SHAP-Guided Feature Pruning

• SHAP-guided feature pruning is defined as using Shapley value attributions to assess each model component's true marginal contribution, replacing unreliable magnitude heuristics.
• It leverages algorithms like TreeSHAP and permutation sampling for various architectures (trees, CNNs, KANs), achieving robust compression and improved model performance.
• Empirical results demonstrate that SHAP-guided pruning maintains predictive accuracy while significantly reducing parameters in applications from medical imaging to IoT intrusion detection.

SHAP-guided feature pruning is a set of principled methods that leverage Shapley value attributions—originating in cooperative game theory—to rank and remove features, filters, or neurons from a machine learning model, enabling compression, interpretability, and enhanced generalization. By quantifying each unit's true marginal contribution to predictive performance, SHAP-guided pruning avoids the pitfalls of magnitude-based heuristics, is robust to covariate and input shifts, and offers rigorous guarantees in applications ranging from tabular classifiers to Kolmogorov–Arnold networks and deep neural architectures.

1. Mathematical Foundations of SHAP-Guided Pruning

The theoretical basis of SHAP-guided pruning is the Shapley value, which uniquely satisfies efficiency, symmetry, and additivity axioms for attributing total model output to individual “players” (features, neurons, or channels). For a set of features $F = \{1, ..., n\}$ and a prediction function $f$, the Shapley value of feature $i$ at instance $x$ is

$$\phi_i(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq F \setminus \{i\}} \frac{|S|!(n - |S| - 1)!}{n!} [f_{S \cup \{i\}}(x_{S \cup \{i\}}) - f_S(x_S)],$$

where $f_S(x_S)$ evaluates the model with only features $S$ active. For multilayer networks or convolutional filters, the “player set” generalizes to neurons or channels, and the value function is either the expected output or utility, e.g., top-1 accuracy or negative loss, over coalitions $S$ (Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025, Adamczewski et al., 2024).

Exact computation requires $2^n$ evaluations, becoming intractable for $n > 20$. Tree-based models admit the TreeSHAP algorithm for polynomial-time computation (Oliveira et al., 22 Oct 2025), while neural models rely on Monte Carlo or kernel regressions to approximate the sum (Adamczewski et al., 2024, Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025). In the context of Kolmogorov–Arnold networks, the Shapley value for each neuron is defined over the subset of active neurons and is estimated via permutation sampling with antithetic variance reduction (Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025).

2. Algorithms and Practical Implementations

SHAP-guided pruning admits several algorithmic realizations, summarized in the table below:

Model Class	SHAP Computation	Pruning Rule	Reference
Tabular (trees)	TreeSHAP	Rank by mean $f$0	(Oliveira et al., 22 Oct 2025, Kraev et al., 2024)
CNN/MLP	Permutation MC / KernelLS	Rank by $f$1 (approximate)	(Adamczewski et al., 2024)
KANs	Permutation MC	Prune lowest $f$2, bottom-up	(Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025)
LSTM (CatNet)	SHAP derivative	Mirror-stat FDR control on $f$3	(Han et al., 2024)

In tabular models, global feature importances are obtained by averaging $f$4 across the dataset. Recursive feature elimination can then be guided by these importances: sequentially drop the least important feature, retraining at each step, and monitor evaluation RMSE or balanced accuracy to select the optimal pruned set (Uhl et al., 11 Sep 2025, Kraev et al., 2024).

For neural networks, SHAP-guided pruning can be implemented layer-wise: after an initial estimation of importance for each filter/neuron via permutation sampling, prune those with the lowest scores and optionally fine-tune (Adamczewski et al., 2024, Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025). Exact Shapley is used in small layers ($f$5); otherwise, approximations become necessary.

For LSTMs and other sequence models, the CatNet framework computes the derivative of the SHAP value with respect to the input at each time point and controls the false discovery rate via a Gaussian mirror statistic. Features with mirror scores exceeding a data-adaptive threshold are retained (Han et al., 2024).

3. Theoretical Properties and Invariance

A central theoretical advantage of SHAP-guided pruning is robustness to input shifts and parameterization. For KANs, the shift-invariance property is formalized:

Proposition (Shift Invariance):

If $f$6 for constant $f$7, then the Shapley value of any neuron $f$8 is unchanged when computed under $f$9 or the original network. This follows because all coalition outputs shift by the same constant, leaving marginal contributions intact (Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025).

Magnitude-based criteria—such as pruning by the $i$0 norm of outgoing weights—are sensitive to the coordinate frame and can dramatically reorder importance when inputs are shifted. SHAP-guided scores, which depend only on marginal predictive impact, remain consistent under such transformations.

This invariance extends to correlated inputs—if properly handled via group-wise SHAP subtraction as in REFRESH—yielding substantially more reliable estimates of the effect of pruning groups of features (Sharma et al., 2024).

4. Empirical Performance and Compression Results

SHAP-guided pruning approaches routinely achieve state-of-the-art accuracy/compression trade-offs across a variety of domains:

• Neural Network Compression: On VGG-16/CIFAR-10, SHAP-guided channel pruning yields, e.g., 7.91% top-1 error at 43M FLOPs (versus 5.36% on the full 313.7M FLOPs) using permutation approximations (Adamczewski et al., 2024). Jaccard index analysis shows Shapley permutation and regression approximations track the oracle ranking within 85-95% efficiency.
• KANs: ShapKAN’s neuron rankings are empirically stable across strong input distribution shifts, while magnitude-based methods can mis-rank top neurons under domain change. Under ablation, ShapKAN-pruned models outperform vanilla KAN by 10–50% lower RMSE and exhibit higher symbolic recovery fidelity (Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025).
• Tabular Models and Medical Diagnostics: SHAP pruning on urinary tract disease classification leads to BACC improvements when reducing feature count—e.g., LightGBM, pruned to 18 out of 57 features, achieves BACC 97.03% vs. 93.59% on the full set (Oliveira et al., 22 Oct 2025). SHAP-Select identifies compact sets with optimal accuracy and F1, as shown on credit fraud detection (Kraev et al., 2024).
• IoT Intrusion Detection: SHAP-pruned and Kronecker-compressed models maintain macro-F1 $i$1 0.986 with a $i$2 reduction in parameters, achieving millisecond-level inference latency for edge deployment (Benaddi et al., 22 Dec 2025).
• MRI and Imaging Protocols: In diffusion MRI, TreeSHAP-based RFE identifies an 8-feature protocol with only a 10–15% nRMSE increase relative to the 15-feature original, maintaining anatomical fidelity and reproducibility, and outperforming Fisher information and heuristic subsetting (Uhl et al., 11 Sep 2025).

5. Limitations, Computational Costs, and Practical Recommendations

The main computational bottleneck in SHAP-guided pruning is the estimation of Shapley values, especially in wide layers or high-dimensional feature sets. For KANs, permutation sampling with antithetic coupling ($i$3–$i$4 permutations) balances stability and runtime, with 1–2 seconds per layer typical on commodity GPUs (Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025). In CNNs, permutation or regression-based approximations enable scalability to $i$5 filters (Adamczewski et al., 2024).

For tabular models, TreeSHAP complexity is $i$6, and repeated regressions in Shap-Select can grow costly for $i$7 (Kraev et al., 2024). In groupwise reselection (REFRESH), grouping by correlation is crucial; weak or overlapping correlations degrade the efficacy of SHAP-group subtraction approximations (Sharma et al., 2024).

Recommended practices include:

• Use ratio-based pruning (e.g., removing neurons whose layer share is below 3–5%) for simplicity and ease of tuning (Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025).
• Select permutation/regression sample sizes to match rank-stability curves and monitor for convergence in importance sorting (Adamczewski et al., 2024).
• For tabular models with moderate $i$8, SHAP-select offers substantial gains in interpretability and minimal retraining overhead (Kraev et al., 2024).
• For fairness or robustness–sensitive applications, use REFRESH to efficiently search Pareto-optimal feature subsets with respect to primary and secondary metrics, retraining only for plausibly optimal candidates (Sharma et al., 2024).
• In time-series and LSTM models, CatNet achieves FDR control for pruned features via mirror statistics and SHAP derivatives, generalizable to RNN, CNN, and Transformer architectures (Han et al., 2024).

6. Extensions, Applications, and Research Directions

SHAP-guided pruning frameworks have been adapted to a variety of domains and objectives:

• Structured Compression: In IoT IDS, SHAP-pruned feature subsets coupled with Kronecker-factorized layers and knowledge distillation yield tiny, performant models (Benaddi et al., 22 Dec 2025).
• Secondary Objectives: REFRESH enables efficient feature “reselection,” optimizing secondary characteristics (fairness, robustness) post hoc without exhaustive retraining (Sharma et al., 2024).
• Imaging Protocol Design: MRI sequence optimization uses SHAP–RFE to drastically reduce scan length while preserving all downstream parameter fidelity, outperforming information-theoretic and heuristic baselines (Uhl et al., 11 Sep 2025).
• Symbolic Regression: In KANs, Shapley-based pruning preserves networks’ capability for symbolic function recovery under distribution shift—a property unattainable by magntiude-based pruning (Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025).

Challenges for future work include scaling SHAP approximation schemes to ultra-high-dimensional settings ($i$9), integrating conditional SHAP/groupwise dependencies beyond correlation for more complex feature interactions, and unifying SHAP-based attributions across architectural paradigms (transformers, GNNs).

7. Summary Table: Empirical Highlights and Use Cases

Domain	Method	Best Computational Regime	Empirical Finding	Reference
Neural Compression	Perm/Reg SHAP	$x$0	7.9% error at $x$1 FLOPs	(Adamczewski et al., 2024)
KANs	Perm SHAP	$x$2/$x$3	Stable ranks, $x$450% RMSE drop	(Fan et al., 2 Oct 2025)
Tabular	TreeSHAP+RFE	$x$5	Maintains/improves BACC	(Oliveira et al., 22 Oct 2025)
IoT IDS	TreeSHAP+Kronecker	$x$6 features	$x$7 smaller, $x$8 F1	(Benaddi et al., 22 Dec 2025)
LSTM/Seq	CatNet	$x$9, MC SHAP	FDR control, robust selection	(Han et al., 2024)
Imaging/MRI	TreeSHAP+RFE	$$\phi_i(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq F \setminus \{i\}} \frac{|S|!(n - |S| - 1)!}{n!} [f_{S \cup \{i\}}(x_{S \cup \{i\}}) - f_S(x_S)],$$0, TreeSHAP	$$\phi_i(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq F \setminus \{i\}} \frac{|S|!(n - |S| - 1)!}{n!} [f_{S \cup \{i\}}(x_{S \cup \{i\}}) - f_S(x_S)],$$1–$$\phi_i(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq F \setminus \{i\}} \frac{|S|!(n - |S| - 1)!}{n!} [f_{S \cup \{i\}}(x_{S \cup \{i\}}) - f_S(x_S)],$$2 error increase for $$\phi_i(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq F \setminus \{i\}} \frac{|S|!(n - |S| - 1)!}{n!} [f_{S \cup \{i\}}(x_{S \cup \{i\}}) - f_S(x_S)],$$3 speedup	(Uhl et al., 11 Sep 2025)

The unifying theme in SHAP-guided feature pruning is the replacement of ad hoc or coordinate-dependent criteria with theoretically grounded, robust, and empirically validated attribution, enabling deployable, efficient, and interpretable models in a wide range of scientific and engineering contexts.