Well, both the terms "music theory concept" and "introduced by" are a bit of a misnomer. Composers and working musicians only very rarely develop music theories, per se. Rather, they make music. Music Theory is about explicating and describing musical features and structure. It is a bit like asking if speakers of a language are "making new linguistics concepts." I mean. Not really? They're just speaking. And linguists are a class of intellectuals who invent terms to describe this activity, as well as explanations and theories for why linguistic systems are organized as they are, why people speak the way they do. It's certainly true that speaking a language and studying linguistics are related activities, but we shouldn't really think of them as identical. And the same is true of making music and doing music theory.
Once we have this broken down, we can really split your question into two separate ones.
1.) Are there any popular musicians who were also music theorists? Making terms or advancing discourses about musical structure that impacted other theorists in addition to their activity of making music. Or, to say the same thing, were there pop musicians who were very interested in making explicit, technical descriptions of what they are doing?
Or
2.) Are there any music theoretical ideas that have come primarily from the study of popular music, as opposed to classical music? That is, have investigations of pop music by music theorists produced any fruitful insights?
The answer to question 1 is... yes, but it's at times complicated. Musicians of course speak all the time about their creative processes, but different musicians of course vary in the degree to which they couch those descriptions in the technical language of music theory. Jazz musicians are perhaps the most explicitly theoretical of the "non-classical" repertoires, and musicians like George Russel, Mark Levine, and Jacob Collier can definitely converse technically about the music they make, perhaps inventing (or, sometimes, simply renaming) terms if they find that existing terminology is lacking. Russel, in particular, is a theorist of some renown whose Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization birthed a way of thinking about how to play specific scales over different kinds of chords that has been pretty influential for Jazz.
Similarly, YouTube musician Bill Wurtz writes some wild music, and has his own idiosyncratic way of thinking through its structure in a way that I would absolutely call "making music theory." On the other hand, you have a stellar musician like Thundercat who often speaks in less technical (less theoretical?) terms about the music he makes. It's a wide spectrum! And it's not really clear, a lot of the times, where one draws a line between "talking music theory" and "talking aesthetics."
But like, that's not really what your question means, is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you really want to know is if pop music does new, innovative stuff! You don't so much care about whether they can articulate what they've done, just whether what they are doing is pushing us to think about musical structure in new ways. In short, I think you care more about question 2 than question 1!
And the good news here is that there is in fact a huge amount of scholarly music theory work being done on popular music. Indeed it is staggering. Here is a reasonably comprehensive bibliography maintained by the Popular Music Interest Group of the Society for Music Theory. And, as you can see, there's just a ton of work!
In fact, this is such a thriving discourse that it's impossible to pin down to a list of any reasonable size. But let me just link a couple of ideas.
The study of afro-diasporic music has lead theorists to develop the idea of a "timeline," or endlessly repeating rhythmic pattern (like the son clave or the standard pattern) that serves as a basic organizing framework around which the rest of the rhythmic structure is organized.
The study of pop music melodic structures from the 1960s to today has yielded a concept called the "melodic-harmonic divorce," in which the melodic and harmonic structures of a given song operate essentially independently. That is, rather than the melody "fitting" into the harmony, harmonizing with it, the melody and harmony each act as if the other didn't exist. A good example is Jane Says, in which the melody is almost entirely outlining a chord (D major) that the band never plays (their riff loops between G major to A major).
Bob Dylan's persistently wild and imaginative transformations of his tunes in live performances have led scholars like Steve Rings to re-examine what constitutes the "heart" of a song and its structure, as well as to reconsider how we think about the core "structure" of a melody. If a melody changes radically every time it's performed, then how does it even make sense to think of them as being "the same" melody, or indeed the same song? Rings thinks a notion of schematic prototypes has the answer: the same thing that allows us to recognize a tree as a tree in spite of the infinite and wide variations in size, shape, and color also allows us to hear a throughline connecting different performances of "It's a Alright Ma" together under an idea of it being "the same" song in each performance.
But really, each article in that bibliography above could have its own sepaeate bullet point summary. Pop music of course innovates all the time. The only way that claseical music theory could totally capture everything that happens in pop music would be if pop music did everything exactly the same way as classical music did. Since that's obviously not the case, then there are nigh-infinite theories that can be made that account for each little way that pop music does something ever so slightly different. It does remain true that the music theory community has an obsession with classical music, but the study of popular music is a thriving and innovative field!