Unifying Fourteen Post-Hoc Attribution Methods With Taylor Interactions

Various attribution methods have been developed to explain deep neural networks (DNNs) by inferring the attribution/importance/contribution score of each input variable to the final output. However, existing attribution methods are often built upon different heuristics. There remains a lack of a unified theoretical understanding of why these methods are effective and how they are related. Furthermore, there is still no universally accepted criterion to compare whether one attribution method is preferable over another. In this paper, we resort to Taylor interactions and for the first time, we discover that fourteen existing attribution methods, which define attributions based on fully different heuristics, actually share the same core mechanism. Specifically, we prove that attribution scores of input variables estimated by the fourteen attribution methods can all be mathematically reformulated as a weighted allocation of two typical types of effects, i.e., independent effects of each input variable and interaction effects between input variables. The essential difference among these attribution methods lies in the weights of allocating different effects. Inspired by these insights, we propose three principles for fairly allocating the effects, which serve as new criteria to evaluate the faithfulness of attribution methods. In summary, this study can be considered as a new unified perspective to revisit fourteen attribution methods, which theoretically clarifies essential similarities and differences among these methods. Besides, the proposed new principles enable people to make a direct and fair comparison among different methods under the unified perspective.