REVIEW 1 cited by
Shapley values for feature selection: The good, the bad, and the axioms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The Shapley value has become popular in the Explainable AI (XAI) literature, thanks, to a large extent, to a solid theoretical foundation, including four "favourable and fair" axioms for attribution in transferable utility games. The Shapley value is provably the only solution concept satisfying these axioms. In this paper, we introduce the Shapley value and draw attention to its recent uses as a feature selection tool. We call into question this use of the Shapley value, using simple, abstract "toy" counterexamples to illustrate that the axioms may work against the goals of feature selection. From this, we develop a number of insights that are then investigated in concrete simulation settings, with a variety of Shapley value formulations, including SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Shapley Additive Global importancE (SAGE).
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Local Additive Feature Attribution: A Mathematical Taxonomy and Reporting Checklist
Local additive feature-attribution methods are only interpretable relative to stated choices about value functions, baselines, paths, perturbation distributions, and conservation rules.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.