Papers › A Rigorous Study Of The Deep Taylor Decomposition

A Rigorous Study Of The Deep Taylor Decomposition

14 Nov 2022arXiv:2211.08425archive 2025-07-28

Leon Sixt, Tim Landgraf

Saliency methods attempt to explain deep neural networks by highlighting the most salient features of a sample. Some widely used methods are based on a theoretical framework called Deep Taylor Decomposition (DTD), which formalizes the recursive application of the Taylor Theorem to the network's layers. However, recent work has found these methods to be independent of the network's deeper layers and appear to respond only to lower-level image structure. Here, we investigate the DTD theory to better understand this perplexing behavior and found that the Deep Taylor Decomposition is equivalent to the basic gradient×input method when the Taylor root points (an important parameter of the algorithm chosen by the user) are locally constant. If the root points are locally input-dependent, then one can justify any explanation. In this case, the theory is under-constrained. In an empirical evaluation, we find that DTD roots do not lie in the same linear regions as the input - contrary to a fundamental assumption of the Taylor theorem. The theoretical foundations of DTD were cited as a source of reliability for the explanations. However, our findings urge caution in making such claims.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

8 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from berleon/a-rigorous-study-of-the-deep-taylor-decomposition. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections