mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Variable importance without impossible data

arXiv 2205.15750 ↗First posted 31 May 2022cs.LG cs.AI econ.EMcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The most popular methods for measuring importance of the variables in a black box prediction algorithm make use of synthetic inputs that combine predictor variables from multiple subjects. These inputs can be unlikely, physically impossible, or even logically impossible. As a result, the predictions for such cases can be based on data very unlike any the black box was trained on. We think that users cannot trust an explanation of the decision of a prediction algorithm when the explanation uses such values. Instead we advocate a method called Cohort Shapley that is grounded in economic game theory and unlike most other game theoretic methods, it uses only actually observed data to quantify variable importance. Cohort Shapley works by narrowing the cohort of subjects judged to be similar to a target subject on one or more features. We illustrate it on an algorithmic fairness problem where it is essential to attribute importance to protected variables that the model was not trained on.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 96 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 May 2022.

Builds on

28 of 96 references.

References · 28

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  4. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  5. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
  6. 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 629
  7. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  8. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 476
  9. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
  10. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  11. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 384
  12. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 344
16 more
  1. 2020Neural Additive Models: Interpretable Machine Learning with Neural Netscited by 319
  2. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  3. 2018Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensemblescited by 285
  4. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  5. 2019Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: More accurate approximations to Shapley valuescited by 208
  6. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 200
  7. 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 141
  8. 2019Asymmetric Shapley values: incorporating causal knowledge into model-agnostic explainabilitycited by 114
  9. 2021Sampling Permutations for Shapley Value Estimationcited by 102
  10. 2020Shapley explainability on the data manifoldcited by 88
  11. 2018The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism predictioncited by 53
  12. 2019Explaining black box decisions by Shapley cohort refinementcited by 26
  13. 2014Efficient Computation of the Shapley Value for Game-Theoretic Network Centralitycited by 14
  14. 2022Post-selection inference for e-value based confidence intervalscited by 14
  15. 2021Cohort Shapley value for algorithmic fairnesscited by 13
  16. 2020Computing Shapley Effects for Sensitivity Analysiscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 2.

5 papers.