Emanuele Marconato

Emanuele Marconato, Gianpaolo Bontempo, Elisa Ficarra et al.

We introduce Neuro-Symbolic Continual Learning, where a model has to solve a sequence of neuro-symbolic tasks, that is, it has to map sub-symbolic inputs to high-level concepts and compute predictions by reasoning consistently with prior knowledge. Our key observation is that neuro-symbolic tasks, although different, often share concepts whose semantics remains stable over time. Traditional approaches fall short: existing continual strategies ignore knowledge altogether, while stock neuro-symbolic architectures suffer from catastrophic forgetting. We show that leveraging prior knowledge by combining neuro-symbolic architectures with continual strategies does help avoid catastrophic forgetting, but also that doing so can yield models affected by reasoning shortcuts. These undermine the semantics of the acquired concepts, even when detailed prior knowledge is provided upfront and inference is exact, and in turn continual performance. To overcome these issues, we introduce COOL, a COncept-level cOntinual Learning strategy tailored for neuro-symbolic continual problems that acquires high-quality concepts and remembers them over time. Our experiments on three novel benchmarks highlights how COOL attains sustained high performance on neuro-symbolic continual learning tasks in which other strategies fail.

Emanuele Marconato, Andrea Passerini, Stefano Teso

There is growing interest in concept-based models (CBMs) that combine high-performance and interpretability by acquiring and reasoning with a vocabulary of high-level concepts. A key requirement is that the concepts be interpretable. Existing CBMs tackle this desideratum using a variety of heuristics based on unclear notions of interpretability, and fail to acquire concepts with the intended semantics. We address this by providing a clear definition of interpretability in terms of alignment between the model's representation and an underlying data generation process, and introduce GlanceNets, a new CBM that exploits techniques from disentangled representation learning and open-set recognition to achieve alignment, thus improving the interpretability of the learned concepts. We show that GlanceNets, paired with concept-level supervision, achieve better alignment than state-of-the-art approaches while preventing spurious information from unintendedly leaking into the learned concepts.

Emanuele Marconato, Andrea Passerini, Stefano Teso

Focus in Explainable AI is shifting from explanations defined in terms of low-level elements, such as input features, to explanations encoded in terms of interpretable concepts learned from data. How to reliably acquire such concepts is, however, still fundamentally unclear. An agreed-upon notion of concept interpretability is missing, with the result that concepts used by both post-hoc explainers and concept-based neural networks are acquired through a variety of mutually incompatible strategies. Critically, most of these neglect the human side of the problem: a representation is understandable only insofar as it can be understood by the human at the receiving end. The key challenge in Human-interpretable Representation Learning (HRL) is how to model and operationalize this human element. In this work, we propose a mathematical framework for acquiring interpretable representations suitable for both post-hoc explainers and concept-based neural networks. Our formalization of HRL builds on recent advances in causal representation learning and explicitly models a human stakeholder as an external observer. This allows us to derive a principled notion of alignment between the machine representation and the vocabulary of concepts understood by the human. In doing so, we link alignment and interpretability through a simple and intuitive name transfer game, and clarify the relationship between alignment and a well-known property of representations, namely disentanglment. We also show that alignment is linked to the issue of undesirable correlations among concepts, also known as concept leakage, and to content-style separation, all through a general information-theoretic reformulation of these properties. Our conceptualization aims to bridge the gap between the human and algorithmic sides of interpretability and establish a stepping stone for new research on human-interpretable representations.

Emanuele Marconato, Stefano Teso, Andrea Passerini

Neuro-symbolic predictors learn a mapping from sub-symbolic inputs to higher-level concepts and then carry out (probabilistic) logical inference on this intermediate representation. This setup offers clear advantages in terms of consistency to symbolic prior knowledge, and is often believed to provide interpretability benefits in that - by virtue of complying with the knowledge - the learned concepts can be better understood by human stakeholders. However, it was recently shown that this setup is affected by reasoning shortcuts whereby predictions attain high accuracy by leveraging concepts with unintended semantics, yielding poor out-of-distribution performance and compromising interpretability. In this short paper, we establish a formal link between reasoning shortcuts and the optima of the loss function, and identify situations in which reasoning shortcuts can arise. Based on this, we discuss limitations of natural mitigation strategies such as reconstruction and concept supervision.

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen, Emanuele Marconato, Luigi Gresele et al.

For a broad family of discriminative models that includes autoregressive language models, identifiability results imply that if two models induce the same conditional distributions, then their internal representations agree up to an invertible linear transformation. We ask whether an analogous conclusion holds approximately when the distributions are close instead of equal. Building on the observation of Nielsen et al. (2025) that closeness in KL divergence need not imply high linear representational similarity, we study a distributional distance based on logit differences and show that closeness in this distance does yield linear similarity guarantees. Specifically, we define a representational dissimilarity measure based on the models' identifiability class and prove that it is bounded by the logit distance. We further show that, when model probabilities are bounded away from zero, KL divergence upper-bounds logit distance; yet the resulting bound fails to provide nontrivial control in practice. As a consequence, KL-based distillation can match a teacher's predictions while failing to preserve linear representational properties, such as linear-probe recoverability of human-interpretable concepts. In distillation experiments on synthetic and image datasets, logit-distance distillation yields students with higher linear representational similarity and better preservation of the teacher's linearly recoverable concepts.

Nicola Debole, Pietro Barbiero, Francesco Giannini et al.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) are neural networks designed to conjoin high performance with ante-hoc interpretability. CBMs work by first mapping inputs (e.g., images) to high-level concepts (e.g., visible objects and their properties) and then use these to solve a downstream task (e.g., tagging or scoring an image) in an interpretable manner. Their performance and interpretability, however, hinge on the quality of the concepts they learn. The go-to strategy for ensuring good quality concepts is to leverage expert annotations, which are expensive to collect and seldom available in applications. Researchers have recently addressed this issue by introducing "VLM-CBM" architectures that replace manual annotations with weak supervision from foundation models. It is however unclear what is the impact of doing so on the quality of the learned concepts. To answer this question, we put state-of-the-art VLM-CBMs to the test, analyzing their learned concepts empirically using a selection of significant metrics. Our results show that, depending on the task, VLM supervision can sensibly differ from expert annotations, and that concept accuracy and quality are not strongly correlated. Our code is available at https://github.com/debryu/CQA.

Emanuele Marconato, Samuele Bortolotti, Emile van Krieken et al.

Neuro-Symbolic (NeSy) predictors that conform to symbolic knowledge - encoding, e.g., safety constraints - can be affected by Reasoning Shortcuts (RSs): They learn concepts consistent with the symbolic knowledge by exploiting unintended semantics. RSs compromise reliability and generalization and, as we show in this paper, they are linked to NeSy models being overconfident about the predicted concepts. Unfortunately, the only trustworthy mitigation strategy requires collecting costly dense supervision over the concepts. Rather than attempting to avoid RSs altogether, we propose to ensure NeSy models are aware of the semantic ambiguity of the concepts they learn, thus enabling their users to identify and distrust low-quality concepts. Starting from three simple desiderata, we derive bears (BE Aware of Reasoning Shortcuts), an ensembling technique that calibrates the model's concept-level confidence without compromising prediction accuracy, thus encouraging NeSy architectures to be uncertain about concepts affected by RSs. We show empirically that bears improves RS-awareness of several state-of-the-art NeSy models, and also facilitates acquiring informative dense annotations for mitigation purposes.

Samuele Bortolotti, Emanuele Marconato, Paolo Morettin et al.

Concept-based Models are neural networks that learn a concept extractor to map inputs to high-level concepts and an inference layer to translate these into predictions. Ensuring these modules produce interpretable concepts and behave reliably in out-of-distribution is crucial, yet the conditions for achieving this remain unclear. We study this problem by establishing a novel connection between Concept-based Models and reasoning shortcuts (RSs), a common issue where models achieve high accuracy by learning low-quality concepts, even when the inference layer is fixed and provided upfront. Specifically, we extend RSs to the more complex setting of Concept-based Models and derive theoretical conditions for identifying both the concepts and the inference layer. Our empirical results highlight the impact of RSs and show that existing methods, even combined with multiple natural mitigation strategies, often fail to meet these conditions in practice.

Samuele Bortolotti, Emanuele Marconato, Tommaso Carraro et al.

The advent of powerful neural classifiers has increased interest in problems that require both learning and reasoning. These problems are critical for understanding important properties of models, such as trustworthiness, generalization, interpretability, and compliance to safety and structural constraints. However, recent research observed that tasks requiring both learning and reasoning on background knowledge often suffer from reasoning shortcuts (RSs): predictors can solve the downstream reasoning task without associating the correct concepts to the high-dimensional data. To address this issue, we introduce rsbench, a comprehensive benchmark suite designed to systematically evaluate the impact of RSs on models by providing easy access to highly customizable tasks affected by RSs. Furthermore, rsbench implements common metrics for evaluating concept quality and introduces novel formal verification procedures for assessing the presence of RSs in learning tasks. Using rsbench, we highlight that obtaining high quality concepts in both purely neural and neuro-symbolic models is a far-from-solved problem. rsbench is available at: https://unitn-sml.github.io/rsbench.

Emanuele Marconato, Stefano Teso, Antonio Vergari et al.

Neuro-Symbolic (NeSy) predictive models hold the promise of improved compliance with given constraints, systematic generalization, and interpretability, as they allow to infer labels that are consistent with some prior knowledge by reasoning over high-level concepts extracted from sub-symbolic inputs. It was recently shown that NeSy predictors are affected by reasoning shortcuts: they can attain high accuracy but by leveraging concepts with unintended semantics, thus coming short of their promised advantages. Yet, a systematic characterization of reasoning shortcuts and of potential mitigation strategies is missing. This work fills this gap by characterizing them as unintended optima of the learning objective and identifying four key conditions behind their occurrence. Based on this, we derive several natural mitigation strategies, and analyze their efficacy both theoretically and empirically. Our analysis shows reasoning shortcuts are difficult to deal with, casting doubts on the trustworthiness and interpretability of existing NeSy solutions.