RankSHAP: Shapley Value Based Feature Attributions for Learning to Rank

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01848v2
• Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 06:32:41 GMT
• Title: RankSHAP: Shapley Value Based Feature Attributions for Learning to Rank
• Authors: Tanya Chowdhury, Yair Zick, James Allan,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 28.438428292619577
• License:
• Abstract: Numerous works propose post-hoc, model-agnostic explanations for learning to rank, focusing on ordering entities by their relevance to a query through feature attribution methods. However, these attributions often weakly correlate or contradict each other, confusing end users. 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 evaluate the RankSHAP framework through extensive experiments on two datasets, multiple ranking methods and evaluation metrics. Additionally, a user study confirms RankSHAP's alignment with human intuition. We also perform an axiomatic analysis of existing rank attribution algorithms to determine their compliance with our proposed axioms. Ultimately, our aim is to equip practitioners with a set of axiomatically backed feature attribution methods for studying IR ranking models, that ensure generality as well as consistency.

Related papers

• On the Evaluation Consistency of Attribution-based Explanations [42.1421504321572]
  We introduce Meta-Rank, an open platform for benchmarking attribution methods in the image domain. Our benchmark reveals three insights in attribution evaluation endeavors: 1) evaluating attribution methods under disparate settings can yield divergent performance rankings; 2) although inconsistent across numerous cases, the performance rankings exhibit remarkable consistency across distinct checkpoints along the same training trajectory; and 3) prior attempts at consistent evaluation fare no better than baselines when extended to more heterogeneous models and datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-28T11:49:06Z)
• Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attribution Methods [49.62131719441252]
  Attribution methods compute importance scores for input features to explain the output predictions of deep models. In this work, we first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill. We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• ShaRP: Explaining Rankings with Shapley Values [7.915714424668589]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T04:48:43Z)
• Provably Stable Feature Rankings with SHAP and LIME [3.8642937395065124]
  We devise attribution methods that ensure the most important features are ranked correctly with high probability. We introduce efficient sampling algorithms for SHAP and LIME that guarantee the $K$ highest-ranked features have the proper ordering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T23:14:51Z)
• 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)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• Rank-LIME: Local Model-Agnostic Feature Attribution for Learning to Rank [16.780058676633914]
  Rank-LIME is a model-agnostic, local, post-hoc linear feature attribution method for the task of learning to rank. We employ novel correlation-based perturbations, differentiable ranking loss functions and introduce new metrics to evaluate ranking based additive feature attribution models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-24T12:14:32Z)
• Estimating leverage scores via rank revealing methods and randomization [50.591267188664666]
  We study algorithms for estimating the statistical leverage scores of rectangular dense or sparse matrices of arbitrary rank. Our approach is based on combining rank revealing methods with compositions of dense and sparse randomized dimensionality reduction transforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-23T19:21:55Z)
• 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)
• Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rank [31.41843594914603]
  We propose a learning algorithm that ensures notions of amortized group fairness, while simultaneously learning the ranking function from implicit feedback data. The algorithm takes the form of a controller that integrates unbiased estimators for both fairness and utility. In addition to its rigorous theoretical foundation and convergence guarantees, we find empirically that the algorithm is highly practical and robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-29T17:57:56Z)
• SetRank: A Setwise Bayesian Approach for Collaborative Ranking from Implicit Feedback [50.13745601531148]
  We propose a novel setwise Bayesian approach for collaborative ranking, namely SetRank, to accommodate the characteristics of implicit feedback in recommender system. Specifically, SetRank aims at maximizing the posterior probability of novel setwise preference comparisons. We also present the theoretical analysis of SetRank to show that the bound of excess risk can be proportional to $sqrtM/N$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-23T06:40:48Z)

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.