mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

AGOP as Explanation: From Feature Learning to Per-Sample Attribution in Image Classifiers

arXiv 2605.12816 ↗First posted 12 May 2026cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.

Builds on

13 of 17 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,950
  2. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,713
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,515
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,055
  5. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,368
  6. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,360
  7. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,103
  8. 2017Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networkscited by 938
  9. 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 417
  10. 2020Ground Truth Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations with CLEVR-XAIcited by 125
  11. 2023Mechanism of feature learning in convolutional neural networkscited by 16
  12. 2025xRFM: Accurate, scalable, and interpretable feature learning models for tabular datacited by 15
1 more
  1. 2023XAI-TRIS: Non-linear image benchmarks to quantify false positive post-hoc attribution of feature importancecited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.