# Precision of Individual Shapley Value Explanations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03485 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.03485/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 9 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Explaining by Removing: A Unified Framework for Model Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.14878/) (2020)
- [Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: More accurate approximations to Shapley values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.10464/) (2019)
- [Algorithms to estimate Shapley value feature attributions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.07605/) (2022)
- [Using Shapley Values and Variational Autoencoders to Explain Predictive Models with Dependent Mixed Features](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.13507/) (2021)
- [A Comparative Study of Methods for Estimating Conditional Shapley Values and When to Use Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09536/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Improving the Weighting Strategy in KernelSHAP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04883/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Shapley values are extensively used in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) as a framework to explain predictions made by complex machine learning (ML) models. In this work, we focus on conditional Shapley values for predictive models fitted to tabular data and explain the prediction f(boldsymbolx*) for a single observation boldsymbolx* at the time. Numerous Shapley value estimation methods have been proposed and empirically compared on an average basis in the XAI literature. However, less focus has been devoted to analyzing the precision of the Shapley value explanations on an individual basis. We extend our work in Olsen et al. (2023) by demonstrating and discussing that the explanations are systematically less precise for observations on the outer region of the training data distribution for all used estimation methods. This is expected from a statistical point of view, but to the best of our knowledge, it has not been systematically addressed in the Shapley value literature. This is crucial knowledge for Shapley values practitioners, who should be more careful in applying these observations' corresponding Shapley value explanations.