Shapley Values, a solution to the credit assignment problem in cooperative game theory, are a popular type of explanation in machine learning, having been used to explain the importance of features, embeddings, and even neurons. In NLP, however, leave-one-out and attention-based explanations still predominate. Can we draw a connection between these different methods? We formally prove that -- save for the degenerate case -- attention weights and leave-one-out values cannot be Shapley Values. $\textit{Attention flow}$ is a post-processed variant of attention weights obtained by running the max-flow algorithm on the attention graph. Perhaps surprisingly, we prove that attention flows are indeed Shapley Values, at least at the layerwise level. Given the many desirable theoretical qualities of Shapley Values -- which has driven their adoption among the ML community -- we argue that NLP practitioners should, when possible, adopt attention flow explanations alongside more traditional ones.
翻译:Shapley 值是合作游戏理论中信用分配问题的一种解决办法,是机器学习中一种受欢迎的解释,用来解释特征、嵌入、甚至神经元的重要性。然而,在NLP中,请假单和关注型解释仍然占主导地位。我们能否将这些不同方法联系起来?我们正式证明 -- -- 除了堕落的情况之外 -- -- 注意权重和放假单值不能是Shapley值。$\ textit{Attention flow}$是经处理后,通过在关注图上运行最大流算法而获得的注意权重的变体。也许令人惊讶的是,我们证明注意力流确实具有光滑值,至少是在层层次上。鉴于“Sppley value” 的许多理想理论品质 -- -- 这促使这些价值在ML社区中被采纳 -- -- 我们争辩说,NLP从业人员在可能时,应该将注意力流解释与较传统的解释结合起来。