AGOP as Explanation: From Feature Learning to Per-Sample Attribution in Image Classifiers
About
The Average Gradient Outer Product (AGOP) governs feature learning in neural networks: the Neural Feature Ansatz states that weight Gram matrices at each layer align with the corresponding AGOP matrices computed over the training distribution. We ask a complementary question: can this same quantity serve as a post-hoc attribution method for explaining individual predictions? We introduce AGOP-Weighted: a novel attribution method that multiplies the per-sample gradient by sqrt(diag(M) / max diag(M)), a training-distribution prior that suppresses gradient noise and amplifies consistently important pixels -- a combination not present in any prior attribution method. We formalise two companion variants -- AGOP-Local (per-sample gradient, equivalent to VanillaGrad) and AGOP-Global (diag(M) directly as a zero-cost saliency map) -- and implement an efficient training-time accumulation hook; AGOP-Global then requires zero inference cost (disk lookup) while AGOP-Weighted requires only a single gradient pass. We conduct the first rigorous comparison of AGOP attribution against Integrated Gradients (IG), SmoothGrad, GradCAM, and VanillaGrad across two benchmarks with pixel-level ground truth: (i) the synthetic XAI-TRIS benchmark (four classification scenarios, 8x8 images, CNN8by8) and (ii) the photorealistic CLEVR-XAI benchmark (ResNet-18 fine-tuned from ImageNet). AGOP-Weighted achieves 44% higher mIoU than IG on linear tasks; AGOP-Global achieves 7x higher mIoU than IG on multiplicative tasks (where IG falls below random) at zero inference cost. Both findings generalise to ResNet-18 on CLEVR-XAI (+18% and +37% respectively). We further show that GradCAM fails on small-resolution images due to spatial resolution collapse, and that diag(M) quality improves monotonically throughout training even after classification accuracy has plateaued.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attribution | XAI-TRIS Scenario 2 (Multiplicative/uncorrelated) | PG50.6 | 9 | |
| Feature Attribution | XAI-TRIS Scenario 4 - XOR | PG0.497 | 9 | |
| Attribution Map Evaluation | XAI-TRIS Scenario 3 (Translations+Rotations uncorrelated) | PG77.4 | 9 | |
| Attribution Performance Evaluation | XAI-TRIS Scenario 1 (Linear uncorrelated) | PG66.7 | 9 | |
| Post-hoc Attribution | CLEVR-XAI (val) | PG28.2 | 9 |