Accurate and robust Shapley Values for explaining predictions and focusing on local important variables

Although Shapley Values (SV) are widely used in explainable AI, they can be poorly understood and estimated, which implies that their analysis may lead to spurious inferences and explanations. As a starting point, we remind an invariance principle for SV and derive the correct approach for computing the SV of categorical variables that are particularly sensitive to the encoding used. In the case of tree-based models, we introduce two estimators of Shapley Values that exploit efficiently the tree structure and are more accurate than state-of-the-art methods. For interpreting additive explanations, we recommend to filter the non-influential variables and to compute the Shapley Values only for groups of influential variables. For this purpose, we use the concept of "Same Decision Probability" (SDP) that evaluates the robustness of a prediction when some variables are missing. This prior selection procedure produces sparse additive explanations easier to visualize and analyse. Simulations and comparisons are performed with state-of-the-art algorithm, and show the practical gain of our approach.

[1]  Tommi S. Jaakkola,et al.  On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods , 2018, ArXiv.

[2]  Suresh Venkatasubramanian,et al.  Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures , 2020, ICML.

[3]  Emil Pitkin,et al.  Peeking Inside the Black Box: Visualizing Statistical Learning With Plots of Individual Conditional Expectation , 2013, 1309.6392.

[4]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  The Same-Decision Probability: A New Tool for Decision Making , 2012 .

[5]  J. Friedman Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[6]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  An Exact Algorithm for Computing the Same-Decision Probability , 2013, IJCAI.

[7]  Tom Claassen,et al.  Causal Shapley Values: Exploiting Causal Knowledge to Explain Individual Predictions of Complex Models , 2020, NeurIPS.

[8]  Kjersti Aas,et al.  Explaining predictive models using Shapley values and non-parametric vine copulas , 2021, Dependence Modeling.

[9]  Zhi-Hua Zhou,et al.  Isolation Forest , 2008, 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[10]  Daniel Fryer,et al.  Shapley values for feature selection: The good, the bad, and the axioms , 2021, IEEE Access.

[11]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions , 2017, NIPS.

[12]  Carlos Guestrin,et al.  "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , 2016, ArXiv.

[13]  Sisi Ma,et al.  Predictive and Causal Implications of using Shapley Value for Model Interpretation , 2020, CD@KDD.

[14]  Joseph D. Janizek,et al.  True to the Model or True to the Data? , 2020, ArXiv.

[15]  Kjersti Aas,et al.  Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: More accurate approximations to Shapley values , 2019, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Erik Strumbelj,et al.  An Efficient Explanation of Individual Classifications using Game Theory , 2010, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[17]  Scott Lundberg,et al.  Explaining by Removing Explaining by Removing: A Unified Framework for Model Explanation , 2020 .

[18]  Hugh Chen,et al.  From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees , 2020, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[19]  Dominik Janzing,et al.  Feature relevance quantification in explainable AI: A causality problem , 2019, AISTATS.

[20]  Cl'ement B'enard,et al.  Interpretable Random Forests via Rule Extraction , 2020, AISTATS.

[21]  Bernd Bischl,et al.  Grouped feature importance and combined features effect plot , 2021, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.