Feature attributions often hide a critical modeling choice: they explain a prediction along a counterfactual path from a reference state to an input. Different baselines, interpolations, and generative trajectories define different paths and can therefor produce different explanations. We study this path ambiguity as a modeling problem. Our central question is whether the path can be chosen by the data-generating transport process, rather than by a hand-designed interpolation or by the sensitivity geometry of the model being explained. We separate attribution into fixed-path credit allocation and path selection. For a fixed path, we prove that the Aumann-Shapley line integral is the unique attribution rule under standard fixed-path axioms and explicit coordinate-trace regularity. For path selection, we minimize kinetic action over flows that transport a reference distribution to the data distribution, yielding a transport-geodesic attribution principle. We approximate this ideal with Rectified Flow and Reflow and derive stability bounds linking vector-field error to attribution error. Experiments show that lower-action, transport-consistent paths produce more stable and structured explanations, preserving competitive deletion faithfulness, without claiming data-manifold membership. Our code is available at https://github.com/cenweizhang/OTFlowSHAP.
Figures & tables
Steps K
MAE ↓
Std. dev.
SEM
Relative error ↓
10
1.483
1.346
0.177
19.30%
20
0.895
0.778
0.102
11.65%
50
0.411
0.317
0.042
5.34%
100
0.229
0.181
0.024
2.98%
200
0.101
0.079
0.010
1.34%
Table 1: Completeness residual for the discrete estimator in Eq. ( 11 ). The residual decreases as the integration grid becomes finer.
Method
Action A↓
Pixel var. ↓
SSIM ↑
Rank corr. ↑
1-RF
3179.2 ± 295.8
0.0032 ± 0.0021
0.716 ± 0.080
0.662 ± 0.087
2-RF
3006.9 ± 340.4
0.0010 ± 0.0008
0.911 ± 0.051
0.882 ± 0.061
Table 2: Path action and attribution stability across seeds. Lower-action reflowed paths produce more stable maps and more consistent feature rankings.
Data
Method
GPS
FCE ↓
SATV ↓
EAS ↑
Del. zero ↓
Del. blur ↓
CIFAR-10
SmoothGrad
-
-
0.022 ± 0.008
0.363 ± 0.117
0.525 ± 0.923
1.216 ± 1.202
GuidedBackprop
-
-
0.040 ± 0.018
0.439 ± 0.128
0.966 ± 0.978
1.627 ± 1.064
GradientSHAP
-
-
0.669 ± 0.408
0.116 ± 0.146
0.691 ± 0.975
1.978 ± 1.050
Integrated Gradients
1.000 ± 0.000
(1.0±0.1)×104
0.643 ± 0.404
0.114 ± 0.134
0.670 ± 0.965
1.931 ± 1.105
DDIM
1.059 ± 0.017
(3.1±0.5)×103
0.073 ± 0.062
0.119 ± 0.160
0.444 ± 0.940
1.360 ± 1.143
Transport Flow
1.023 ± 0.008
0.005 ± 0.003
0.062 ± 0.048
0.119 ± 0.138
0.456 ± 0.967
1.311 ± 1.177
Table 3: CIFAR-10 and CelebA-HQ benchmark results. We report path diagnostics only for methods that define a continuous path. Our method has much lower FCE than IG and DDIM, while deletion faithfulness remains competitive rather than uniformly best.
Figure 1: Qualitative visualization on CIFAR-10 and CelebA-HQ. Transport Flow explanations are spatially coherent and avoid some high-frequency artifacts of straight-line Integrated Gradients. The figure should be read together with Table 3 ; visual clarity alone is not a complete faithfulness metric.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Synthetic additive sanity check. The path-integral estimator recovers the analytical additive Shapley values, and the error decreases as the quadrature grid becomes finer.
Figure 3: Controlled two-dimensional Gaussian transport. The oracle displacement interpolation gives the reference geometry. One-step Rectified Flow can be visibly more curved, while Reflow straightens the trajectories and makes the intermediate densities closer to the oracle interpolation.
Metric
OT oracle
1-RF
2-RF
3-RF
W22(p0,p1)
27.8976
-
-
-
Action gap ΔA
0
0.2205±0.0033
0.00189±0.00144
0.00199±0.00141
Relative field error
0
0.2933±0.0050
0.00284±0.00014
0.00276±0.00008
Curvature proxy
3.45×10−5±2.63×10−7
0.0763±0.00077
4.85×10−4±1.50×10−5
4.35×10−4±1.31×10−5
Appendix
Table 4: Controlled Gaussian transport in d=10 , reported as mean ± standard deviation over five seeds. Reflow reduces the relative action gap, relative field error, and curvature proxy compared with one-step Rectified Flow.
Figure 4: High-dimensional controlled diagnostic. The left panel relates relative attribution error to relative field mismatch. The right panel reports neighborhood preservation along intermediate transport states. The result supports the stability view: better field alignment gives smaller attribution discrepancy.
Figure 5: Attribution convergence across flow checkpoints. The trend is consistent with the stability theorem: as the learned vector field approaches the reference checkpoint, the attribution gap decreases.
Figure 6: Representative action diagnostic for sampled paths. The plot illustrates how path movement and action are measured along a numerical trajectory.
We introduce Aumann-SHAP, an interaction-aware framework that decomposes counterfactual transitions by restricting the model to a local hypercube connecting baseline and counterfactual features. Each hypercube is discretized into a grid to construct an induced micro-player cooperative game in which elementary grid-step moves become players. Shapley and LES values on this TU-micro-game yield geometry-aware within-pot attributions that converge to the diagonal Aumann--Shapley / Integrated Gradients limit under grid refinement, and recover equal-split Shapley as the degenerate m=1 special case. An exact grid-state closed form gives polynomial-time computation for fixed interaction order. On a synthetic benchmark with known ground truth, equal-split Shapley carries an irreducible bias while Aumann-SHAP converges to the correct decomposition. On German Credit, interaction geometry changes feature priority rankings in 12.3% of instances. On UCI Heart Disease, equal-split misattributes a cholesterol suppressor as a positive contributor, which is a sign error Aumann-SHAP corrects. On MNIST, game-theoretic attribution reaches target confidence with 3.5× fewer edits than magnitude-based ordering, with micro-game Shapley achieving the best efficiency across all budgets.
In this paper, we provide a theoretically grounded and computationally efficient alternative to SHAP. To this end, we study feature attribution through the lens of cooperative game theory by formulating a class of XAI--TU games. Building on this formulation, we investigate equal-surplus-type and proportional-allocation-type attribution rules and propose a low-cost attribution rule, ESENSC_rev2, constructed by combining two polynomial-time closed-form rules while ensuring the null-player property in the XAI--TU domain. Extensive experiments on tabular prediction tasks demonstrate that ESENSC_rev2 closely approximates exact SHAP while substantially improving scalability as the number of features increases. These empirical results indicate that equal-surplus-type attribution rules can achieve favorable trade-offs between computational cost and approximation accuracy in high-dimensional explainability settings. To provide theoretical foundations for these findings, we establish an axiomatic characterization showing that ESENSC_rev2 is uniquely determined by efficiency, the null-player axiom, a restricted differential marginality principle, an intermediate inessential-game property, and axioms that reduce computational requirements. Our results suggest that axiomatically justified and computationally efficient attribution rules can serve as practical and theoretically principled substitutes for SHAP-based approximations in modern explainability pipelines.
Kazuhiro Hiraki, Shinichi Ishihara, Takumi Kongo +1
International Monetary Fund · Independent Researcher · Fukuoka University +1
Feature-attribution methods are central to explainable artificial intelligence. Their assumptions are expressed in several mathematical languages: cooperative-game values, path integrals, gradient operators, perturbation distributions, and backpropagation rules. This survey proposes a common framework for local additive feature attribution. It organizes Shapley, path-based, gradient/backpropagation, perturbation, and CAM-style methods around five specification choices: value function, reference, path, perturbation distribution, and conservation rule. It then compares these methods through an axiom-by-method matrix and links common failure modes, including baseline sensitivity, off-manifold perturbations, sanity-check failures, adversarial manipulation, and method disagreement, to the assumptions that produce them. Finally, the survey proposes a ten-item reporting checklist for studies that use local additive attributions. The central message is that attribution results are meaningful only relative to the mathematical assumptions under which they are defined, and that those assumptions should be reported.