mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

How to safely discard features based on aggregate SHAP values

arXiv 2503.23111 ↗First posted 29 Mar 2025cs.LG cs.AI stat.MLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

SHAP is one of the most popular local feature-attribution methods. Given a function f and an input x, it quantifies each feature's contribution to f(x). Recently, SHAP has been increasingly used for global insights: practitioners average the absolute SHAP values over many data points to compute global feature importance scores, which are then used to discard unimportant features. In this work, we investigate the soundness of this practice by asking whether small aggregate SHAP values necessarily imply that the corresponding feature does not affect the function. Unfortunately, the answer is no: even if the i-th SHAP value is 0 on the entire data support, there exist functions that clearly depend on Feature i. The issue is that computing SHAP values involves evaluating f on points outside of the data support, where f can be strategically designed to mask its dependence on Feature i. To address this, we propose to aggregate SHAP values over the extended support, which is the product of the marginals of the underlying distribution. With this modification, we show that a small aggregate SHAP value implies that we can safely discard the corresponding feature. We then extend our results to KernelSHAP, the most popular method to approximate SHAP values in practice. We show that if KernelSHAP is computed over the extended distribution, a small aggregate value justifies feature removal. This result holds independently of whether KernelSHAP accurately approximates true SHAP values, making it one of the first theoretical results to characterize the KernelSHAP algorithm itself. Our findings have both theoretical and practical implications. We introduce the Shapley Lie algebra, which offers algebraic insights that may enable a deeper investigation of SHAP and we show that randomly permuting each column of the data matrix enables safely discarding features based on aggregate SHAP and KernelSHAP values.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Mar 2025.

Builds on

18 of 40 references.

References · 18

  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. 2016Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regressioncited by 668
  5. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 476
  6. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
  7. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 200
  8. 2020Improving KernelSHAP: Practical Shapley Value Estimation via Linear Regressioncited by 154
  9. 2019Asymmetric Shapley values: incorporating causal knowledge into model-agnostic explainabilitycited by 114
  10. 2022Impossibility Theorems for Feature Attributioncited by 78
  11. 2022From Shapley Values to Generalized Additive Models and backcited by 60
  12. 2022Framework for Evaluating Faithfulness of Local Explanationscited by 55
6 more
  1. 2019Global Aggregations of Local Explanations for Black Box modelscited by 30
  2. 2024Rethinking Data Shapley for Data Selection Tasks: Misleads and Meritscited by 29
  3. 2023Feature Importance: A Closer Look at Shapley Values and LOCOcited by 23
  4. 2024A Guide to Feature Importance Methods for Scientific Inferencecited by 11
  5. 2024A Theory of Interpretable Approximationscited by 7
  6. 2023Accelerating the Global Aggregation of Local Explanationscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.