Integrated Decision Gradients: Compute Your Attributions Where the Model Makes Its Decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attribution algorithms are frequently employed to explain the decisions of neural network models. Integrated Gradients (IG) is an influential attribution method due to its strong axiomatic foundation. The algorithm is based on integrating the gradients along a path from a reference image to the input image. Unfortunately, it can be observed that gradients computed from regions where the output logit changes minimally along the path provide poor explanations for the model decision, which is called the saturation effect problem. In this paper, we propose an attribution algorithm called integrated decision gradients (IDG). The algorithm focuses on integrating gradients from the region of the path where the model makes its decision, i.e., the portion of the path where the output logit rapidly transitions from zero to its final value. This is practically realized by scaling each gradient by the derivative of the output logit with respect to the path. The algorithm thereby provides a principled solution to the saturation problem. Additionally, we minimize the errors within the Riemann sum approximation of the path integral by utilizing non-uniform subdivisions determined by adaptive sampling. In the evaluation on ImageNet, it is demonstrated that IDG outperforms IG, Left-IG, Guided IG, and adversarial gradient integration both qualitatively and quantitatively using standard insertion and deletion metrics across three common models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".