mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

An empirical study of the effect of background data size on the stability of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) for deep learning models

arXiv 2204.11351 ↗First posted 24 Apr 2022cs.LG cs.AIcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Nowadays, the interpretation of why a machine learning (ML) model makes certain inferences is as crucial as the accuracy of such inferences. Some ML models like the decision tree possess inherent interpretability that can be directly comprehended by humans. Others like artificial neural networks (ANN), however, rely on external methods to uncover the deduction mechanism. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) is one of such external methods, which requires a background dataset when interpreting ANNs. Generally, a background dataset consists of instances randomly sampled from the training dataset. However, the sampling size and its effect on SHAP remain to be unexplored. In our empirical study on the MIMIC-III dataset, we show that the two core explanations - SHAP values and variable rankings fluctuate when using different background datasets acquired from random sampling, indicating that users cannot unquestioningly trust the one-shot interpretation from SHAP. Luckily, such fluctuation decreases with the increase of the background dataset size. Also, we notice an U-shape in the stability assessment of SHAP variable rankings, demonstrating that SHAP is more reliable in ranking the most and least important variables compared to moderately important ones. Overall, our results suggest that users should take into account how background data affects SHAP results, with improved SHAP stability as the background sample size increases.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2022.

Builds on

6 of 20 references.

References · 6

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,515
  2. 2021Skillful Precipitation Nowcasting using Deep Generative Models of Radarcited by 310
  3. 2020Robust and Stable Black Box Explanationscited by 47
  4. 2019Explainable artificial intelligence model to predict acute critical illness from electronic health recordscited by 42
  5. 2021Deep learning for temporal data representation in electronic health records: A systematic review of challenges and methodologiescited by 34
  6. 2021AutoScore-Imbalance: An interpretable machine learning tool for development of clinical scores with rare events datacited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

4 papers.