Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper evaluates the concept-based explainability of frozen MLLMs performing few-shot in-context learning for image classification. The authors tested four state-of-the-art MLLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge pipeline across five conditions of increasing formal rigor, including Description Logics (DL) axiom generation. Results show that generating formal, concept-based explanations *decreases* predictive accuracy, suggesting that MLLMs struggle to articulate class-discriminative visual features in a structured way, even when they can classify accurately.
Forcing MLLMs to explain their image classifications using structured concepts actually *harms* their accuracy, challenging the assumption that explicit reasoning always improves performance.
In-context learning (ICL) enables multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to classify images from a few labelled examples. Yet, how these models use the provided context remains opaque. While Chain-of-Thought prompting is widely used, recent work argues that it may not reflect true internal computation. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the concept-based explainability of frozen MLLMs under few-shot ICL using five conditions of increasing formal rigour, ranging from baseline classification to Description Logics (DL) axiom generation. Evaluating four state-of-the-art MLLMs via an independent LLM-as-a-judge pipeline, we demonstrate that explaining is genuinely harder than predicting alone. Surprisingly, forcing models to generate formally structured, concept-based explanations degrades predictive accuracy monotonically (from 93.8% to 90.1%), contradicting the assumption that explicit reasoning universally aids performance. However, when models successfully articulate class-discriminative visual features, explanation quality strongly correlates with correct predictions. Our findings suggest that while MLLMs excel at visual classification, they lack the specific instruction-tuning required for formal, machine-verifiable explainability.