The way to start would be to understand intuitively what makes some variable important.
For example, the output value of the function might depend to a large extend on the value on that variable (so correlation would be quite high between output and that variable).
Another example would be to make that variable zero and measure the correlation between the original function and the new function (eg it would exhibit low correlation).
Still another way would be to compute the rate of change (derivative) of the function with respect to the rates of change (derivatives) of each variable and see how much a small perturbation of that variable affects the output of the function.
Similar other approaches are possible as well. Since you have the formula of the function wrt the variables one of the above approaches is fine.
There is no agreed upon universal metric for variable/feature importance but there are various approaches one can take depending on problem at hand.
A generic approach is proposed below (from Assessing Variable Importance for Predictive Models of Arbitrary Type)
[A] “good” variable importance measure should exhibit these
characteristics:
- it should be applicable to any model type;
- it should be sensible to combine or compare results across different model types.
One strategy that meets both of these criteria is that suggested by
Friedman (2001), applying a random permutation to each covariate and
thus effectively removing it from the model, and then examining the
impact of this change on the predictive performance of the resulting
model. The basic idea is that if we remove an important covariate from
consideration, the best achievable model performance should suffer
significantly, while if we remove an unimportant covariate, we should
see little or no change in performance.
[..]Ideally, we would like to implement the strategy just described by
applying many random permutations and combining the results, but this
ideal approach is computationally expensive. In his application to
gradient boosting machines, Friedman (2001) could “borrow strength” by
combining the random covariate permutations with the random
subsampling inherent in the model fitting procedure. In characterizing
arbitrary models, however, we cannot exploit their internal structure,
but we can borrow strength by combining results across the different
models we are fitting. Thus, the approach taken here consists of the
following steps:
1. Run a DataRobot modeling project based on the original data and retrieve the results;
2. For each covariate whose influence we are interested in assessing:
a. Generate a modified dataset, replacing the covariate with its random permutation, leaving all other covariates and the target variable unmodified;
b. Set up and run a new modeling project based on this modified dataset;
c. Retrieve the project information and compute the performance differences between the models in this project and the same models in the original project.
3. Characterize each covariate, in one of the following three ways:
a. Select an individual model of particular interest (e.g., the model that performs best in the original project) and compute its performance degradation;
b. Compute the average performance degradation over all project models;
c. Compute a performance-weighted average of the degradation, like that defined in Section 5.
Further reading:
Variable importance analysis: A comprehensive review
Assessing Variable Importance for Predictive Models of Arbitrary Type
Variable-importance Measures
Methods to quantify variable importance: implications for the analysis of noisy ecological data