Concept Inconsistency in Dermoscopic Concept Bottleneck Models: A Rough-Set Analysis of the Derm7pt Dataset
Gonzalo N\'apoles, Isel Grau, Yamisleydi Salgueiro

TL;DR
This study analyzes concept inconsistencies in dermoscopic models using rough set theory, identifies a theoretical accuracy ceiling, and creates a consistent dataset subset to improve model interpretability and evaluation.
Contribution
It applies rough set theory to quantify concept inconsistencies in Derm7pt, introduces a filtered dataset, and establishes baseline performance for concept-consistent CBMs.
Findings
16.4% of concept profiles are inconsistent in Derm7pt.
A theoretical accuracy ceiling of 92.1% due to concept inconsistencies.
EfficientNet-B7 achieves the best performance on the filtered dataset.
Abstract
Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) route predictions exclusively through a clinically grounded concept layer, binding interpretability to concept-label consistency. When a dataset contains concept-level inconsistencies, identical concept profiles mapped to conflicting diagnosis labels create an unresolvable bottleneck that imposes a hard ceiling on achievable accuracy. In this paper, we apply rough set theory to the Derm7pt dermoscopy benchmark and characterize the full extent and clinical structure of this inconsistency. Among 305 unique concept profiles formed by the 7 dermoscopic criteria of the 7-point melanoma checklist, 50 (16.4%) are inconsistent, spanning 306 images (30.3% of the dataset). This yields a theoretical accuracy ceiling of 92.1%, independent of backbone architecture or training strategy for CBMs that exclusively operate with hard concepts. In addition, we characterize…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
