Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

The Shapley Value of Tuples in Query Answering (1904.08679v5)

Published 18 Apr 2019 in cs.DB

Abstract: We investigate the application of the Shapley value to quantifying the contribution of a tuple to a query answer. The Shapley value is a widely known numerical measure in cooperative game theory and in many applications of game theory for assessing the contribution of a player to a coalition game. It has been established already in the 1950s, and is theoretically justified by being the very single wealth-distribution measure that satisfies some natural axioms. While this value has been investigated in several areas, it received little attention in data management. We study this measure in the context of conjunctive and aggregate queries by defining corresponding coalition games. We provide algorithmic and complexity-theoretic results on the computation of Shapley-based contributions to query answers; and for the hard cases we present approximation algorithms.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (44)
  1. On the complexity of shap-score-based explanations: Tractability via knowledge compilation and non-approximability results. arXiv preprint, 2021.
  2. The tractability of SHAP-score-based explanations over deterministic and decomposable boolean circuits. In Proceedings of AAAI, 2021.
  3. Shapley meets Shapley. In STACS, pages 99–111, 2014.
  4. Endogenous formation of links between players and of coalitions: An application of the Shapley value. In Networks and Groups, pages 207–220. Springer, 2003.
  5. Roland Bacher. Determinants of matrices related to the pascal triangle. Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux, 14, 01 2002.
  6. Causes for query answers from databases: Datalog abduction, view-updates, and integrity constraints. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 90:226–252, 2017.
  7. From causes for database queries to repairs and model-based diagnosis and back. Theory Comput. Syst., 61(1):191–232, 2017.
  8. Deciding equivalences among conjunctive aggregate queries. J. ACM, 54(2):5, 2007.
  9. Computing Shapley values, manipulating value division schemes, and checking core membership in multi-issue domains. In AAAI, pages 219–225. AAAI Press, 2004.
  10. Probabilistic databases: diamonds in the dirt. Commun. ACM, 52(7):86–94, 2009.
  11. Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf power index. Mathematics of Operations Research, 4(2):99–131, 1979.
  12. Efficient query evaluation on probabilistic databases. In VLDB, pages 864–875. Morgan Kaufmann, 2004.
  13. The dichotomy of probabilistic inference for unions of conjunctive queries. J. ACM, 59(6):30:1–30:87, 2012.
  14. The dichotomy of probabilistic inference for unions of conjunctive queries. J. ACM, 59(6), January 2013.
  15. Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J. Intell. Inf. Syst., 27(2):159–184, 2006.
  16. Structural tractability of Shapley and Banzhaf values in allocation games. In IJCAI, pages 547–553, 2015.
  17. Faruk Gul. Bargaining foundations of Shapley value. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 81–95, 1989.
  18. Joseph Y. Halpern. Actual Causality. The MIT Press, 2016.
  19. On the measure of conflicts: Shapley inconsistency values. Artif. Intell., 174(14):1007–1026, 2010.
  20. Causes and explanations: A structural-model approach: Part 1: Causes. In UAI, pages 194–202, 2001.
  21. Power indices and minimal winning coalitions. Social Choice and Welfare, 34(1):33–46, Jan 2010.
  22. A dichotomy for the generalized model counting problem for unions of conjunctive queries. In PODS, pages 312–324. ACM, 2021.
  23. The shapley value of tuples in query answering. In ICDT, volume 155 of LIPIcs, pages 20:1–20:19. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020.
  24. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(1):56–67, Jan 2020.
  25. Dennis Leech. Power indices and probabilistic voting assumptions. Public Choice, 66(3):293–299, Sep 1990.
  26. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, pages 4765–4774. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017.
  27. Case study on initial allocation of Shanghai carbon emission trading based on Shapley value. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103:338–344, 2015.
  28. Internet economics: The use of Shapley value for ISP settlement. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), 18(3):775–787, 2010.
  29. Causality in databases. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 33(3):59–67, 2010.
  30. The complexity of causality and responsibility for query answers and non-answers. PVLDB, 4(1):34–45, 2010.
  31. WHY so? or WHY no? functional causality for explaining query answers. In MUD, volume WP10-04 of CTIT Workshop Proceedings Series, pages 3–17. CTIT, 2010.
  32. Tatiana Nenova. The value of corporate voting rights and control: A cross-country analysis. Journal of financial economics, 68(3):325–351, 2003.
  33. A Shapley value-based approach to discover influential nodes in social networks. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 8(1):130–147, 2011.
  34. Judea Pearl. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 2009.
  35. Time-consistent Shapley value allocation of pollution cost reduction. Journal of economic dynamics and control, 27(3):381–398, 2003.
  36. The impact of negation on the complexity of the shapley value in conjunctive queries. In PODS, pages 285–297. ACM, 2020.
  37. Alvin E Roth. The Shapley value: essays in honor of Lloyd S. Shapley. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
  38. Quantifying causal effects on query answering in databases. In TAPP, 2016.
  39. Lloyd S Shapley. A value for n-person games. In Harold W. Kuhn and Albert W. Tucker, editors, Contributions to the Theory of Games II, pages 307–317. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1953.
  40. Probabilistic Databases. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2011.
  41. A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review, 48(03):787–792, 1954.
  42. Seinosuke Toda. PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM J. Comput., 20(5):865–877, 1991.
  43. On the tractability of shap explanations. In Proceedings of AAAI, 2021.
  44. Inconsistency measures for repair semantics in OBDA. In IJCAI, pages 1977–1983. ijcai.org, 2018.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Ester Livshits (15 papers)
  2. Leopoldo Bertossi (57 papers)
  3. Benny Kimelfeld (57 papers)
  4. Moshe Sebag (1 paper)
Citations (54)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now