Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
102 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores (2405.11766v1)

Published 20 May 2024 in cs.AI and cs.LG

Abstract: A central goal of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to assign relative importance to the features of a Machine Learning (ML) model given some prediction. The importance of this task of explainability by feature attribution is illustrated by the ubiquitous recent use of tools such as SHAP and LIME. Unfortunately, the exact computation of feature attributions, using the game-theoretical foundation underlying SHAP and LIME, can yield manifestly unsatisfactory results, that tantamount to reporting misleading relative feature importance. Recent work targeted rigorous feature attribution, by studying axiomatic aggregations of features based on logic-based definitions of explanations by feature selection. This paper shows that there is an essential relationship between feature attribution and a priori voting power, and that those recently proposed axiomatic aggregations represent a few instantiations of the range of power indices studied in the past. Furthermore, it remains unclear how some of the most widely used power indices might be exploited as feature importance scores (FISs), i.e. the use of power indices in XAI, and which of these indices would be the best suited for the purposes of XAI by feature attribution, namely in terms of not producing results that could be deemed as unsatisfactory. This paper proposes novel desirable properties that FISs should exhibit. In addition, the paper also proposes novel FISs exhibiting the proposed properties. Finally, the paper conducts a rigorous analysis of the best-known power indices in terms of the proposed properties.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (58)
  1. 2003. La mesure du pouvoir de vote. Mathématiques et sciences humaines. Mathematics and social sciences (163).
  2. 2021. The tractability of SHAP-score-based explanations for classification over deterministic and decomposable boolean circuits. In AAAI, 6670–6678.
  3. 2023. On the complexity of SHAP-score-based explanations: Tractability via knowledge compilation and non-approximability results. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24:63:1–63:58.
  4. Banzhaf III, J. F. 1965. Weighted voting doesn’t work: A mathematical analysis. Rutgers L. Rev. 19:317.
  5. Berg, S. 1999. On voting power indices and a class of probability distributions: With applications to EU data. Group Decision and Negotiation 8:17–31.
  6. 2023. Axiomatic aggregations of abductive explanations. CoRR abs/2310.03131.
  7. 2024. Axiomatic aggregations of abductive explanations. In AAAI, 11096–11104.
  8. 2012. Computational aspects of cooperative game theory.
  9. 2008. What causes a system to satisfy a specification? ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL) 9(3):1–26.
  10. Coleman, J. S. 1971. Control of collectivities and the power of a collectivity to act. In Lieberman, B., ed., Social choice. Gordon and Breach, New York. chapter 2.10.
  11. Colomer, J. M. 1996. Measuring parliamentary deviation. European Journal of Political Research 30(1):87–101.
  12. Curiel, I. J. 1987. A class of non-normalized power indices for simple games. Mathematical Social Sciences 13(2):141–152.
  13. Darwiche, A. 2023. Logic for explainable AI. In LICS, 1–11.
  14. 1978. A new index of power for simple n𝑛nitalic_n-person games. International Journal of Game Theory 7:113–123.
  15. 2022. On the ordinal invariance of power indices on coalitional games. In IJCAI, 258–264.
  16. 1981. Value theory without efficiency. Math. Oper. Res. 6(1):122–128.
  17. Dubey, P. 1975. On the uniqueness of the Shapley value. International Journal of Game Theory 4:131–139.
  18. European Union. 2024. Artificial intelligence act. https://tinyurl.com/yj2zv67w.
  19. 2004. A priori voting power: what is it all about? Political Studies Review 2(1):1–23.
  20. 2015. The measurement of a priori voting power. In Heckelman, J. C., and Miller, N. R., eds., Handbook of Social Choice and Voting. Edward Elgar Publishing. chapter 08, 117–139.
  21. Felsenthal, D. S. 2016. A well-behaved index of a priori P-power for simple n𝑛nitalic_n-person games. Homo Oeconomicus 33:367–381.
  22. 2014. The minimum sum representation as an index of voting power. European Journal of Operational Research 233(3):739–748.
  23. 2010. Detection of paradoxes of power indices for simple games. Contributions to Game Theory and Management 3:82–90.
  24. Freixas, J. 2010. On ordinal equivalence of the Shapley and Banzhaf values for cooperative games. Int. J. Game Theory 39(4):513–527.
  25. 2019. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput. Surv. 51(5):93:1–93:42.
  26. High-Level Expert Group on AI. 2019. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. https://tinyurl.com/yyzwmm79.
  27. 1983. Power, luck and the right index. Journal of Economics 43(1):21–29.
  28. 2023a. The inadequacy of Shapley values for explainability. CoRR abs/2302.08160.
  29. 2023b. Refutation of Shapley values for XAI – additional evidence. CoRR abs/2310.00416.
  30. 2024. On the failings of Shapley values for explainability. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 109112.
  31. 2021. On efficiently explaining graph-based classifiers. In KR, 356–367.
  32. 2020. From contrastive to abductive explanations and back again. In AIxIA, 335–355.
  33. Ignatiev, A. 2020. Towards trustable explainable AI. In IJCAI, 5154–5158.
  34. Johnston, R. J. 1978. On the measurement of power: Some reactions to Laver. Environment and Planning A 10(8):907–914.
  35. 2024. On correcting SHAP scores. CoRR abs/2405.00076.
  36. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In NeurIPS, 4765–4774.
  37. 2024. Explainability is NOT a game. Commun. ACM. In Press.
  38. 2022. Delivering trustworthy AI through formal XAI. In AAAI, 12342–12350.
  39. Marques-Silva, J. 2022. Logic-based explainability in machine learning. In Reasoning Web, 24–104.
  40. Marques-Silva, J. 2023. Disproving XAI myths with formal methods - initial results. In ICECCS, 12–21.
  41. Mishra, P. 2023. Explainable AI Recipes. Apress.
  42. Molnar, C. 2023. Interpreting Machine Learning Models With SHAP. Lulu.com.
  43. 2018. Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks. Digit. Signal Process. 73:1–15.
  44. 2022. Shap-based explanation methods: A review for NLP interpretability. In COLING, 4593–4603.
  45. Penrose, L. S. 1946. The elementary statistics of majority voting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 109(1):53–57.
  46. Reiter, R. 1987. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif. Intell. 32(1):57–95.
  47. Roth, A. E. 1988. The Shapley value: essays in honor of Lloyd S. Shapley. Cambridge University Press.
  48. 2019. Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning. Springer.
  49. 2021. Explaining deep neural networks and beyond: A review of methods and applications. Proc. IEEE 109(3):247–278.
  50. 1954. A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American political science review 48(3):787–792.
  51. Shapley, L. S. 1953. A value for n𝑛nitalic_n-person games. Contributions to the Theory of Games 2(28):307–317.
  52. 2010. An efficient explanation of individual classifications using game theory. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11:1–18.
  53. 2014. Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 41(3):647–665.
  54. US Government. 2023. Executive order on the safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. https://tinyurl.com/yb7wcmen.
  55. 2022. On the tractability of SHAP explanations. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 74:851–886.
  56. Young, H. P. 1985. Monotonic solutions of cooperative games. International Journal of Game Theory 14:65–72.
  57. 2023. Anytime approximate formal feature attribution. CoRR abs/2312.06973.
  58. 2023. On formal feature attribution and its approximation. CoRR abs/2307.03380.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Olivier Letoffe (4 papers)
  2. Xuanxiang Huang (15 papers)
  3. Nicholas Asher (26 papers)
  4. Joao Marques-Silva (67 papers)
Citations (3)
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets