistency} (LF-CBM vs.\ HypCBM)}
% & \multicolumn{1}{:c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Same backbone ablation}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-7} \cmidrule(lr){9-10}
% & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{SUN397} ($N=1503$)}
% & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{ImageNet} ($N=829$)}
% & \multicolumn{1}{:c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{SUN397 (HyCoCLIP)}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7} \cmidrule(lr){9-10}
% $\eta_\text{img}$
% & LF-CBM & HypCBM & \textbf{Gain}
% & LF-CBM & HypCBM & \textbf{Gain}
% & \multicolumn{1}{:c}{}
% & LF-CBM & HypCBM \\
% \midrule
% 1.5 & 0.63 & \textbf{0.84} & \textbf{+32.5\%}
% & 0.59 & \textbf{0.75} & \textbf{+27.9\%}
% & \multicolumn{1}{:c}{}
% & 0.44 & \textbf{0.84} \\
% 1.4 & 0.43 & \textbf{0.54} & \textbf{+27.2\%}
% & 0.42 & \textbf{0.63} & \textbf{+51.1\%}
% & \multicolumn{1}{:c}{}
% & 0.26 & \textbf{0.54} \\
% 1.3 & 0.21 & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{+58.9\%}
% & 0.28 & \textbf{0.51} & \textbf{+80.4\%}
% & \multicolumn{1}{:c}{}
% & 0.12 & \textbf{0.33} \\
% 1.2 & 0.08 & \textbf{0.17} & \textbf{+104.7\%}
% & 0.16 & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{+102.9\%}
% & \multicolumn{1}{:c}{}
% & 0.05 & \textbf{0.17} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% }
% \vspace{-0.5em}
% \end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Hierarchical Consistency.} HypCBM (HyCoCLIP-20M) consistently outperforms the Euclidean LF-CBM (CLIP-20M) baseline across validated WordNet pairs, with relative gains exceeding $+100\%$ at the strictest budget.}
\label{tab:consistency}
\resizebox{0.7\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{
l
r@{\hspace{6pt}}c@{\hspace{6pt}}c
@{\hspace{14pt}}
r@{\hspace{6pt}}c@{\hspace{6pt}}c
}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{SUN397} ($N=1503$)}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{ImageNet} ($N=829$)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
$\eta_\text{img}$
& LF-CBM & HypCBM & \textbf{Gain}
& LF-CBM & HypCBM & \textbf{Gain} \\
\midrule
1.5 & 0.63 & \textbf{0.84} & \textbf{+32.5\%}
& 0.59 & \textbf{0.75} & \textbf{+27.9\%} \\
1.4 & 0.43 & \textbf{0.54} & \textbf{+27.2\%}
& 0.42 & \textbf{0.63} & \textbf{+51.1\%} \\
1.3 & 0.21 & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{+58.9\%}
& 0.28 & \textbf{0.51} & \textbf{+80.4\%} \\
1.2 & 0.08 & \textbf{0.17} & \textbf{+104.7\%}
& 0.16 & \textbf{0.33} & \textbf{+102.9\%} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[b]
\centering
\vspace{-1em}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.62\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/intervention_dual_.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Intervention Responsiveness.}}
\label{fig:intervention}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.36\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/corruptions.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Robustness and Concept Stability.}}
\label{fig:stability}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.2em}
\caption{\textbf{Intervention and Stability Analysis.} (a) HypCBM (red) displays steeper confidence decay than the Euclidean LF-CBM, indicating superior responsiveness to corrective interventions. Shaded bands show Standard Error (SE). (b) On CIFAR100-C, HypCBM maintains significantly higher semantic stability and accuracy across corruptions.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Hierarchically Faithful Concept Interventions}
\label{sec:interventionresults}
An essential part of any CBM is the ability to support human intervention. To quantify the utility of our hierarchical interventions, we simulate a human-in-the-loop correction scenario on misclassified test samples. For each incorrect prediction, we identify the active concepts contributing to the error and progressively suppress selected concepts by subtracting a scalar factor $\Delta$ from their activations. At each step, we measure the confidence assigned to the originally predicted (incorrect) class, yielding an intervention response curve.
We consider three strategies: \textbf{top-contributing} (suppressing the highest
$w_i \cdot a_i$ concept), \textbf{manual oracle} (suppressing a top-contributing, ground-truth absent concept), and \textbf{random} (control baseline). We report results for top-contributing and manual strategies; random suppression serves as a control baseline. HypCBM and LF-CBM are evaluated at matched sparsity for fairness.
Fig.~\ref{fig:intervention} shows that HypCBM exhibits a steeper confidence decay than the Euclidean baseline, indicating stronger responsiveness to corrective edits. Under manual intervention, HypCBM successfully flips incorrect predictions to the correct class for 19\% more samples than LF-CBM, confirming the practical utility of hierarchically propagated interventions. Random interventions cause negligible confidence changes (Appendix~\ref{app:intervention}), confirming that observed gains stem from targeted suppression rather than general activation reduction. Crucially, augmenting LF-CBM with WordNet-derived propagation yields no measurable benefit: only $101/613$ CIFAR-100 concepts and $618/1935$ SUN397 concepts appear in WordNet, and none of the top contributing concepts have valid WordNet children. HypCBM's geometric propagation discovers implicit hierarchical relationships that taxonomy-based approaches cannot recover.
\subsection{Robustness to Corruptions and Concept Stability}
\label{sec:corruptions}
Robustness is a prerequisite for interpretability: explanations that change inconsistently under benign perturbations are unreliable, even if predictions remain correct. We therefore evaluate robustness at both the prediction and concept levels using CIFAR100-C \cite{hendrycks2019benchmarkingneuralnetworkrobustness}, which applies 15 types of corruption (e.g., noise, blur, weather) at varying severities.
Besides measuring \textbf{Prediction Robustness} (accuracy on corrupted data), we introduce \textbf{Concept Stability}: the semantic consistency of the model's explanations. To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has standardized a metric for explanation stability in CBMs, despite its importance for reliable human-in-the-loop interaction. We compute the Jaccard Similarity between the set of active concepts in the clean image ($S_{clean}$) and the corrupted image ($S_{corr}$):
\begin{equation}
J(S_{clean}, S_{corr}) = \frac{|S_{clean} \cap S_{corr}|}{|S_{clean} \cup S_{corr}|}.
\end{equation}
HypCBM activations are naturally sparse and non-negative, allowing us to define concept activity via non-zero activation. We define the active concept sets $S$ using the sparsity-matched binarization protocol described at the start of this section. This ensures that differences in stability arise strictly from geometric structure rather than differing activation densities.
\paragraph{Results.} Fig.~\ref{fig:stability} highlights the resilience of our hyperbolic approach; the Euclidean LF-CBM baseline fails to maintain semantic consistency, with Jaccard similarity scores dropping as low as $0.3$ on noise corruptions. In contrast, HypCBM exhibits significantly higher concept stability, achieving an average Jaccard improvement of $+0.3$ over the baseline across corruption categories (see Appendix~\ref{app:robustness} for results at higher severities). Moreover, HypCBM achieves higher classification accuracy in 13 out of 15 corruption settings, confirming a strong association between stable semantic representations and robust predictive performance.
\section{Conclusion}
% In this work, we addressed a fundamental mismatch in the design of existing Concept Bottleneck Models: the representation of inherently hierarchical semantic concepts in flat Euclidean space. We argue that treating concepts as independent, orthogonal dimensions fundamentally misrepresents the taxonomic structure of human reasoning. By grounding concepts in hyperbolic geometry and replacing symmetric similarity with asymmetric geometric entailment, we demonstrate with HypCBM that proper geometric alignment leads to superior accuracy-sparsity trade-offs, data efficiency, robustness and stability. Crucially, this formulation enforces structural consistency by design, eliminating the logical paradoxes of prior methods and ensuring that model interventions respect the underlying semantic hierarchy.
Existing Concept Bottleneck Models embed semantic concepts in flat Euclidean
spaces, treating them as independent and orthogonal. We address this by
grounding the concept bottleneck in hyperbolic geometry and replacing symmetric
similarity with asymmetric geometric entailment. The resulting model, HypCBM, achieves concept activations that are hierarchically consistent by construction, without additional supervision or learned modules. The empirical results confirm that this geometric alignment translates into consistent gains in accuracy, data efficiency, robustness, and intervention quality, often rivaling models trained on substantially more data. Together, these findings suggest that structural priors on the representation space can serve as a powerful substitute for scale in sparse interpretable regimes.
Our findings highlight that interpretability is not merely a property of model outputs, but is shaped by the geometry of the representation space. Embedding concepts in a manifold that reflects their hierarchical relationships leads to explanations that are more accurate, robust to corruptions, and hierarchically consistent.
%HypCBM is a step towards geometrically grounded interpretability, where structural priors play a central role in bridging high-capacity foundation models and human-understandable reasoning.
\paragraph{Limitations and future work.} Our ablations partially isolate the contributions of representational geometry and activation design, but fully disentangling them remains an open question — for instance, through backbones that vary geometry while holding the training objective fixed. Additionally, HypCBM relies on taxonomic hierarchies derived from text (e.g., WordNet \cite{10.1145/219717.219748}), which do not always align with continuous visual semantics. In fine-grained settings such as CUB-200 \citep{WahCUB_200_2011}, discriminative cues are localized attributes (e.g., \textit{``spotted wing''}) rather than semantic parent-child relationships; incorporating visually grounded hierarchies is a promising direction. Finally, while HypCBM is backbone-agnostic, its performance depends on the quality of available hyperbolic VLMs. However, we also view this as an opportunity: as hyperbolic foundation models continue to advance \cite{huynh2026argentadaptivehierarchicalimagetext}, HypCBM is designed to scale with them naturally, providing a framework for translating structured representations into interpretable and controllable classifiers.
% \section{Conclusion}
% In this work, we addressed a fundamental mismatch in the design of existing Concept Bottleneck Models: the representation of inherently hierarchical semantic concepts within flat Euclidean spaces. We argued that treating concepts as orthogonal, independent dimensions ignores the rich taxonomic structure that defines human reasoning. To resolve this, we introduced HypCBM, the first CBM framework to ground concept activations in hyperbolic geometry.
% By replacing standard Euclidean similarity with a hyperbolic entailment mechanism, we have demonstrated that the geometry of the embedding space can be a critical factor in model efficiency and interpretability. HypCBM establishes a superior accuracy-sparsity trade-off compared to Euclidean baselines, achieving high classification performance with significantly fewer active concepts. Additionally, we showed that the rigorous inductive bias of hyperbolic space leads to marked improvements in data efficiency, allowing interpretable classifiers to be learned effectively even in data-scarce regimes.
% Beyond predictive performance, HypCBM enforces structural consistency. We introduced a geometric intervention mechanism that naturally respects parent-child logic, resolving the "logical paradoxes" common in standard CBMs where child concepts remain active after their parents are pruned.
% % Finally, as a purely post-hoc method, HypCBM closes the performance gap to computationally expensive, fully supervised approaches without requiring auxiliary object detectors or additional concept training. As hyperbolic vision-language models continue to mature, our framework provides a scalable bridge to translate these powerful representations into transparent, trustworthy, and human-aligned classifiers.
\appendix
\onecolumn
\section{Additional Results}
\label{additional results}
\subsection{CUB200}
In this section, we provide a detailed analysis of HypCBM's performance on CUB-200-2011 \cite{WahCUB_200_2011}. Unlike the other datasets in this paper, which use LLM-generated concept banks, here we use the 312 expert-annotated visual attributes provided with the CUB-200-2011 dataset \cite{WahCUB_200_2011}, demonstrating that HypCBM generalizes beyond LLM-generated concept banks to pre-defined ones.
% \begin{figure}[H]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figures/accuracy_vs_active_concepts_cub.pdf}
% \label{fig:cub}
% \caption{\textbf{Accuracy-Sparsity Trade-off, CUB-200.}}
% \label{fig:tradeoff_combined}
% \end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Additional Results.} Test accuracy at strict concept budgets ($K$) on CUB-200 using pre-defined expert-annotated attributes. We report peak accuracy and compare against the larger CLIP-400M backbone.}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lllccccccc}
\toprule
& & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Accuracy @ Concept Budget (ANEC-$K$)}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){4-9}
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{10} & \textbf{20} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{Peak} & \textbf{LP} \\
\midrule
% \multirow{4}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{CIFAR-10}\\$(N_c=102)$}}
% & PCBM & CLIP-20M & 73.87 & 81.66 & 83.90 & 88.21 & 88.71 & 89.46 \\
% & PCBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 81.17 & \textbf{88.60} & \textbf{89.60} & 90.97 & \textbf{92.95} & \textbf{93.08} \\
% & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{85.01} & \cellcolor{Gray}86.68 & \cellcolor{Gray}89.45 & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{91.25} & \cellcolor{Gray}90.88 & \cellcolor{Gray}91.00 \\
% \cmidrule{2-9}
% & \textit{Ref: PCBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{\underline{88.95}} & \textit{\underline{90.65}} & \textit{\underline{92.00}} & \textit{\underline{92.97}} & \textit{\underline{93.93}} & \textit{\underline{94.24}} \\
% \midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{CUB-200}\\$(N_c=317)$}}
& LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 6.4 & 11.0 & 17.7 & 30.8 & 40.7 & 41.8 & 56.5\\
& LF-CBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 2.9 & 4.3 & 7.3 & 15.1 & 21.9 & 28.1 & 58.7\\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{13.5} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{20.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{25.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{36.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{43.6} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{45.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}58.7 \\
\cmidrule{2-10}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{6.2} & \textit{16.4} & \textit{\underline{31.2}} & \textit{\underline{45.1}} & \textit{\underline{50.2}} & \textit{\underline{55.0}} & \textit{81.8} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:additionalresults}
\end{table}
\paragraph{CUB-200.} The CUB-200 dataset presents a challenging fine-grained classification task that relies heavily on localized features (e.g., 'beak shape', 'wing pattern'). In general, our multimodal approach is not well-suited for these kinds of scenarios, as two concepts like 'white undertail covert' and 'white undertail feather' might be represented very semantically similar, while they could be important discriminators. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:additionalresults}, the pre-trained HyCoCLIP and CLIP backbones (trained on 20M image-text pairs) struggle to capture these fine-grained distinctions compared to the OpenAI CLIP backbone (trained on 400M pairs). The standard Euclidean LF-CBM built on HyCoCLIP collapses under this representational gap, achieving a poor 2.86\% accuracy with 5 active concepts.
However, despite this poor performance, HypCBM demonstrates a remarkable ability to compensate for its weaker backbone. Most notably, at extremely low sparsity budgets (K=5 and K=10), HypCBM (trained on 20M data) surprisingly outperforms the LF-CBM CLIP-400M baseline (13.47\% vs. 6.23\% at K=5), suggesting that hyperbolic geometry allows for more efficient disentanglement of available semantic information in low-data regimes. As the concept budget relaxes ($K\geq20$), the raw feature quality of the 400M backbone eventually dominates, leading to a higher peak accuracy for the OpenAI baseline.
Another interesting result we observed, is the fact that accuracy does not keep increasing when more concepts are made available, but instead peaks at $\approx$ 150 active concepts and then degrades. This result may seem like a flaw at first, but is logically faithful; when classifying bird species, a model should not be able to use almost all of its available concepts. When it starts using false positive concepts this adds noise, hurting classification accuracy. In contrast, with the Euclidean baselines this happens only at the very end of the accuracy/sparsity curve, indicating information leakage; standard CBMs allow the model to assign small, non-zero weights to semantically irrelevant concepts, trading interpretability for the raw predictive power of the underlying dense embedding.
% \paragraph{CIFAR-10.} On CIFAR-10, HypCBM exhibits superior sparsity efficiency. It achieves 85.01\% accuracy with just 5 concepts, significantly outperforming the Euclidean PCBM on the same backbone (81.17\%) and the standard CLIP-20M baseline (73.87\%). While the Euclidean HyCoCLIP PCBM eventually catches up in peak accuracy, HypCBM remains the most efficient choice for highly constrained interpretability budgets, reaching near-peak performance faster than all 20M baselines.
\subsection{Hyperbolic Entailment Activation, CLIP, MERU \& HyCoCLIP}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Ablation of Backbone Geometry.} We evaluate HypCBM on SUN397 using different pre-trained backbones.
CLIP embeddings are mapped to $\mathbb{L}^n$ via the exponential map.
HyCoCLIP substantially outperforms MERU and CLIP, particularly in the sparse regime ($K \leq 20$), confirming the necessity of entailment-aligned embeddings.}
\label{tab:hypcbm_meru}
\begin{tabular}{lllcccccc}
\toprule
& & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Accuracy @ Concept Budget (ANEC-$K$)}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){4-9}
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{10} & \textbf{20} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{Peak} \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{SUN397}\\$(N_c=1935)$}}
& HypCBM & CLIP-20M & 32.3 & 35.9 & 42.9 & 51.7 & 54.2 & 67.3 \\
& HypCBM & MERU-20M & 23.1 & 28.3 & 37.5 & 51.1 & 58.5 & 69.7 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}HypCBM & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{49.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{58.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{65.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{72.3} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Results.}
Table~\ref{tab:hypcbm_meru} isolates the impact of embedding geometry. We observe that mapping standard CLIP features to $\mathbb{L}^n_c$ fails to create a functional hierarchy: because CLIP features are L2-normalized, they map to a fixed distance from the origin, resulting in constant (very small) cone apertures for all concepts. Without radial variance to distinguish generic from specific attributes, the entailment condition collapses, forcing the model to rely solely on angular separation. Furthermore, while MERU is natively hyperbolic, it significantly underperforms in the sparse regime ($K \leq 20$), suggesting that hyperbolic geometry alone is insufficient. While MERU enforces image-text entailment, it does not explicitly train concept-to-concept partial orders; HyCoCLIP's compositional cone training ensures that concept embeddings are radially ordered by specificity, which is the structure HypCBM's activation mechanism depends on.
The results in Table~\ref{tab:hypcbm_meru} are achieved by significantly inflating the strictness parameter $\eta_{img}$ to about twice the value used for HyCoCLIP, forcing most concepts to be activated by effectively reverting the model to a standard Euclidean LF-CBM (with non-negative activations) based mostly on angular separation, negating the benefits of the hierarchy.
\subsection{Sparsity-Matched Evaluation}
\label{app:sparsity-matched}
A potential confound in ANEC comparisons is that HypCBM's entailment-based
activations are naturally sparse, whereas LF-CBM produces dense continuous
activations. To verify that HypCBM's gains stem from geometrically meaningful
activations rather than sparsity alone, we evaluate a sparsity-matched variant
of LF-CBM (LF-CBM Matched) in which only the top-$K$ highest concept
activations are retained, matching HypCBM's average active concept count at
each budget.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Sparsity-Matched Evaluation.} ANEC-$K$ accuracy when
LF-CBM activations are thresholded to retain only the top-$K$ highest
activations (LF-CBM Matched), controlling for sparsity. Enforcing
sparsity on LF-CBM consistently degrades performance, confirming that
HypCBM's gains arise from geometrically meaningful activations rather
than sparsity alone.}
\label{tab:sparsity_matched}
\resizebox{0.8\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{llccccc}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Sparsity Matched Accuracy @ K}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){3-7}
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Method} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{10}
& \textbf{20} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{100} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{CIFAR-100}}
& LF-CBM (CLIP-20M) & 39.7 & 48.9 & 55.4 & 60.6 & 64.5 \\
& LF-CBM Matched (CLIP-20M) & 25.0 & 39.1 & 55.1 & 61.3 & 63.1 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (HyCoCLIP-20M)}
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{44.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{54.4}
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{60.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.7}
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.8} \\
\cmidrule{2-7}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM (CLIP-400M)}
& \textit{28.0} & \textit{58.0} & \textit{63.9}
& \textit{64.7} & \textit{67.0} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\textbf{SUN397}}
& LF-CBM (CLIP-20M) & 45.8 & 53.4 & 61.3 & 67.0 & 68.6 \\
& LF-CBM Matched (CLIP-20M) & 42.3 & 50.2 & 58.4 & 67.2 & 68.7 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (HyCoCLIP-20M)}
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{49.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{58.3}
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{65.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.9}
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.3} \\
\cmidrule{2-7}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM (CLIP-400M)}
& \textit{40.0} & \textit{48.0} & \textit{58.8}
& \textit{64.4} & \textit{66.8} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:sparsity_matched} shows that enforcing sparsity on LF-CBM
consistently \emph{hurts} performance, particularly at low budgets (e.g.,
CIFAR-100 at $K=5$: 39.7\% $\to$ 25.0\%). This confirms that the gains of
HypCBM are not an artifact of activation sparsity: if sparsity were the
primary driver, enforcing it on LF-CBM would help rather than hurt. Instead,
HypCBM's sparse activations are geometrically meaningful — the concepts that
activate are those for which the image genuinely falls within the entailment
cone, whereas forcing sparsity on cosine similarity activations discards
informative but lower-ranked concepts. HypCBM outperforms LF-CBM Matched
by a wide margin across all budgets and both datasets.
\newpage
\subsection{Additional Intervention Results}
\label{app:intervention}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/intervention_all_strategies.png}
\caption{\textbf{Complete Intervention Analysis.} We compare the probability response of HypCBM (Red) and LF-CBM (Blue) across three distinct strategies. \textbf{Left (Manual):} We intervene on the concept with the highest contribution that is ground-truth absent (a false positive). HypCBM displays the sharpest confidence decay, indicating it is highly responsive to valid human corrections. \textbf{Center (Top-Contributing):} We intervene on the single highest contributing concept. The trend mirrors the manual setting, confirming utility for automated debugging. \textbf{Right (Random):} We intervene on random active concepts. Both models show negligible response, serving as a negative control; this confirms that the performance drops observed in the other settings are driven by semantic relevance, not model instability.} \label{fig:app_interventions}
\label{fig:placeholder}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Data Efficiency}
\label{app:data-efficiency}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\hspace*{-1.2em}\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figures/fraction_trajectories.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Data efficiency on CIFAR100.} HypCBM outperforms LF-CBM (CLIP-20M) for any data budget.}
\label{fig:data_efficiency}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:data_efficiency} shows ANEC curves on CIFAR-100 across training set sizes, averaged over 3 seeds with variance bands. A striking cross-regime comparison emerges: HypCBM trained on just 10\% of the data matches LF-CBM trained on the full dataset across all concept budgets, demonstrating a 10$\times$ data efficiency advantage. At 100\% training data, variance across seeds is negligible for both methods (std at ANEC-20: 0.09\% for HypCBM, 0.13\% for LF-CBM), confirming that main results are stable. At 1\% data, LF-CBM shows substantially higher variance whereas HypCBM remains comparatively stable, suggesting that entailment-based geometric activations provide a more reliable inductive bias precisely when supervision is scarce.
\subsection{Additional Hierarchical Consistency Results}
\label{app:consistency-extended}
Table~\ref{tab:combined_consistency} extends the hierarchical consistency
analysis from the main paper by including two additional baselines:
LF-CBM with a large-scale CLIP backbone (CLIP-400M) and a hierarchy-aware
Euclidean CLIP model (CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$-400M \citep{alper2024hierarcaps}),
both trained on $20\times$ more data than HyCoCLIP. From this experiment, we gain three insights.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Hierarchical Consistency, SUN397 \& ImageNet.} We measure the rate at which activating a child concept implies activation of its parent across $N$ validated WordNet pairs. Despite a massive $20\times$ pre-training data disadvantage, HypCBM significantly outperforms both standard CLIP and the hierarchy-aware CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$ at the strict margins ($\eta \le 1.3$) required for interpretability.}
\label{tab:combined_consistency}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{1pt}}l@{\hspace{12pt}} c@{\hspace{8pt}}c@{\hspace{8pt}}c@{\hspace{8pt}}c@{\hspace{12pt}} c@{\hspace{-1pt}} c@{\hspace{8pt}}c@{\hspace{8pt}}c@{\hspace{8pt}}c@{\hspace{0.5pt}}}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{SUN397} ($N=1503$)} & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{ImageNet} ($N=829$)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-5} \cmidrule(lr){7-10}
& LF-CBM & LF-CBM & LF-CBM & \textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & & LF-CBM & LF-CBM & LF-CBM & \textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} \\
$\eta_\text{{img}}$ & \scriptsize{(CLIP-20M)} & \scriptsize{(CLIP-400M)} & \scriptsize{(CLIP$^{RE}$-400M)} & \scriptsize{\textbf{(HyCoCLIP-20M)}} & & \scriptsize{(CLIP-20M)} & \scriptsize{(CLIP-400M)} & \scriptsize{(CLIP$^{RE}$-400M)} & \scriptsize{\textbf{(HyCoCLIP-20M)}} \\
\midrule
1.5 & 0.63 & 0.63 & 0.80 & \textbf{0.84} & & 0.59 & 0.70 & \textbf{0.82} & 0.75 \\
1.4 & 0.43 & 0.46 & \textbf{0.62} & 0.54 & & 0.42 & 0.56 & \textbf{0.68} & 0.63 \\
1.3 & 0.21 & 0.30 & \textbf{0.36} & 0.33 & & 0.28 & 0.41 & 0.48 & \textbf{0.51} \\
1.2 & 0.08 & 0.14 & 0.14 & \textbf{0.17} & & 0.16 & 0.22 & 0.20 & \textbf{0.33} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Data scale helps for consistency.} Scaling from CLIP-20M to
CLIP-400M yields consistent but modest gains across all thresholds
(e.g., 0.63 $\to$ 0.63 at $\eta=1.5$ on SUN397, 0.08 $\to$ 0.14 at
$\eta=1.2$). This confirms that data scale alone is insufficient to
close the gap with HypCBM.
\paragraph{Hierarchical training helps more, but geometry still wins at
strict budgets.} CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$, which adds an entailment-aware
training objective on top of the larger dataset, improves substantially
over standard CLIP-400M, particularly at loose thresholds ($\eta \geq 1.4$).
However, the advantage narrows at stricter thresholds: at $\eta=1.2$,
HypCBM matches or exceeds CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$ on both datasets (SUN397:
0.17 vs.\ 0.14; ImageNet: 0.33 vs.\ 0.20), despite operating with $20\times$
less pre-training data. This crossover suggests that the hyperbolic manifold
provides an inductive bias for hierarchical consistency that entailment-aligned
training in Euclidean space cannot fully replicate.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Hierarchical Consistency: Activation Mechanism Ablation.} Using the \emph{identical} HyCoCLIP-20M backbone on SUN397, replacing standard cosine similarity (LF-CBM) with our entailment activation (HypCBM) nearly doubles consistency, isolating the geometric activation mechanism as the primary source of the performance gains.}
\label{tab:consistency_ablation}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{SUN397 (HyCoCLIP-20M)}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3}
$\eta_\text{img}$ & LF-CBM & HypCBM \\
\midrule
1.5 & 0.44 & \textbf{0.84} \\
1.4 & 0.26 & \textbf{0.54} \\
1.3 & 0.12 & \textbf{0.33} \\
1.2 & 0.05 & \textbf{0.17} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{table}
\paragraph{The activation mechanism is the primary driver.}
Table~\ref{tab:consistency_ablation} isolates the contribution of our
entailment activation by holding the backbone fixed. Using the identical
HyCoCLIP-20M backbone, replacing cosine similarity with our margin-of-inclusion
activation nearly doubles consistency at every threshold (e.g., 0.44 $\to$
0.84 at $\eta=1.5$, 0.05 $\to$ 0.17 at $\eta=1.2$ on SUN397). Since the
backbone is identical, these gains are exclusively attributable to the activation mechanism. Combined with the CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$ comparison above, the evidence suggests that both components are necessary: hyperbolic geometry provides the representational structure, and the margin-of-inclusion activation reads it out effectively at inference time.
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Main Results.} Test accuracy at strict concept budgets ($K$). HypCBM consistently outperforms Euclidean baselines (LF-CBM) on identical backbones (HyCoCLIP-20M) and often even baselines that use large-scale pre-trained backbones (CLIP-400M and CLIP$^{RE}$-400M).}
\begin{tabular}{lllcccccc}
\toprule
& & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Accuracy @ Concept Budget (ANEC-$K$)}} \\
\cmidrule(lr){4-9}
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{10} & \textbf{20} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{Peak} \\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{CIFAR-100}\\$(N_c=613)$}}
& LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 39.7 & 48.9 & 55.4 & 60.6 & 64.5 & 67.9 \\
& LF-CBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 25.6 & 34.6 & 56.3 & 61.6 & 62.6 & 69.5 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{44.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{54.4} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{60.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{72.2} \\
\cmidrule{2-9}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{28.0} & \textit{\underline{58.0}} & \textit{\underline{63.9}} & \textit{64.7} & \textit{67.0} & \textit{71.3} \\
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP$^{RE}$-400M} & \textit{20.4} & \textit{26.0} & \textit{31.7} & \textit{46.6} & \textit{58.3} & \textit{70.2} \\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{SUN397}\\$(N_c=1935)$}}
& LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 45.8 & 53.4 & 61.3 & 67.0 & 68.6 & 70.5 \\
& LF-CBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 34.3 & 44.2 & 50.4 & 59.1 & 61.5 & 72.1 \\
& \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{49.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{58.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{65.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{72.3} \\
\cmidrule{2-9}
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{40.0} & \textit{48.0} & \textit{58.8} & \textit{64.4} & \textit{66.8} & \textit{\underline{79.0}} \\
& \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP$^{RE}$-400M} & \textit{26.9} & \textit{34.4} & \textit{40.1} & \textit{51.5} & \textit{59.9} & \textit{73.2} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:clipreacc}
\end{table*}
For reference, Table~\ref{tab:clipreacc} reports accuracy for the hierarchy-aware Euclidean CLIP variant CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$ \cite{alper2024hierarcaps}\footnote{CLIP$^{\text{RE}}$ features are L2-normalized prior to computing cosine similarity.}. A notable pattern emerges: despite being trained on 20$\times$ more data, CLIP$^{RE}$ performs substantially worse than standard CLIP-20M at strict concept budgets (e.g., SUN397 at K=5: 26.9\% vs.\ 45.8\%), suggesting that Euclidean entailment training trades sparse accuracy for hierarchical structure. HypCBM avoids this trade-off by grounding structure in the geometry of the manifold rather than the training objective, achieving both stronger consistency (Table~\ref{tab:combined_consistency}) and higher accuracy at low budgets.
\subsection{Additional Robustness Results (CIFAR100-C)}
\label{app:robustness}
In the main text, we analyzed concept stability at Severity 1. To ensure these findings are consistent across varying levels of image degradation, we evaluated both models across the full range of corruption severities (1--5) in the CIFAR-100-C benchmark.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
% Replace 'stability_collapse_curve.pdf' with your actual filename
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figures/stability_collapse_curve.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Semantic stability across five severities of input corruption.} The plot shows the average Jaccard similarity across all 15 corruption types as a function of severity. The shaded regions represent one standard deviation. The baseline (LF-CBM) shows a rapid decrease in concept stability as severity increases, while HypCBM maintains high stability ($J > 0.7$) even at Severity 5. The stability gap remains consistently large ($\sim0.35$) throughout.}
\label{fig:collapse_curve}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:collapse_curve} presents the aggregated results. We observe a consistent gap between the hyperbolic and Euclidean models. Notably, at Severity 3 (the tipping point for accuracy), the gap in concept stability is approximately $0.35$, confirming that HypCBM's explanations are significantly more robust to input perturbations.
\subsection{Hyperbolic Norm Filtering}
\label{sec:ablation}
We evaluate the effect of filtering low-norm concepts, as introduced in Section~\ref{sec:method}, on the SUN397 dataset. In hyperbolic representations, embedding norm correlates with specificity; points near the origin represent broad, generic concepts (e.g., "object") with naturally wide entailment cones.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figures/nothreshold.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Ablation on Hyperbolic Norm Filtering, SUN397. $\tau=0.27$.}}
\label{fig:normfiltering}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:normfiltering}, filtering these generic concepts ($\tau=0.27$) lifts the accuracy-sparsity frontier for both models, with HypCBM profiting disproportionally. Because our entailment mechanism links cone width to embedding norm, concepts near the origin have excessively wide apertures that activate indiscriminately, hurting efficiency. Filtering these trivial activations allows HypCBM to recover substantial gains. The Euclidean LF-CBM, in contrast, relies on angular similarity; pruning general concepts does not lead to a comparable reduction in trivial activations.
\section{Concept Bank}
\label{app:concept bank}
As the concept banks for CIFAR100, ImageNet and CUB-200 were already created and made public by \citet{oikarinen2023labelfree}, we only apply the concept bank creation process for SUN397. We use the following prompts for each class in the dataset, as introduced by \citet{oikarinen2023labelfree}:
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\small % Adjust font size for the whole block if needed
% --- Column 1: Important Features ---
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\textbf{1. Important Features} \\
\scriptsize % Smaller font for the code
\texttt{"List the most important features for recognizing something as a 'goldfish':\\
- bright orange color\\
- a small, round body\\
- a long, flowing tail\\
- a small mouth\\
- orange fins\\
\\
List the most important features for recognizing something as a 'beer glass':\\
- a tall, cylindrical shape\\
- clear or translucent color\\
- opening at the top\\
- a sturdy base\\
- a handle\\
\\
List the most important features for recognizing something as a '\{\}':"}
\end{minipage}
\hfill % Adds spacing between columns
% --- Column 2: Superclass ---
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\textbf{2. Superclass} \\
\scriptsize
\texttt{"Give superclasses for the word 'tench':\\
- fish\\
- vertebrate\\
- animal\\
\\
Give superclasses for the word 'beer glass':\\
- glass\\
- container\\
- object\\
\\
Give superclasses for the word '\{\}':"}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
% --- Column 3: Context (Around) ---
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.32\linewidth}
\textbf{3. Context (Around)} \\
\scriptsize
\texttt{"List the things most commonly seen around a 'tench':\\
- a pond\\
- fish\\
- a net\\
- a rod\\
- a reel\\
- a hook\\
- bait\\
\\
List the things most commonly seen around a 'beer glass':\\
- beer\\
- a bar\\
- a coaster\\
- a napkin\\
- a straw\\
- a lime\\
- a person\\
\\
List the things most commonly seen around a '\{\}':"}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\textbf{LLM Prompts for Concept Generation.} We use three distinct prompt templates (Important Features, Superclass, Context) to generate diverse visual attributes. These few-shot examples are fed to GPT-3 to produce the raw concept bank.}
\label{fig:prompts}
\end{figure*}
After this initial set of candidate concepts is created, a few processing steps are applied. First, concepts that are too long (longer than 30 tokens) are removed. Then, we calculate cosine similarity between all class labels and all concepts and remove those with a similarity $>0.85$. Finally, the same thing is done for the concepts themselves; any concept with a similarity of $>0.9$ to another concept is removed (the concept with lower average similarity to other concepts is deleted). This process results in a different concept bank size, $N_c$, for each dataset, mostly dependent on how many classes they contain, and how much redundancy across generated concepts is present.
\section{Calibration of Entailment Strictness Parameters $\eta_{text}$ and $\eta_{img}$.}
\label{app:eta_img}
\subsection{Finding the Optimal Inter-Modal $\eta_{img}$}
Because standard image datasets lack exhaustive, multi-level hierarchical annotations, we leverage the fundamental premise of aligned multimodal spaces: semantic entailment should be modality-agnostic. In a well-aligned shared manifold, if a specific text (e.g., "Persian cat") entails a general text ("cat"), an image depicting that specific concept should geometrically entail the general concept as well. Thus, we utilize WordNet's text-text hypernym chains as a proxy to calibrate the image-text threshold $\eta_{img}$.
To determine a robust value for the entailment strictness parameter $\eta_{img}$, we treat the calibration as a binary classification problem: distinguishing "true" semantic entailments from non-entailing pairs based on their geometric entailment ratio:
\[R=\frac{\phi(\mathbf{z},\mathbf{c})}{\omega(\mathbf{c})}.\]
Since $\eta_{img}$ acts as the decision boundary ($R \leq \eta_{img}$), we seek the threshold that optimally separates these two classes. We construct the following two proxy datasets:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Positive Set}: A set of ground-truth entailment pairs derived from WordNet hypernym chains (e.g., Persian cat $\rightarrow$ cat), filtered to ensure the parent concept has a lower hyperbolic norm than the child.
\item \textbf{Negative Set}: A set of randomly sampled concept pairs with no known semantic relationship, serving as a baseline for non-entailment.
\end{itemize}
Then, we compute the entailment ratio R for all pairs in both sets. We then sweep across possible values of $\eta_{img}$ to calculate the True Positive Rate (Sensitivity, or the fraction of WordNet pairs correctly identified as entailed ($R\leq \eta_{img}$)) and False Positive Rate (1-Specificity, the fraction of random pairs correctly identified as not entailed ($R>\eta_{img}$)) at each threshold.
To select the optimal $\eta_{img}$, we maximize Youden’s J statistic (J):
\[J(\eta_{img})=\text{Sensitivity}(\eta_{img}) + \text{Specificity}(\eta_{img}) - 1\]
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
% First Subfigure
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
% Adjusted width to fit inside the subfigure
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/image_entailment_dist_cifar100.pdf}
\caption{CIFAR100}
\label{fig:cifar100}
\end{subfigure}
% \hfill % Adds flexible space between the images
% Second Subfigure
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
% Adjusted width to fit inside the subfigure
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/image_entailment_dist_imagenet.pdf}
\caption{ImageNet}
\label{fig:imagenet}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Image-text entailment distributions. The plot shows the entailment ratio $\phi/\omega$, or the minimum $\eta_{img}$ required for entailment. The dotted line shows Youden's J statistic, or the optimal $\eta_{img}$ that separates the positive and negative distributions. The overlap in the two distributions shows that false positives and negatives are intrinsic to the backbone's pre-trained geometry, which we mitigate by selecting the threshold $\eta_{img}$ that maximizes separation. }
\label{fig:combined_image}
\end{figure}
This statistic captures the optimal trade-off point where the model maximizes the recovery of true semantic hierarchies while minimizing spurious activations from unrelated concepts.
We find the optimal $\eta_{img}$ values to be $1.372$ for CIFAR100, and $\eta_{img}=1.538$ for Imagenet. We round these to $1.4$ and $1.5$ in our experiments.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figures/accuracy_vs_active_concepts_sun397_entailment_variants.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Accuracy vs. number of active concepts, SUN397.} We sweep $\eta_{img}$ on a validation set to determine the optimal value on datasets where the distribution shift between proxy class labels and the concept bank is large.}
\label{fig:sunstability}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{SUN397 \& CUB-200}
For the SUN397 and CUB-200 datasets, this method of selecting the optimal $\eta_{img}$ resulted in poor performance, likely due to a larger distribution shift between the proxy class labels and the used concept bank. As an alternative option for datasets like these, we tune $\eta_{img}$ by sweeping a range of candidate values, and analyzing the performance on a validation split of the training set. We select $\eta_{img}=1.4$ and $\eta_{img}=1.5$ for SUN397 and CUB-200 respectively. See Fig.~\ref{fig:sunstability} for an example on SUN397.
\subsection{Finding the Optimal Intra-Modal $\eta_{text}$}
\label{app:eta_text}
\paragraph{Experimental Setup.}
Due to the exponential expansion of volume in hyperbolic space, the aperture required to capture a semantic subtree varies drastically with hierarchy depth. A fixed $\eta_{text}$ that is sufficient for general concepts (low norm) is often too narrow for specific concepts (high norm), leading to false negatives in entailment detection.
To derive a robust scaling law for concept-to-concept entailment, we performed a controlled experiment using WordNet hierarchies as a ground-truth reference. We initiate a crawler from 15 diverse mid-level roots (e.g., \textit{mammal}, \textit{tool}, \textit{structure}) to generate candidate parent-child pairs, across 3 depths.
\paragraph{Evaluation metrics.}
To ensure the derived statistics were applicable to our trained model, we applied a few filters to the candidate pairs:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Norm Consistency}: We kept only pairs where both parent and child embeddings had a norm of $\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}}\|>\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}}_{min}\|$, in our case 0.27.
\item \textbf{Hierarchical Integrity}: Secondly, we filtered for pairs satisfying $\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}}_{parent}\|<\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}}_{child}\|$ ensuring the parent is closer to the origin than its descendant.
\end{itemize}
For each of the $N=4504$ valid pairs, we compute the required entailment ratio ($\eta_{text}$), defined as the scalar multiplier required for the parent's cone to strictly contain the child:
\begin{equation} \eta_{\text{text}} = \frac{\phi(\mathbf{c}_{\text{child}},\mathbf{c}_{\text{parent}})}{\omega(\mathbf{c}_{\text{parent}})} \end{equation}
where $\phi$ is the exterior angle, and $\omega$ is the half-aperture.
\paragraph{Empirical Scaling Law.}
Figure \ref{fig:scaling_law} in the main text illustrates the relationship between concept specificity (proxied by the hyperbolic norm $\|\mathbf{c}\|$) and the required threshold $\eta_{text}$. We observe a positive correlation ($r=0.729$), confirming that deeper concepts require wider entailment cones relative to their base aperture.
We fit a linear regression model to this distribution, yielding the relationship: \begin{equation} \eta_{text}(\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}}\|) \approx 8.62 \cdot (\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}}\| - 0.09). \end{equation}
\section{Cone parameterization and Distribution of Concept and Image Embeddings}
\label{app:distribution}
Our half-aperture definition:
\[
\omega(\mathbf{c}_i) = \sin^{-1}\left(\frac{2K}{\sqrt{c}\,\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}_i}\|}\right)
\]
depends inversely on the spatial concept embedding norm $\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}_i}\|$. This formulation renders the aperture sensitive to the scale of the embeddings: if the argument $u_i = \frac{2K}{\sqrt{c}\,\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}_i}\|}$ exceeds $1$, the cone angle becomes undefined (or, effectively, fully saturated at $\pi/2$). To ensure semantically meaningful cones, we carefully calibrate the scaling factor $K$ against the empirical norm distribution of the concept bank.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
% --- Subfigure A: Aperture Sensitivity (Bigger, 58% width) ---
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.55\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/aperture_sensitivity_exact.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Aperture Calibration.}}
\label{fig:aperture_calibration}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill % Adds spacing between the two plots
% --- Subfigure B: Norm Distribution (Smaller, 38% width) ---
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.44\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{norm_distribution_sun397.pdf}
\vspace{1em}
\caption{\textbf{Modality Gap.}}
\label{fig:norm_dist}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Geometric Properties and Calibration.} \textbf{(a)} We calibrate the cone scaling factor $K$ to ensure that the distribution of concept apertures is well-posed (i.e. all arguments to $\arcsin$ are smaller than 1), avoiding numerical saturation limits (dashed line). For the default value of $K=0.1$, we observe that all possible text embeddings are clipped to 1, leading to a constant half-aperture of $\omega(\mathbf{c_i})=\tfrac{1}{2}\pi$, $\forall i$. \textbf{(b)} We visualize the native norm distribution of the backbone's representations, which informs our choice of filtering thresholds and scaling parameters. This plot highlights the \textit{modality gap}, where representations for the text and image modalities are clearly separated by norm.}
\label{fig:geometric_calibration}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Calibration and Saturation.}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:norm_dist}, the backbone exhibits a distinct \textit{modality gap}, where text-derived concept embeddings possess significantly smaller norms than image embeddings. This low-norm regime puts concepts at risk of saturation.
Figure~\ref{fig:aperture_calibration} illustrates this sensitivity. With a standard scaling of $K=0.1$ (blue), the argument $u_i$ exceeds the saturation limit ($1.0$) for the entire concept bank. This forces the half-aperture to clip to $\pi/2$, effectively treating all concepts as "universal" and destroying the hierarchical granularity of the bottleneck. Conversely, a very small $K=0.01$ (green dotted line) collapses the distribution near zero, resulting in "needle" cones with no entailment capacity.
We select $K=0.04$ (red) to balance this trade-off. For our filtered concept bank (where we enforce $\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}_i}\| \geq 0.27$), this choice ensures that the aperture arguments are widely distributed across the valid range $[0, 1)$, maximizing geometric expressivity. Consequently, the argument to the arcsine function is maximized at the lower bound of our filter, $\|\mathbf{\tilde{c}_i}\|=0.27$, which yields:
\[
u_{\max} \approx 0.937
\]
staying safely below the singularity at $1.0$. As a final safeguard for numerical stability, our implementation clamps the argument prior to the $\arcsin$ operation:
\[
\tilde{u}_i = \mathrm{clip}\left(u_i, -1 + \epsilon,\, 1 - \epsilon\right), \quad \epsilon=10^{-6}
\]
ensuring that $\omega(\mathbf{\tilde{c}_i})$ remains well-defined regardless of any potential outlier norms or floating-point variations. This clamping logic also applies for the input to the $\arccos$ for the definition of the exterior angle (Eq.~\ref{eq:exterior}). Together, the analytic constraint on $K$ and the norm-based filtering step ensure that the cone parameterization is numerically stable and semantically diverse.
% \begin{figure}[h]
% \centering
% % First Subfigure
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
% \centering
% % Note: width=\linewidth makes it fill the subfigure width, not the page
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/accuracy_vs_active_concepts_sun397_entailment_variants.pdf}
% \caption{SUN397}
% \label{fig:sun_eta}
% \end{subfigure}
% \hfill % Adds flexible space between images so they push to the edges
% % Second Subfigure
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/accuracy_vs_active_concepts_cub_entailment_variants.pdf}
% \caption{CUB, log scale.}
% \label{fig:cub_eta}
% \end{subfigure}
% \caption{\textbf{Entailment Variants Sweep.} Accuracy vs. active concepts on SUN397 (left) and CUB (right).}
% \label{fig:entailment_sweep}
% \end{figure}
% \section{Hierarchical Constistency}
% \label{sec:hierarchical_consistency}
% \begin{table}[H]
% \centering
% \caption{\textbf{Hierarchical Consistency Sweep on ImageNet.} Consistency scores evaluating the entailment condition (Child $\implies$ Parent) across validated WordNet pairs. The trend mirrors the SUN397 results: as sparsity increases (lower $\eta$), HypCBM maintains significantly higher structural integrity than the iso-sparse Euclidean baseline.}
% \label{tab:consistency_imagenet}
% \begin{tabular}{l c c c}
% \toprule
% \textbf{Strictness} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Consistency Score} ($\uparrow$)} & \textbf{Relative} \\
% ($\eta$) & HypCBM & PCBM & \textbf{Gain} \\
% \midrule
% 1.5 (Loose) & 75.31\% & 58.87\% & \textbf{+27.9\%} \\
% 1.4 & 62.99\% & 41.69\% & \textbf{+51.1\%} \\
% 1.3 & 50.73\% & 28.12\% & \textbf{+80.4\%} \\
% 1.2 (Strict)& 32.85\% & 16.19\% & \textbf{+102.9\%} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
\section{Qualitative Examples}
\label{qualitative}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
% First Subfigure (Hunting Lodge)
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/class_0264_pantry.png}
\caption{Pantry}
\label{fig:lodge}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill % Adds spacing between the two images
% Second Subfigure (Ocean)
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/class_0254_ocean.png}
\caption{Ocean}
\label{fig:ocean}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Global Explanations.} We visualize the top contributing concepts (weight $\times$ activation) for the classes 'pantry' and 'ocean', along with two sample images from SUN397. More examples comparing LF-CBM and HypCBM are in the supplementary material.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/entailmentcone58.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Intervention Propagation.} An example that shows our intervention propagation mechanism on an image of a locker room that is misclassified as 'server room'. When intervening on 'electrical equipment', HypCBM automatically intervenes on entailed children 'circuit breaker' and 'technical equipment' too. Without this propagation, the prediction is still wrong, whereas with propagation the prediction flips to the correct class, 'locker room'.}
\label{fig:qualitative_activations}
\end{figure}
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \centering
% % Top Panel: Original
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pantry.png}
% \caption{\textbf{Original Prediction:} The model misclassifies a pantry as a living room.}
% \label{fig:pantry_original}
% \end{subfigure}
% \vspace{0.5em} % Adds a little breathing room between images
% % Bottom Panel: Intervened
% \begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/pantry_intervened.png}
% \caption{\textbf{After Intervention:} Suppressing the parent concept 'furniture modifies the downstream predictions and correctly flips the prediction correctly to 'pantry'.}
% \label{fig:pantry_intervened}
% \end{subfigure}
% \caption{\textbf{Intervention Example.} (a) The initial concept activations and prediction. (b) By intervening on the bottleneck (e.g., suppressing a specific concept), we observe a consistent shift in both the active child concepts and the final class prediction, demonstrating the model's responsiveness to human correction.}
% \label{fig:intervention_qualitative}
% \end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
\section{Implementation Details}
\label{app:implementation}
\subsection{ANEC Interpolation and Pareto Frontier Estimation}
\label{app:interpolation}
To accurately estimate the Accuracy at Number of Effective Concepts (ANEC) for specific integer budgets K, we employ piecewise linear interpolation between measured operating points. To ensure the fidelity of this approximation, we utilize an adaptive grid refinement strategy. We first perform a coarse sweep of regularization strengths $\lambda \in [10^{-1}, 10^{-7}]$ on a logarithmic scale. We then iteratively refine the grid by sampling additional $\lambda$ values in regions where the change in the number of active concepts is large, ensuring that the accuracy-sparsity curve is densely sampled near the target budgets (e.g., K=5,10,20).
\subsection{Training Time}
The computation of the entailment activation matrix scales linearly with the number of samples $N$, the concept bottleneck size $M$, and the embedding dimension $D$ ($D=512$ for HyCoCLIP), resulting in a time complexity of $\mathcal{O}(NMD)$. Specifically, the pairwise Lorentz exterior angle $\phi(\mathbf{z}, \mathbf{c})$ relies on the Minkowski dot product, which requires the same number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) as the standard Euclidean dot product used in linear classifiers.
To maintain memory efficiency, we use batch size $B=512$, ensuring that the peak GPU memory usage scales as $\mathcal{O}(BM)$ rather than $\mathcal{O}(NM)$. This allows HypCBM to scale to thousands of concepts (e.g., ImageNet, $M=2950$) on consumer-grade hardware. Consequently, the primary computational bottleneck is not the geometric activation, but the optimization of the sparse linear classifier. Training time for CIFAR100 is approximately 2-3 minutes, whereas this scales from $\approx30$ minutes on SUN397 to $\approx5$ hours for ImageNet, depending on the regularization strength, $\lambda$. For very low values of $\lambda$ ($\lambda<1e-7$), the linear solver takes significantly longer.
Due to the numerical sensitivity of hyperbolic operations in the Lorentz model, we perform all geometric computations involving hyperbolic embeddings in double precision (FP64).
\section{Comprehensive CBM Taxonomy}
\label{app:taxonomy}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Comprehensive taxonomy of CBM methodologies.} While recent methods successfully enforce bottleneck structure, they rely on task-specific training, graph priors, or auxiliary supervision (e.g., bounding boxes or logical rules). HypCBM is the only framework that achieves a structured bottleneck completely post-hoc, requiring no learned modules or auxiliary supervision beyond the pre-trained manifold.}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcccccl}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Post-hoc} & \textbf{Zero-shot} & \textbf{Structured} & \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{Auxiliary Supervision} & \textbf{Learned Modules}\\
\midrule
LaBo \cite{yang2023languagebottlelanguagemodel} & \cmark & \cmark & \xmark & Any VLM & Concept Optimization & Optimization-based selection \\
CEM \cite{zarlenga2022conceptembeddingmodelsaccuracyexplainability} & \xmark & \xmark & \xmark & Task-specific & Concept Labels & Soft concept embeddings \\
VLG-CBM \cite{srivastava2025vlgcbmtrainingconceptbottleneck} & \xmark & \xmark & \xmark & Any VLM & Object Bounding Boxes & Learned CBL projection \\
DN-CBM \cite{rao2024discoverthennametaskagnosticconceptbottlenecks} & \xmark & \xmark & \xmark & CLIP \cite{radford2021learning} & \textbf{None} & Sparse Autoencoder \\
Hierarchical CBM \cite{pittino2023hierarchical} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Task-specific & Hierarchy Labels & Supervised hierarchy layers \\
C2F-CBM \cite{panousis2024coarse} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Task-specific & Concept Labels & Probabilistic modules \\
LogicCBM \cite{vemuri2025logiccbmslogicenhancedconceptbasedlearning} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Task-specific & Logical Rules & Neuro-symbolic reasoning \\
Relational CBM \cite{barbiero2024relational} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Task-specific & Relational Graphs & Relational graph/weights \\
Graph CBM \cite{xu2026graph}/CRM \cite{debot2025interpretablehierarchicalconceptreasoning} & \xmark & \xmark & \cmark & Task-specific & Relational Graphs & Graph reasoning \\
PCBM \cite{yuksekgonul2023posthoc} / LF-CBM \cite{oikarinen2023labelfree} & \cmark & \cmark & \xmark & Any VLM & \textbf{None} & \textbf{None} \\
\midrule
\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cmark & \cmark & \cmark & \textbf{Hyperbolic VLM} & \textbf{None} & \textbf{None} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
% \begin{table*}[t]
% \centering
% \caption{\textbf{Main Results.} Test accuracy at strict concept budgets ($K$). HypCBM consistently outperforms Euclidean baselines (LF-CBM) on identical backbones (HyCoCLIP-20M) and often even baselines that use large-scale pre-trained backbones (CLIP-400M and CLIP$^{RE}$-400M).}
% \begin{tabular}{lllcccccc}
% \toprule
% & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Accuracy @ Concept Budget (ANEC-$K$)}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){4-9}
% \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Backbone} & \textbf{5} & \textbf{10} & \textbf{20} & \textbf{50} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{Peak} \\
% \midrule
% \multirow{6}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{CIFAR-100}\\$(N_c=613)$}}
% & LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 39.7 & 48.9 & 55.4 & 60.6 & 64.5 & 67.9 \\
% & LF-CBM (Matched) & CLIP-20M & 25.0 & 39.1 & 55.1 & 61.3 & 63.1 & 68.3 \\
% & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{44.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{54.4} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{60.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{72.2} \\
% \cmidrule{2-9}
% & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{28.0} & \textit{\underline{58.0}} & \textit{\underline{63.9}} & \textit{64.7} & \textit{67.0} & \textit{71.3} \\
% % & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP$^{RE}$-400M} & \textit{20.4} & \textit{26.0} & \textit{31.7} & \textit{46.6} & \textit{58.3} & \textit{70.2} \\
% \midrule
% \multirow{6}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{SUN397}\\$(N_c=1935)$}}
% & LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 45.8 & 53.4 & 61.3 & 67.0 & 68.6 & 70.5 \\
% & LF-CBM (Matched) & CLIP-20M & 42.3 & 50.2 & 58.4 & 67.2 & 68.7 & 70.4 \\
% & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{49.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{58.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{65.7} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{69.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{71.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{72.3} \\
% \cmidrule{2-9}
% & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{40.0} & \textit{48.0} & \textit{58.8} & \textit{64.4} & \textit{66.8} & \textit{\underline{79.0}} \\
% % & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP$^{RE}$-400M} & \textit{26.9} & \textit{34.4} & \textit{40.1} & \textit{51.5} & \textit{59.9} & \textit{73.2} \\
% \midrule
% \multirow{4}{*}{\shortstack[c]{\textbf{ImageNet}\\$(N_c=2950)$}}
% & LF-CBM & CLIP-20M & 7.7 & 15.3 & 30.7 & 47.3 & 53.7 & 55.3 \\
% & LF-CBM & HyCoCLIP-20M & 10.2 & 15.5 & 26.0 & 40.6 & 46.2 & 57.9 \\
% & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{HypCBM (Ours)} & \cellcolor{Gray}HyCoCLIP-20M & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{17.9} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{34.6} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{44.2} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{52.3} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{56.8} & \cellcolor{Gray}\textbf{58.1} \\
% \cmidrule{2-9}
% & \textit{Ref: LF-CBM} & \textit{CLIP-400M} & \textit{17.4} & \textit{34.0} & \underline{\textit{51.8}} & \underline{\textit{52.6}} & \textit{54.0} & \textit{\underline{73.8}} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \label{tab:mainresults}
% \end{table*}
\begin{thebibliography}{56}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else
\providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
\bibitem[Alper and Averbuch-Elor(2024)]{alper2024hierarcaps}
Morris Alper and Hadar Averbuch-Elor.
\newblock Emergent visual-semantic hierarchies in image-text representations.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)}, 2024.
\bibitem[Atigh et~al.(2022)Atigh, Schoep, Acar, Van~Noord, and Mettes]{atigh2022hyperbolic}
Mina~Ghadimi Atigh, Julian Schoep, Erman Acar, Nanne Van~Noord, and Pascal Mettes.
\newblock {Hyperbolic Image Segmentation}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition}, pages 4453--4462, 2022.
\bibitem[Barbiero et~al.(2024)Barbiero, Giannini, Ciravegna, Diligenti, and Marra]{barbiero2024relational}
Pietro Barbiero, Francesco Giannini, Gabriele Ciravegna, Michelangelo Diligenti, and Giuseppe Marra.
\newblock {Relational concept bottleneck models}.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 37:\penalty0 77663--77685, 2024.
\bibitem[Cannon et~al.(1997)Cannon, Floyd, Kenyon, and Parry]{cannon1997hyperbolic}
James~W Cannon, William~J Floyd, Richard Kenyon, and Walter~R Parry.
\newblock {Hyperbolic geometry}.
\newblock In \emph{Flavors of geometry}, pages 59--115. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
\bibitem[Debot et~al.(2025)Debot, Barbiero, Dominici, and Marra]{debot2025interpretablehierarchicalconceptreasoning}
David Debot, Pietro Barbiero, Gabriele Dominici, and Giuseppe Marra.
\newblock {Interpretable Hierarchical Concept Reasoning through Attention-Guided Graph Learning}, 2025.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21102}.
\bibitem[Deng et~al.(2009)Deng, Dong, Socher, Li, Li, and Fei-Fei]{5206848}
Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li~Fei-Fei.
\newblock {ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database}.
\newblock In \emph{2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition}, pages 248--255, 2009.
\newblock \doi{10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848}.
\bibitem[Desai et~al.(2023)Desai, Nickel, Rajpurohit, Johnson, and Vedantam]{desai2023hyperbolic}
Karan Desai, Maximilian Nickel, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Justin Johnson, and Shanmukha~Ramakrishna Vedantam.
\newblock {Hyperbolic Image-Text Representations}.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Machine Learning}, pages 7694--7731. PMLR, 2023.
\bibitem[Dhall et~al.(2020)Dhall, Makarova, Ganea, Pavllo, Greeff, and Krause]{dhall2020hierarchicalimageclassificationusing}
Ankit Dhall, Anastasia Makarova, Octavian Ganea, Dario Pavllo, Michael Greeff, and Andreas Krause.
\newblock Hierarchical image classification using entailment cone embeddings.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops}, June 2020.
\bibitem[Felice et~al.(2025)Felice, Flores, Santis, Santini, Schneider, Barbiero, and Termine]{defelice2025causallyreliableconceptbottleneck}
Giovanni~De Felice, Arianna~Casanova Flores, Francesco~De Santis, Silvia Santini, Johannes Schneider, Pietro Barbiero, and Alberto Termine.
\newblock {Causally Reliable Concept Bottleneck Models}, 2025.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04363}.
\bibitem[Ganea et~al.(2018)Ganea, B{\'e}cigneul, and Hofmann]{ganea2018hyperbolic}
Octavian Ganea, Gary B{\'e}cigneul, and Thomas Hofmann.
\newblock {Hyperbolic Entailment Cones for Learning Hierarchical Embeddings}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)}, volume~80, pages 1646--1655. PMLR, 2018.
\bibitem[Hendrycks and Dietterich(2019)]{hendrycks2019benchmarkingneuralnetworkrobustness}
Dan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich.
\newblock Benchmarking neural network robustness to common corruptions and perturbations.
\newblock \emph{Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2019.
\bibitem[Hu et~al.(2023{\natexlab{a}})Hu, Liu, Liu, Huai, Sun, and Wang]{hu2023improving}
Lijie Hu, Yixin Liu, Ninghao Liu, Mengdi Huai, Lichao Sun, and Di~Wang.
\newblock Improving interpretation faithfulness for vision transformers.
\newblock In \emph{Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning}, 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\bibitem[Hu et~al.(2023{\natexlab{b}})Hu, Liu, Liu, Huai, Sun, and Wang]{hu2023seat}
Lijie Hu, Yixin Liu, Ninghao Liu, Mengdi Huai, Lichao Sun, and Di~Wang.
\newblock {Seat: stable and explainable attention}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence}, volume~37, pages 12907--12915, 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\bibitem[Huang et~al.(2024)Huang, Xiao, Li, Jiang, Yang, Zhang, Qian, Wang, Peng, Ren, et~al.]{huang2024open}
Jimin Huang, Mengxi Xiao, Dong Li, Zihao Jiang, Yuzhe Yang, Yifei Zhang, Lingfei Qian, Yan Wang, Xueqing Peng, Yang Ren, et~al.
\newblock {Open-finllms: Open multimodal large language models for financial applications}.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11878}, 2024.
\bibitem[Huynh et~al.(2026)Huynh, Souri, Kumar, Petsiuk, Mohan, and Kumar]{huynh2026argentadaptivehierarchicalimagetext}
Chuong Huynh, Hossein Souri, Abhinav Kumar, Vitali Petsiuk, Deen~Dayal Mohan, and Suren Kumar.
\newblock Argent: Adaptive hierarchical image-text representations, 2026.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23311}.
\bibitem[Jia et~al.(2021)Jia, Yang, Xia, Chen, Parekh, Pham, Le, Sung, Li, and Duerig]{jia2021scaling}
Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye~Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc Le, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig.
\newblock {Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervision}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)}, volume 139, pages 4904--4916. PMLR, 2021.
\bibitem[Khrulkov et~al.(2020)Khrulkov, Mirvakhabova, Ustinova, Oseledets, and Lempitsky]{khrulkov2020hyperbolic}
Valentin Khrulkov, Leyla Mirvakhabova, Evgeniya Ustinova, Ivan Oseledets, and Victor Lempitsky.
\newblock {Hyperbolic Image Embeddings}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)}, pages 6418--6428, 2020.
\bibitem[Kim et~al.(2018)Kim, Wattenberg, Gilmer, Cai, Wexler, Viegas, and Sayres]{kim2018interpretabilityfeatureattributionquantitative}
Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda Viegas, and Rory Sayres.
\newblock {Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors ({TCAV})}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning}, volume~80 of \emph{Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, pages 2668--2677. PMLR, 2018.
\newblock URL \url{https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/kim18d.html}.
\bibitem[Koh et~al.(2020)Koh, Nguyen, Tang, Mussmann, Pierson, Kim, and Liang]{koh2020concept}
Pang~Wei Koh, Thao Nguyen, Yew~Siang Tang, Stephen Mussmann, Emma Pierson, Been Kim, and Percy Liang.
\newblock {Concept bottleneck models}.
\newblock In \emph{International conference on machine learning}, pages 5338--5348. PMLR, 2020.
\bibitem[Krizhevsky(2009)]{Krizhevsky09learningmultiple}
Alex Krizhevsky.
\newblock {Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images}.
\newblock Technical report, 2009.
\bibitem[Le et~al.(2019)Le, Roller, Papaxanthos, Kiela, and Nickel]{le2019inferringconcepthierarchiestext}
Matthew Le, Stephen Roller, Laetitia Papaxanthos, Douwe Kiela, and Maximilian Nickel.
\newblock Inferring concept hierarchies from text corpora via hyperbolic embeddings.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics}, pages 3231--3241. Association for Computational Linguistics, July 2019.
\newblock \doi{10.18653/v1/P19-1313}.
\newblock URL \url{https://aclanthology.org/P19-1313/}.
\bibitem[Li et~al.(2023)Li, Wong, Zhang, Usuyama, Liu, Yang, Naumann, Poon, and Gao]{li2023llava}
Chunyuan Li, Cliff Wong, Sheng Zhang, Naoto Usuyama, Haotian Liu, Jianwei Yang, Tristan Naumann, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao.
\newblock {LLaVA-Med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day}.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 36:\penalty0 28541--28564, 2023.
\bibitem[Li et~al.(2022)Li, Li, Xiong, and Hoi]{li2022blip}
Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi.
\newblock {BLIP: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation}.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Machine Learning}, pages 12888--12900. PMLR, 2022.
\bibitem[Liu et~al.(2023)Liu, Li, Wu, and Lee]{liu2023visual}
Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong~Jae Lee.
\newblock Visual instruction tuning.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems}, NIPS '23, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2023. Curran Associates Inc.
\bibitem[Long et~al.(2020)Long, Mettes, Shen, and Snoek]{9157196}
Teng Long, Pascal Mettes, Heng~Tao Shen, and Cees G.~M. Snoek.
\newblock {Searching for Actions on the Hyperbole}.
\newblock In \emph{2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)}, pages 1138--1147, 2020.
\newblock \doi{10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00122}.
\bibitem[Lundberg and Lee(2017)]{lundberg2017unifiedapproachinterpretingmodel}
Scott~M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee.
\newblock A unified approach to interpreting model predictions.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems}, NIPS'17, page 4768–4777, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017. Curran Associates Inc.
\newblock ISBN 9781510860964.
\bibitem[Miller(1995)]{10.1145/219717.219748}
George~A. Miller.
\newblock {WordNet: a lexical database for English}.
\newblock \emph{Commun. ACM}, 38\penalty0 (11):\penalty0 39–41, November 1995.
\newblock ISSN 0001-0782.
\newblock \doi{10.1145/219717.219748}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748}.
\bibitem[Mishne et~al.(2023)Mishne, Wan, Wang, and Yang]{numericstability-mishne2023}
Gal Mishne, Zhengchao Wan, Yusu Wang, and Sheng Yang.
\newblock {The Numerical Stability of Hyperbolic Representation Learning}.
\newblock In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors, \emph{Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning}, volume 202 of \emph{Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, pages 24925--24949. PMLR, 23--29 Jul 2023.
\newblock URL \url{https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/mishne23a.html}.
\bibitem[Moor et~al.(2023)Moor, Huang, Wu, Yasunaga, Dalmia, Leskovec, Zakka, Reis, and Rajpurkar]{moor2023med}
Michael Moor, Qian Huang, Shirley Wu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yash Dalmia, Jure Leskovec, Cyril Zakka, Eduardo~Pontes Reis, and Pranav Rajpurkar.
\newblock {Med-flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner}.
\newblock In \emph{Machine Learning for Health (ML4H)}, pages 353--367. PMLR, 2023.
\bibitem[Nickel and Kiela(2017)]{nickel2017poincare}
Maximilian Nickel and Douwe Kiela.
\newblock Poincar{\'e} embeddings for learning hierarchical representations.
\newblock In \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)}, volume~30, 2017.
\bibitem[Nickel and Kiela(2018)]{nickel2018learning}
Maximilian Nickel and Douwe Kiela.
\newblock {Learning Continuous Hierarchies in the Lorentz Model of Hyperbolic Geometry}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)}, volume~80, pages 3779--3788. PMLR, 2018.
\bibitem[Oikarinen et~al.(2023)Oikarinen, Das, Nguyen, and Weng]{oikarinen2023labelfree}
Tuomas Oikarinen, Subhro Das, Lam~M Nguyen, and Tsui-Wei Weng.
\newblock {Label-Free Concept Bottleneck Models}.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)}, 2023.
\bibitem[Pal et~al.(2024)Pal, van Spengler, di~Melendugno, Flaborea, Galasso, and Mettes]{pal2024compositional}
Avik Pal, Max van Spengler, Guido Maria~D'Amely di~Melendugno, Alessandro Flaborea, Fabio Galasso, and Pascal Mettes.
\newblock {Compositional entailment learning for hyperbolic vision-language models}.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06912}, 2024.
\bibitem[Panousis et~al.(2024)Panousis, Ienco, and Marcos]{panousis2024coarse}
Konstantinos~P. Panousis, Dino Ienco, and Diego Marcos.
\newblock Coarse-to-fine concept bottleneck models.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems}, NIPS '24, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2024. Curran Associates Inc.
\newblock ISBN 9798331314385.
\bibitem[Peng et~al.(2024)Peng, Wang, Dong, Hao, Huang, Ma, Ye, and Wei]{peng2023kosmos2groundingmultimodallarge}
Zhiliang Peng, Wenhui Wang, Li~Dong, Yaru Hao, Shaohan Huang, Shuming Ma, Qixiang Ye, and Furu Wei.
\newblock Grounding multimodal large language models to the world.
\newblock In \emph{The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2024.
\bibitem[Pittino et~al.(2023)Pittino, Dimitrievska, and Heer]{pittino2023hierarchical}
Federico Pittino, Vesna Dimitrievska, and Rudolf Heer.
\newblock {Hierarchical concept bottleneck models for vision and their application to explainable fine classification and tracking}.
\newblock \emph{Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence}, 118:\penalty0 105674, 2023.
\bibitem[Poppi et~al.(2025)Poppi, Kasarla, Mettes, Baraldi, and Cucchiara]{poppi2025hyperbolicsafetyawarevisionlanguagemodels}
Tobia Poppi, Tejaswi Kasarla, Pascal Mettes, Lorenzo Baraldi, and Rita Cucchiara.
\newblock {Hyperbolic Safety-Aware Vision-Language Models}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)}, 2025.
\bibitem[Radford et~al.(2021)Radford, Kim, Hallacy, Ramesh, Goh, Agarwal, Sastry, Askell, Mishkin, Clark, et~al.]{radford2021learning}
Alec Radford, Jong~Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et~al.
\newblock {Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)}, volume 139, pages 8748--8763. PMLR, 2021.
\bibitem[Ramasinghe et~al.(2024)Ramasinghe, Shevchenko, Avraham, and Thalaiyasingam]{Ramasinghe_2024_CVPR}
Sameera Ramasinghe, Violetta Shevchenko, Gil Avraham, and Ajanthan Thalaiyasingam.
\newblock Accept the modality gap: An exploration in the hyperbolic space.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)}, pages 27263--27272, June 2024.
\bibitem[Ramesh et~al.(2022)Ramesh, Dhariwal, Nichol, Chu, and Chen]{ramesh2022hierarchicaltextconditionalimagegeneration}
Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen.
\newblock {Hierarchical Text-Conditional Image Generation with CLIP Latents}, 2022.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.06125}.
\bibitem[Rao et~al.(2024)Rao, Mahajan, B\"ohle, and Schiele]{rao2024discoverthennametaskagnosticconceptbottlenecks}
Sukrut Rao, Sweta Mahajan, Moritz B\"ohle, and Bernt Schiele.
\newblock Discover-then-name: Task-agnostic concept bottlenecks via automated concept discovery.
\newblock In \emph{European Conference on Computer Vision}, 2024.
\bibitem[Ribeiro et~al.(2016)Ribeiro, Singh, and Guestrin]{ribeiro2016whyitrustyou}
Marco~Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin.
\newblock {"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining}, KDD '16, page 1135–1144. Association for Computing Machinery, 2016.
\newblock ISBN 9781450342322.
\newblock \doi{10.1145/2939672.2939778}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778}.
\bibitem[Rombach et~al.(2022)Rombach, Blattmann, Lorenz, Esser, and Ommer]{Rombach_2022_CVPR}
Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj\"orn Ommer.
\newblock {High-Resolution Image Synthesis With Latent Diffusion Models}.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)}, pages 10684--10695, June 2022.
\bibitem[Sarkar(2012)]{10.1007/978-3-642-25878-7_34}
Rik Sarkar.
\newblock {Low Distortion Delaunay Embedding of Trees in Hyperbolic Plane}.
\newblock In Marc van Kreveld and Bettina Speckmann, editors, \emph{Graph Drawing}, pages 355--366, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
\newblock ISBN 978-3-642-25878-7.
\bibitem[Shin et~al.(2023)Shin, Jo, Ahn, and Lee]{shin2023closer}
Sungbin Shin, Yohan Jo, Sungsoo Ahn, and Namhoon Lee.
\newblock {A closer look at the intervention procedure of concept bottleneck models}.
\newblock In \emph{International Conference on Machine Learning}, pages 31504--31520. PMLR, 2023.
\bibitem[Srivastava et~al.(2024)Srivastava, Yan, and Weng]{srivastava2025vlgcbmtrainingconceptbottleneck}
Divyansh Srivastava, Ge~Yan, and Tsui-Wei Weng.
\newblock {VLG-CBM: Training Concept Bottleneck Models with Vision-Language Guidance}.
\newblock In A.~Globerson, L.~Mackey, D.~Belgrave, A.~Fan, U.~Paquet, J.~Tomczak, and C.~Zhang, editors, \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, volume~37, pages 79057--79094. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024.
\newblock \doi{10.52202/079017-2510}.
\bibitem[Steinmann et~al.(2024)Steinmann, Stammer, Friedrich, and Kersting]{steinmann2024learninginterveneconceptbottlenecks}
David Steinmann, Wolfgang Stammer, Felix Friedrich, and Kristian Kersting.
\newblock Learning to intervene on concept bottlenecks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning}, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024.
\bibitem[Tian et~al.(2024)Tian, Gu, Li, Liu, Wang, Zhao, Zhan, Jia, Lang, and Zhao]{tian2024drivevlmconvergenceautonomousdriving}
Xiaoyu Tian, Junru Gu, Bailin Li, Yicheng Liu, Yang Wang, Zhiyong Zhao, Kun Zhan, Peng Jia, Xianpeng Lang, and Hang Zhao.
\newblock {DriveVLM: The Convergence of Autonomous Driving and Large Vision-Language Models}, 2024.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12289}.
\bibitem[Vemuri et~al.(2025)Vemuri, Bellamkonda, Pola, and Balasubramanian]{vemuri2025logiccbmslogicenhancedconceptbasedlearning}
Deepika~SN Vemuri, Gautham Bellamkonda, Aditya Pola, and Vineeth~N Balasubramanian.
\newblock {LogicCBMs: Logic-Enhanced Concept-Based Learning}, 2025.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07383}.
\bibitem[Wah et~al.(2011)Wah, Branson, Welinder, Perona, and Belongie]{WahCUB_200_2011}
C.~Wah, S.~Branson, P.~Welinder, P.~Perona, and S.~Belongie.
\newblock {CUB200-2011 Dataset}.
\newblock Technical Report CNS-TR-2011-001, California Institute of Technology, 2011.
\bibitem[Xiao et~al.(2010)Xiao, Hays, Ehinger, Oliva, and Torralba]{5539970}
Jianxiong Xiao, James Hays, Krista~A. Ehinger, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba.
\newblock {SUN database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo}.
\newblock In \emph{2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition}, pages 3485--3492, 2010.
\newblock \doi{10.1109/CVPR.2010.5539970}.
\bibitem[Xu et~al.(2026)Xu, Weng, Nguyen, and Ma]{xu2026graph}
Haotian Xu, Tsui-Wei Weng, Lam~M. Nguyen, and Tengfei Ma.
\newblock Graph concept bottleneck models.
\newblock \emph{Transactions on Machine Learning Research}, 2026.
\newblock ISSN 2835-8856.
\newblock URL \url{https://openreview.net/forum?id=a4azUYjRhU}.
\bibitem[Yang et~al.(2024)Yang, Hu, Yu, Ali, and Wang]{yang2024human}
Shu Yang, Lijie Hu, Lu~Yu, Muhammad~Asif Ali, and Di~Wang.
\newblock {Human-ai interactions in the communication era: Autophagy makes large models achieving local optima}.
\newblock \emph{CoRR}, 2024.
\bibitem[Yang et~al.(2023)Yang, Panagopoulou, Zhou, Jin, Callison-Burch, and Yatskar]{yang2023languagebottlelanguagemodel}
Yue Yang, Artemis Panagopoulou, Shenghao Zhou, Daniel Jin, Chris Callison-Burch, and Mark Yatskar.
\newblock Language in a bottle: Language model guided concept bottlenecks for interpretable image classification.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition}, pages 19187--19197, 2023.
\bibitem[Yuksekgonul et~al.(2023)Yuksekgonul, Wang, and Zou]{yuksekgonul2023posthoc}
Mert Yuksekgonul, Maggie Wang, and James Zou.
\newblock Post-hoc concept bottleneck models.
\newblock In \emph{The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations}, 2023.
\newblock URL \url{https://openreview.net/forum?id=nA5AZ8CEyow}.
\bibitem[Zarlenga et~al.(2022)Zarlenga, Barbiero, Ciravegna, Marra, Giannini, Diligenti, Shams, Precioso, Melacci, Weller, Lio, and Jamnik]{zarlenga2022conceptembeddingmodelsaccuracyexplainability}
Mateo Zarlenga, Pietro Barbiero, Gabriele Ciravegna, Giuseppe Marra, Francesco Giannini, Michelangelo Diligenti, Zohreh Shams, Frederic Precioso, Stefano Melacci, Adrian Weller, Pietro Lio, and Mateja Jamnik.
\newblock Concept embedding models: Beyond the accuracy-explainability trade-off.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 35, 2022.
\end{thebibliography}