mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Bias-Variance Characteristics of LIME and SHAP in High Sparsity Movie Recommendation Explanation Tasks

arXiv 2206.04784 ↗First posted 9 Jun 2022cs.LG cs.IRcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We evaluate two popular local explainability techniques, LIME and SHAP, on a movie recommendation task. We discover that the two methods behave very differently depending on the sparsity of the data set. LIME does better than SHAP in dense segments of the data set and SHAP does better in sparse segments. We trace this difference to the differing bias-variance characteristics of the underlying estimators of LIME and SHAP. We find that SHAP exhibits lower variance in sparse segments of the data compared to LIME. We attribute this lower variance to the completeness constraint property inherent in SHAP and missing in LIME. This constraint acts as a regularizer and therefore increases the bias of the SHAP estimator but decreases its variance, leading to a favorable bias-variance trade-off especially in high sparsity data settings. With this insight, we introduce the same constraint into LIME and formulate a novel local explainabilty framework called Completeness-Constrained LIME (CLIMB) that is superior to LIME and much faster than SHAP.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2022.

Builds on

22 of 43 references.

References · 22

  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. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,458
  5. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
  6. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 721
  7. 2018Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networkscited by 505
  8. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
  9. 2018Variational Autoencoders for Collaborative Filteringcited by 310
  10. 2019CXPlain: Causal Explanations for Model Interpretation under Uncertaintycited by 98
  11. 2020Towards Unifying Feature Attribution and Counterfactual Explanations: Different Means to the Same Endcited by 66
  12. 2021How can I choose an explainer? An Application-grounded Evaluation of Post-hoc Explanationscited by 58
10 more
  1. 2021S-LIME: Stabilized-LIME for Model Explanationcited by 52
  2. 2020Statistical stability indices for LIME: obtaining reliable explanations for Machine Learning modelscited by 40
  3. 2018Exact and Consistent Interpretation for Piecewise Linear Neural Networks: A Closed Form Solutioncited by 32
  4. 2019Do Explanations Reflect Decisions? A Machine-centric Strategy to Quantify the Performance of Explainability Algorithmscited by 32
  5. 2019On Attribution of Recurrent Neural Network Predictions via Additive Decompositioncited by 16
  6. 2019Many Faces of Feature Importance: Comparing Built-in and Post-hoc Feature Importance in Text Classificationcited by 10
  7. 2021Better sampling in explanation methods can prevent dieselgate-like deceptioncited by 5
  8. 2020Evaluating Explainable Methods for Predictive Process Analytics: A Functionally-Grounded Approachcited by 3
  9. 2018Faithfully Explaining Rankings in a News Recommender Systemcited by 1
  10. 2021TrustyAI Explainability Toolkitcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.