Causal Concept Graph Models: Beyond Causal Opacity in Deep Learning
Gabriele Dominici, Pietro Barbiero, Mateo Espinosa Zarlenga, Alberto, Termine, Martin Gjoreski, Giuseppe Marra, Marc Langheinrich

TL;DR
This paper introduces Causal Concept Graph Models, which are interpretable deep learning models designed to be causally transparent, enabling better understanding, correction, and verification of decisions in high-stakes applications.
Contribution
The paper proposes Causal Concept Graph Models that are inherently interpretable and causally transparent, addressing the challenge of causal opacity in deep neural networks.
Findings
Match the generalization performance of opaque models
Enable human-in-the-loop corrections for improved accuracy and explanations
Support analysis of interventional and counterfactual scenarios
Abstract
Causal opacity denotes the difficulty in understanding the "hidden" causal structure underlying the decisions of deep neural network (DNN) models. This leads to the inability to rely on and verify state-of-the-art DNN-based systems, especially in high-stakes scenarios. For this reason, circumventing causal opacity in DNNs represents a key open challenge at the intersection of deep learning, interpretability, and causality. This work addresses this gap by introducing Causal Concept Graph Models (Causal CGMs), a class of interpretable models whose decision-making process is causally transparent by design. Our experiments show that Causal CGMs can: (i) match the generalisation performance of causally opaque models, (ii) enable human-in-the-loop corrections to mispredicted intermediate reasoning steps, boosting not just downstream accuracy after corrections but also the reliability of the…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
- The paper is well written. - The idea of introducing causal transparency in concept-based models is interesting. - The experiments are sound.
- > *Causal opacity refers to the difficulty in understanding the mechanisms behind a model’s decision-making process.* The paper frequently references the concept of causal opacity, but it is too vaguely defined to be fully understood. - How the model performs abduction to answer counterfactual queries is unclear. - Minor: The description of Figure 3 is inconsistent with the picture. - It seems the proposed model sacrifices accuracy to improve interpretability.
The authors extend prior approaches by dropping the restriction of causally independent concepts and trying to approximate the underlying true graphical causal relation. This is an important extension, as most real-world settings, feature complex interactions between concepts and allows to inspect the consequences of interventions on the modeled process. By observing predictive power among variables, the authors are able to (partially) recover the individual parents of the variables. If trained
The weaknesses concern extend to which the presented method 'is actually causal'. While existing works in the field of causality are mainly concerned with providing identifiability results, the presented method mainly leverages predictive power to identify causal relations between variables, which might not coincide with learning the correct causal structure and lead the model to learn spurious associations. 1) Measuring the predictive performance of features towards each other does guarantee t
1. The paper is cleanly written. 2. The approach is well-placed in the literature. 3. The experimental section is extensive. 4. The method description is detailed and well-structured.
1. One bit of experimental evaluation is unclear to me (see Questions)
Code & Models
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
