From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11766v1
• Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 03:52:41 GMT
• Title: From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores
• Authors: Olivier Letoffe, Xuanxiang Huang, Nicholas Asher, Joao Marques-Silva,
• Abstract summary: This paper shows that there is an essential relationship between feature attribution and a priori voting power. It remains unclear how some of the most widely used power indices might be exploited as feature importance scores (FISs) in XAI.
• Score: 4.8158930873043335
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concerns [51.370165245628975]
  Tokenization is a critical step in the NLP pipeline. Despite its recognized importance as a standard representation method in NLP, the theoretical underpinnings of tokenization are not yet fully understood. The present paper contributes to addressing this theoretical gap by proposing a unified formal framework for representing and analyzing tokenizer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T11:12:28Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• 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)
• Goodhart's Law Applies to NLP's Explanation Benchmarks [57.26445915212884]
  We critically examine two sets of metrics: the ERASER metrics (comprehensiveness and sufficiency) and the EVAL-X metrics. We show that we can inflate a model's comprehensiveness and sufficiency scores dramatically without altering its predictions or explanations on in-distribution test inputs. Our results raise doubts about the ability of current metrics to guide explainability research, underscoring the need for a broader reassessment of what precisely these metrics are intended to capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T03:03:03Z)
• Feature Importance versus Feature Influence and What It Signifies for Explainable AI [0.0]
  Feature importance should not be confused with the feature influence used by most state-of-the-art post-hoc Explainable AI methods. The Contextual Importance and Utility (CIU) method provides a unified definition of global and local feature importance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T13:46:18Z)
• Explainability is NOT a Game [4.483306836710804]
  XAI aims to help human decision-makers in understanding complex machine learning (ML) models. One of the hallmarks of XAI are measures of relative feature importance, which are theoretically justified through the use of Shapley values. This paper builds on recent work and offers a simple argument for why Shapley values can provide misleading measures of relative feature importance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T09:32:49Z)
• The Inadequacy of Shapley Values for Explainability [0.685316573653194]
  The paper argues that the use of Shapley values in explainable AI (XAI) will necessarily yield provably misleading information about the relative importance of features for predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T09:19:14Z)
• Inherent Inconsistencies of Feature Importance [6.02357145653815]
  Feature importance is a method that assigns scores to the contribution of individual features on prediction outcomes. This paper presents an axiomatic framework designed to establish coherent relationships among the different contexts of feature importance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-16T14:21:51Z)
• Generative Counterfactuals for Neural Networks via Attribute-Informed Perturbation [51.29486247405601]
  We design a framework to generate counterfactuals for raw data instances with the proposed Attribute-Informed Perturbation (AIP) By utilizing generative models conditioned with different attributes, counterfactuals with desired labels can be obtained effectively and efficiently. Experimental results on real-world texts and images demonstrate the effectiveness, sample quality as well as efficiency of our designed framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T08:37:13Z)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)
• Explaining Black Box Predictions and Unveiling Data Artifacts through Influence Functions [55.660255727031725]
  Influence functions explain the decisions of a model by identifying influential training examples. We conduct a comparison between influence functions and common word-saliency methods on representative tasks. We develop a new measure based on influence functions that can reveal artifacts in training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T00:45:23Z)

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.