Rethinking the Role of Gradient-Based Attribution Methods for Model Interpretability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Current methods for the interpretability of discriminative deep neural networks commonly rely on the model's input-gradients, i.e., the gradients of the output logits w.r.t. the inputs. The common assumption is that these input-gradients contain information regarding pθ ( y mid x), the model's discriminative capabilities, thus justifying their use for interpretability. However, in this work we show that these input-gradients can be arbitrarily manipulated as a consequence of the shift-invariance of softmax without changing the discriminative function. This leaves an open question: if input-gradients can be arbitrary, why are they highly structured and explanatory in standard models? We investigate this by re-interpreting the logits of standard softmax-based classifiers as unnormalized log-densities of the data distribution and show that input-gradients can be viewed as gradients of a class-conditional density model pθ(x mid y) implicit within the discriminative model. This leads us to hypothesize that the highly structured and explanatory nature of input-gradients may be due to the alignment of this class-conditional model pθ(x mid y) with that of the ground truth data distribution pdata (x mid y). We test this hypothesis by studying the effect of density alignment on gradient explanations. To achieve this alignment we use score-matching, and propose novel approximations to this algorithm to enable training large-scale models. Our experiments show that improving the alignment of the implicit density model with the data distribution enhances gradient structure and explanatory power while reducing this alignment has the opposite effect. Overall, our finding that input-gradients capture information regarding an implicit generative model implies that we need to re-think their use for interpreting discriminative models.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 0; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
3 papers.
- 2021Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZerocited by 123
- 2025Interpretability as Alignment: Making Internal Understanding a Design Principlecited by 3
- 2024MCCE: Missingness-aware Causal Concept Explainercited by 0
- 2025Interpretability as Alignment: Making Internal Understanding a Design Principle10 Sep 2025
- 2024MCCE: Missingness-aware Causal Concept Explainer14 Nov 2024
- 2021Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero17 Nov 2021