An empirical study of the effect of background data size on the stability of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) for deep learning models
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
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,515
- 2021Skillful Precipitation Nowcasting using Deep Generative Models of Radarcited by 310
- 2020Robust and Stable Black Box Explanationscited by 47
- 2019Explainable artificial intelligence model to predict acute critical illness from electronic health recordscited by 42
- 2021Deep learning for temporal data representation in electronic health records: A systematic review of challenges and methodologiescited by 34
- 2021AutoScore-Imbalance: An interpretable machine learning tool for development of clinical scores with rare events datacited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2026Explanation Multiplicity in SHAP: Characterization and Assessmentcited by 5
- 2023Streamlining models with explanations in the learning loopcited by 0
- 2024Foundation Model Makes Clustering A Better Initialization For Cold-Start Active Learningcited by 0
- 2024Choose Your Explanation: A Comparison of SHAP and GradCAM in Human Activity Recognitioncited by 0
- 2026Explanation Multiplicity in SHAP: Characterization and Assessment19 Jan 2026
- 2024Choose Your Explanation: A Comparison of SHAP and GradCAM in Human Activity Recognition20 Dec 2024
- 2024Foundation Model Makes Clustering A Better Initialization For Cold-Start Active Learning4 Feb 2024
- 2023Streamlining models with explanations in the learning loop15 Feb 2023