ShaRP: Explaining Rankings with Shapley Values

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16744v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:48:43 GMT
• Title: ShaRP: Explaining Rankings with Shapley Values
• Authors: Venetia Pliatsika and Joao Fonseca and Tilun Wang and Julia Stoyanovich
• Abstract summary: We present ShaRP, a framework that explains the contributions of features to different aspects of a ranked outcome. ShaRP builds on the Quantitative Input Influence framework, and can compute the contributions of features for multiple Quantities of Interest.
• Score: 7.915714424668589
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic decisions in critical domains such as hiring, college admissions, and lending are often based on rankings. Because of the impact these decisions have on individuals, organizations, and population groups, there is a need to understand them: to know whether the decisions are abiding by the law, to help individuals improve their rankings, and to design better ranking procedures. In this paper, we present ShaRP (Shapley for Rankings and Preferences), a framework that explains the contributions of features to different aspects of a ranked outcome, and is based on Shapley values. Using ShaRP, we show that even when the scoring function used by an algorithmic ranker is known and linear, the weight of each feature does not correspond to its Shapley value contribution. The contributions instead depend on the feature distributions, and on the subtle local interactions between the scoring features. ShaRP builds on the Quantitative Input Influence framework, and can compute the contributions of features for multiple Quantities of Interest, including score, rank, pair-wise preference, and top-k. Because it relies on black-box access to the ranker, ShaRP can be used to explain both score-based and learned ranking models. We show results of an extensive experimental validation of ShaRP using real and synthetic datasets, showcasing its usefulness for qualitative analysis.

Related papers

• RankSHAP: Shapley Value Based Feature Attributions for Learning to Rank [28.438428292619577]
  We adopt an axiomatic game-theoretic approach, popular in the feature attribution community, to identify a set of fundamental axioms that every ranking-based feature attribution method should satisfy. We then introduce Rank-SHAP, extending classical Shapley values to ranking. We also perform an axiomatic analysis of existing rank attribution algorithms to determine their compliance with our proposed axioms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T04:43:24Z)
• LiPO: Listwise Preference Optimization through Learning-to-Rank [62.02782819559389]
  Policy can learn more effectively from a ranked list of plausible responses given the prompt. We show that LiPO-$lambda$ can outperform DPO variants and SLiC by a clear margin on several preference alignment tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T20:08:10Z)
• The Distributional Uncertainty of the SHAP score in Explainable Machine Learning [2.655371341356892]
  We propose a principled framework for reasoning on SHAP scores under unknown entity population distributions. We study the basic problems of finding maxima and minima of this function, which allows us to determine tight ranges for the SHAP scores of all features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T13:04:02Z)
• TRIVEA: Transparent Ranking Interpretation using Visual Explanation of Black-Box Algorithmic Rankers [4.336037935247747]
  Ranking schemes drive many real-world decisions, like, where to study, whom to hire, what to buy, etc. At the heart of most of these decisions are opaque ranking schemes, which dictate the ordering of data entities. We aim to enable transparency in ranking interpretation by using algorithmic rankers that learn from available data and by enabling human reasoning about the learned ranking differences using explainable AI (XAI) methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T16:58:44Z)
• Bipartite Ranking Fairness through a Model Agnostic Ordering Adjustment [54.179859639868646]
  We propose a model agnostic post-processing framework xOrder for achieving fairness in bipartite ranking. xOrder is compatible with various classification models and ranking fairness metrics, including supervised and unsupervised fairness metrics. We evaluate our proposed algorithm on four benchmark data sets and two real-world patient electronic health record repositories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-27T07:42:44Z)
• WeightedSHAP: analyzing and improving Shapley based feature attributions [17.340091573913316]
  Shapley value is a popular approach for measuring the influence of individual features. We propose WeightedSHAP, which generalizes the Shapley value and learns which marginal contributions to focus directly from data. On several real-world datasets, we demonstrate that the influential features identified by WeightedSHAP are better able to recapitulate the model's predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-27T14:34:07Z)
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review [61.27794774537103]
  In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. To mitigate this issue, conferences have started to ask reviewers to additionally provide a ranking of the papers they have reviewed. There are no standard procedure for using this ranking information and Area Chairs may use it in different ways. We take a principled approach to integrate the ranking information into the scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-05T19:39:13Z)
• Collective eXplainable AI: Explaining Cooperative Strategies and Agent Contribution in Multiagent Reinforcement Learning with Shapley Values [68.8204255655161]
  This study proposes a novel approach to explain cooperative strategies in multiagent RL using Shapley values. Results could have implications for non-discriminatory decision making, ethical and responsible AI-derived decisions or policy making under fairness constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-04T10:28:57Z)
• Improving Fairness for Data Valuation in Federated Learning [39.61504568047234]
  We propose a new measure called completed federated Shapley value to improve the fairness of federated Shapley value. It is shown under mild conditions that this matrix is approximately low-rank by leveraging concepts and tools from optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-19T02:39:59Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• Towards Efficient Data Valuation Based on the Shapley Value [65.4167993220998]
  We study the problem of data valuation by utilizing the Shapley value. The Shapley value defines a unique payoff scheme that satisfies many desiderata for the notion of data value. We propose a repertoire of efficient algorithms for approximating the Shapley value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-02-27T00:22:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.