Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Perspective on Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods: SHAP and LIME

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

arxiv 2305.02012 v3 pith:DWJMI6TD submitted 2023-05-03 stat.ML cs.AIcs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords methodslimemodelshapartificialcollinearitydiscussexplainable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods have emerged to convert the black box of machine learning (ML) models into a more digestible form. These methods help to communicate how the model works with the aim of making ML models more transparent and increasing the trust of end-users into their output. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Local Interpretable Model Agnostic Explanation (LIME) are two widely used XAI methods, particularly with tabular data. In this perspective piece, we discuss the way the explainability metrics of these two methods are generated and propose a framework for interpretation of their outputs, highlighting their weaknesses and strengths. Specifically, we discuss their outcomes in terms of model-dependency and in the presence of collinearity among the features, relying on a case study from the biomedical domain (classification of individuals with or without myocardial infarction). The results indicate that SHAP and LIME are highly affected by the adopted ML model and feature collinearity, raising a note of caution on their usage and interpretation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Framework

    cs.AI 2025-05 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A conceptual proposal for auditing AI ethics with modular 'ontological blocks' that is not implemented or empirically validated.

Pith tools