Feature attribution scores each part of an input by how much it explains a model's output. We argue that in generative language models these scores carry no fixed meaning. A classifier has a single output to explain, but a generative model produces its output token by token, and each generated token is both an output and an input, so explaining the output becomes several distinct questions. We support this claim by proposing the Attribution Contract, a framework that names the question a set of attribution scores answers. A contract specifies the model score being explained, what is held fixed, the target output, the generation process, and which features can receive attribution, choices that matter in practice. For example, eligible features decide what a score explains: under a local next-token contract, the model's own generated tokens receive $29\%$ of the attribution mass, comparable to the $25\%$ on the input question, and reading this as a prompt-level explanation is a mistake we name the self-attribution fallacy. The generative process also shapes feature attribution: on a mixture-of-experts model, Integrated Gradients completeness is unreliable, since recomputing expert routing along the attribution path leaves a large residual that holding the routing fixed substantially lowers, while a masked-diffusion model, which fixes its choices at generation, has a residual that instead decreases with more steps. These results show that Attribution Contracts should be carefully specified when proposing and evaluating attribution methods for generative language models, since the meaning and evaluation of an attribution depend on its explanatory setting.

翻译：暂无翻译