Q&A 39.4 — AttentionVisualizer: LRP Rules, Conservation & Multi-Head Analysis #804
Unanswered
web3guru888
asked this question in
Q&A
Replies: 0 comments
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
AttentionVisualizer — Configuration & FAQ
Q: Does attention equal explanation?
A: No. Jain & Wallace (2019) showed that attention weights often do not correlate with gradient-based feature importance. Attention rollout (Abnar & Zuidema, 2020) partially addresses this by accounting for information mixing across layers. Always cross-validate attention-based explanations with FeatureAttributor (39.1) results.
Q: Which LRP rule should I use?
A:
Start with epsilon-rule (epsilon=0.01). Increase epsilon for smoother, sparser explanations.
Q: How to handle multi-head attention with many heads?
A: For models with 12-96 heads: (1) Use head pruning to identify the most informative heads (Michel et al. 2019), (2) Cluster heads by their attention patterns (same-behavior groups), (3) Show top-K heads ranked by gradient-weighted importance rather than all heads.
Q: How to verify LRP conservation?
A: Check that total input relevance equals the output prediction: |Sum_i R_i - f(x)| / |f(x)| < threshold (typically 1e-4). Violations indicate numerical issues or unsupported layer types. The
conservation_errorfield in RelevanceMap tracks this automatically.Q: Can GradCAM work for text models (not just vision)?
A: Yes, with adaptations: (1) Use the last transformer block as the target layer, (2) Pool GradCAM scores over the hidden dimension to get per-token scores, (3) For encoder-decoder models, compute GradCAM separately for encoder and decoder. The token-level GradCAM scores correlate well with integrated gradients (Bastings & Filippova, 2020).
Q: What is the computational overhead of attention visualization?
Related: #791
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions