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

A Comparative Study of Methods for Estimating Conditional Shapley Values and When to Use Them (2305.09536v1)

Published 16 May 2023 in stat.ML, cs.LG, and stat.CO

Abstract: Shapley values originated in cooperative game theory but are extensively used today as a model-agnostic explanation framework to explain predictions made by complex machine learning models in the industry and academia. There are several algorithmic approaches for computing different versions of Shapley value explanations. Here, we focus on conditional Shapley values for predictive models fitted to tabular data. Estimating precise conditional Shapley values is difficult as they require the estimation of non-trivial conditional expectations. In this article, we develop new methods, extend earlier proposed approaches, and systematize the new refined and existing methods into different method classes for comparison and evaluation. The method classes use either Monte Carlo integration or regression to model the conditional expectations. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate how precisely the different method classes estimate the conditional expectations, and thereby the conditional Shapley values, for different setups. We also apply the methods to several real-world data experiments and provide recommendations for when to use the different method classes and approaches. Roughly speaking, we recommend using parametric methods when we can specify the data distribution almost correctly, as they generally produce the most accurate Shapley value explanations. When the distribution is unknown, both generative methods and regression models with a similar form as the underlying predictive model are good and stable options. Regression-based methods are often slow to train but produce the Shapley value explanations quickly once trained. The vice versa is true for Monte Carlo-based methods, making the different methods appropriate in different practical situations.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Lars Henry Berge Olsen (5 papers)
  2. Ingrid Kristine Glad (3 papers)
  3. Martin Jullum (17 papers)
  4. Kjersti Aas (14 papers)
Citations (10)

Summary

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