Succinct Interaction-Aware Explanations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
SHAP is a popular approach to explain black-box models by revealing the importance of individual features. As it ignores feature interactions, SHAP explanations can be confusing up to misleading. NSHAP, on the other hand, reports the additive importance for all subsets of features. While this does include all interacting sets of features, it also leads to an exponentially sized, difficult to interpret explanation. In this paper, we propose to combine the best of these two worlds, by partitioning the features into parts that significantly interact, and use these parts to compose a succinct, interpretable, additive explanation. We derive a criterion by which to measure the representativeness of such a partition for a models behavior, traded off against the complexity of the resulting explanation. To efficiently find the best partition out of super-exponentially many, we show how to prune sub-optimal solutions using a statistical test, which not only improves runtime but also helps to detect spurious interactions. Experiments on synthetic and real world data show that our explanations are both more accurate resp. more easily interpretable than those of SHAP and NSHAP.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Feb 2024.
Builds on
23 of 42 references.
References · 23
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 612
- 2018Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretabilitycited by 256
- 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
- 2019FACE: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanationscited by 232
- 2019Interpretable Counterfactual Explanations Guided by Prototypescited by 223
- 2016Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 219
- 2019Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisionscited by 204
- 2019Feature relevance quantification in explainable AI: A causal problemcited by 164
- 2019The Shapley Taylor Interaction Indexcited by 143
11 more
- 2019Towards Realistic Individual Recourse and Actionable Explanations in Black-Box Decision Making Systemscited by 128
- 2019Asymmetric Shapley values: incorporating causal knowledge into model-agnostic explainabilitycited by 114
- 2020Causal Shapley Values: Exploiting Causal Knowledge to Explain Individual Predictions of Complex Modelscited by 107
- 2022Faith-Shap: The Faithful Shapley Interaction Indexcited by 68
- 2022From Shapley Values to Generalized Additive Models and backcited by 59
- 2018What made you do this? Understanding black-box decisions with sufficient input subsetscited by 31
- 2021groupShapley: Efficient prediction explanation with Shapley values for feature groupscited by 21
- 2023Decomposing Global Feature Effects Based on Feature Interactionscited by 17
- 2019Do Not Trust Additive Explanationscited by 15
- 2021Joint Shapley values: a measure of joint feature importancecited by 15
- 2023Shapley Sets: Feature Attribution via Recursive Function Decompositioncited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.