From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A central goal of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to assign relative importance to the features of a Machine Learning (ML) model given some prediction. The importance of this task of explainability by feature attribution is illustrated by the ubiquitous recent use of tools such as SHAP and LIME. Unfortunately, the exact computation of feature attributions, using the game-theoretical foundation underlying SHAP and LIME, can yield manifestly unsatisfactory results, that tantamount to reporting misleading relative feature importance. Recent work targeted rigorous feature attribution, by studying axiomatic aggregations of features based on logic-based definitions of explanations by feature selection. This paper shows that there is an essential relationship between feature attribution and a priori voting power, and that those recently proposed axiomatic aggregations represent a few instantiations of the range of power indices studied in the past. Furthermore, it remains unclear how some of the most widely used power indices might be exploited as feature importance scores (FISs), i.e. the use of power indices in XAI, and which of these indices would be the best suited for the purposes of XAI by feature attribution, namely in terms of not producing results that could be deemed as unsatisfactory. This paper proposes novel desirable properties that FISs should exhibit. In addition, the paper also proposes novel FISs exhibiting the proposed properties. Finally, the paper conducts a rigorous analysis of the best-known power indices in terms of the proposed properties.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2024.
Builds on
9 of 57 references.
References · 9
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2017Methods for Interpreting and Understanding Deep Neural Networkscited by 345
- 2020On the Tractability of SHAP Explanationscited by 92
- 2022Logic-Based Explainability in Machine Learningcited by 48
- 2021On the Complexity of SHAP-Score-Based Explanations: Tractability via Knowledge Compilation and Non-Approximability Resultscited by 32
- 2023The Inadequacy of Shapley Values for Explainabilitycited by 31
- 2023Disproving XAI Myths with Formal Methods -- Initial Resultscited by 12
- 2023On Formal Feature Attribution and Its Approximationcited by 11
- 2023Refutation of Shapley Values for XAI -- Additional Evidencecited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
8 papers.
- 2024Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Futurecited by 2
- 2024SHAP scores fail pervasively even when Lipschitz succeedscited by 2
- 2024Efficient Contrastive Explanations on Demandcited by 1
- 2025The Explanation Game -- Rekindled (Extended Version)cited by 1
- 2026Binary Spiking Neural Networks as Causal Modelscited by 1
- 2024The Sets of Powercited by 0
- 2025Feature-Guided Neighbor Selection for Non-Expert Evaluation of Model Predictionscited by 0
- 2025Efficient & Correct Predictive Equivalence for Decision Treescited by 0
- 2026Binary Spiking Neural Networks as Causal Models29 Apr 2026
- 2025Efficient & Correct Predictive Equivalence for Decision Trees22 Sep 2025
- 2025Feature-Guided Neighbor Selection for Non-Expert Evaluation of Model Predictions8 Jul 2025
- 2025The Explanation Game -- Rekindled (Extended Version)20 Jan 2025
- 2024Efficient Contrastive Explanations on Demand24 Dec 2024
- 2024SHAP scores fail pervasively even when Lipschitz succeeds18 Dec 2024
- 2024The Sets of Power10 Oct 2024
- 2024Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Future4 Jun 2024