Explanation Multiplicity in SHAP: Characterization and Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12654v2
• Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:59:03 GMT
• Title: Explanation Multiplicity in SHAP: Characterization and Assessment
• Authors: Hyunseung Hwang, Seungeun Lee, Lucas Rosenblatt, Steven Euijong Whang, Julia Stoyanovich,
• Abstract summary: Post-hoc explanations are widely used to justify, contest, and review automated decisions in high-stakes domains such as lending, employment, and healthcare.<n>In practice, however, SHAP explanations can differ substantially across repeated runs, even when the individual, prediction task, and trained model are held fixed.<n>We conceptualize and name this phenomenon explanation multiplicity: the existence of multiple, internally valid but substantively different explanations for the same decision.
• Score: 28.413883186555438
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Post-hoc explanations are widely used to justify, contest, and review automated decisions in high-stakes domains such as lending, employment, and healthcare. Among these methods, SHAP is often treated as providing a reliable account of which features mattered for an individual prediction and is routinely used to support recourse, oversight, and accountability. In practice, however, SHAP explanations can differ substantially across repeated runs, even when the individual, prediction task, and trained model are held fixed. We conceptualize and name this phenomenon explanation multiplicity: the existence of multiple, internally valid but substantively different explanations for the same decision. Explanation multiplicity poses a normative challenge for responsible AI deployment, as it undermines expectations that explanations can reliably identify the reasons for an adverse outcome. We present a comprehensive methodology for characterizing explanation multiplicity in post-hoc feature attribution methods, disentangling sources arising from model training and selection versus stochasticity intrinsic to the explanation pipeline. Furthermore, whether explanation multiplicity is surfaced depends on how explanation consistency is measured. Commonly used magnitude-based metrics can suggest stability while masking substantial instability in the identity and ordering of top-ranked features. To contextualize observed instability, we derive and estimate randomized baseline values under plausible null models, providing a principled reference point for interpreting explanation disagreement. Across datasets, model classes, and confidence regimes, we find that explanation multiplicity is widespread and persists even under highly controlled conditions, including high-confidence predictions. Thus explanation practices must be evaluated using metrics and baselines aligned with their intended societal role.

Related papers

• Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning [80.60864342985748]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation.<n>Existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning.<n>We introduce MuRGAt, a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T03:10:02Z)
• Reliable Explanations or Random Noise? A Reliability Metric for XAI [6.948460965107209]
  We introduce the Explanation Reliability Index (ERI), a family of metrics that quantifies explanation stability under four reliability axioms.<n>ERI enables principled assessment of explanation reliability and supports more trustworthy AI (XAI) systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T22:04:07Z)
• Towards Large Language Models with Self-Consistent Natural Language Explanations [11.085839471231552]
  Large language models (LLMs) seem to offer an easy path to interpretability.<n>Yet, studies show that these post-hoc explanations often misrepresent the true decision process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T08:06:33Z)
• A Causal Lens for Evaluating Faithfulness Metrics [11.80379109128303]
  Causal Diagnosticity is a framework that serves as a common testbed to evaluate faithfulness metrics for natural language explanations.<n>Our framework employs the concept of diagnosticity, and uses model-editing methods to generate faithful-unfaithful explanation pairs.<n>We evaluate prominent faithfulness metrics, including post-hoc explanation and chain-of-thought-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T05:35:53Z)
• Model-free Methods for Event History Analysis and Efficient Adjustment (PhD Thesis) [55.2480439325792]
  This thesis is a series of independent contributions to statistics unified by a model-free perspective.<n>The first chapter elaborates on how a model-free perspective can be used to formulate flexible methods that leverage prediction techniques from machine learning.<n>The second chapter studies the concept of local independence, which describes whether the evolution of one process is directly influenced by another.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T19:24:09Z)
• Rethinking LLM Uncertainty: A Multi-Agent Approach to Estimating Black-Box Model Uncertainty [47.95943057892318]
  Quantifying uncertainty in black-box LLMs is vital for reliable responses and scalable oversight.<n>We introduce DiverseAgentEntropy, a novel, theoretically-grounded method employing multi-agent interaction for uncertainty estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T18:52:40Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• LaPLACE: Probabilistic Local Model-Agnostic Causal Explanations [1.0370398945228227]
  We introduce LaPLACE-explainer, designed to provide probabilistic cause-and-effect explanations for machine learning models. The LaPLACE-Explainer component leverages the concept of a Markov blanket to establish statistical boundaries between relevant and non-relevant features. Our approach offers causal explanations and outperforms LIME and SHAP in terms of local accuracy and consistency of explained features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T04:09:59Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Bayesian Hierarchical Models for Counterfactual Estimation [12.159830463756341]
  We propose a probabilistic paradigm to estimate a diverse set of counterfactuals. We treat the perturbations as random variables endowed with prior distribution functions. A gradient based sampler with superior convergence characteristics efficiently computes the posterior samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-21T00:21:11Z)
• Shortcomings of Top-Down Randomization-Based Sanity Checks for Evaluations of Deep Neural Network Explanations [67.40641255908443]
  We identify limitations of model-randomization-based sanity checks for the purpose of evaluating explanations. Top-down model randomization preserves scales of forward pass activations with high probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-22T18:52:38Z)
• An Additive Instance-Wise Approach to Multi-class Model Interpretation [53.87578024052922]
  Interpretable machine learning offers insights into what factors drive a certain prediction of a black-box system. Existing methods mainly focus on selecting explanatory input features, which follow either locally additive or instance-wise approaches. This work exploits the strengths of both methods and proposes a global framework for learning local explanations simultaneously for multiple target classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-07T06:50:27Z)
• Don't Explain Noise: Robust Counterfactuals for Randomized Ensembles [50.81061839052459]
  We formalize the generation of robust counterfactual explanations as a probabilistic problem. We show the link between the robustness of ensemble models and the robustness of base learners. Our method achieves high robustness with only a small increase in the distance from counterfactual explanations to their initial observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-27T17:28:54Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Explainability in Process Outcome Prediction: Guidelines to Obtain Interpretable and Faithful Models [77.34726150561087]
  We define explainability through the interpretability of the explanations and the faithfulness of the explainability model in the field of process outcome prediction. This paper contributes a set of guidelines named X-MOP which allows selecting the appropriate model based on the event log specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T05:59:50Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification of Surrogate Explanations: an Ordinal Consensus Approach [1.3750624267664155]
  We produce estimates of the uncertainty of a given explanation by measuring the consensus amongst a set of diverse bootstrapped surrogate explainers. We empirically illustrate the properties of this approach through experiments on state-of-the-art Convolutional Neural Network ensembles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-17T13:55:58Z)
• Counterfactual Evaluation for Explainable AI [21.055319253405603]
  We propose a new methodology to evaluate the faithfulness of explanations from the textitcounterfactual reasoning perspective. We introduce two algorithms to find the proper counterfactuals in both discrete and continuous scenarios and then use the acquired counterfactuals to measure faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-05T01:38:49Z)
• Do not explain without context: addressing the blind spot of model explanations [2.280298858971133]
  This paper highlights a blind spot which is often overlooked when monitoring and auditing machine learning models. We discuss that many model explanations depend directly or indirectly on the choice of the referenced data distribution. We showcase examples where small changes in the distribution lead to drastic changes in the explanations, such as a change in trend or, alarmingly, a conclusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-28T12:48:40Z)
• Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainability [44.9824285459365]
  Black box explanations are increasingly being employed to establish model credibility in high-stakes settings. prior work demonstrates that explanations generated by state-of-the-art techniques are inconsistent, unstable, and provide very little insight into their correctness and reliability. We develop a novel Bayesian framework for generating local explanations along with their associated uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-11T22:52:21Z)

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.