A Perspective on Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods: SHAP and LIME
2305.02012
0
0
🔄
Abstract
eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods have emerged to convert the black box of machine learning (ML) models into a more digestible form. These methods help to communicate how the model works with the aim of making ML models more transparent and increasing the trust of end-users into their output. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Local Interpretable Model Agnostic Explanation (LIME) are two widely used XAI methods, particularly with tabular data. In this perspective piece, we discuss the way the explainability metrics of these two methods are generated and propose a framework for interpretation of their outputs, highlighting their weaknesses and strengths. Specifically, we discuss their outcomes in terms of model-dependency and in the presence of collinearity among the features, relying on a case study from the biomedical domain (classification of individuals with or without myocardial infarction). The results indicate that SHAP and LIME are highly affected by the adopted ML model and feature collinearity, raising a note of caution on their usage and interpretation.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Explainable AI (XAI) methods aim to make machine learning (ML) models more transparent and increase user trust
- SHAP and LIME are two popular XAI techniques, particularly for tabular data
- This paper examines how the explainability metrics of SHAP and LIME are generated, and proposes a framework for interpreting their outputs
- The study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of these methods, using a case study from the biomedical domain
Plain English Explanation
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods have been developed to help make machine learning (ML) models more understandable. These methods aim to explain how an ML model works, with the goal of increasing trust in the model's outputs.
Two commonly used XAI techniques are SHAP and LIME. These methods provide explanations for individual predictions made by ML models, particularly for tabular data.
This paper examines how the explainability metrics generated by SHAP and LIME are calculated, and proposes a framework for interpreting their outputs. The researchers use a case study from the biomedical domain, classifying individuals with or without myocardial infarction (heart attack), to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these XAI methods.
The key finding is that SHAP and LIME are highly dependent on the specific ML model being used, and are also affected by the relationships (collinearity) between the input features. This means that the explanations provided by these methods should be interpreted with caution, as they may not fully capture the true underlying relationships in the data.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the performance of two popular XAI methods, SHAP and LIME, in a case study from the biomedical domain.
SHAP and LIME are designed to provide explanations for individual predictions made by ML models, by identifying the relative importance of each input feature. The researchers investigated how the explainability metrics generated by these methods are affected by the choice of ML model and the presence of collinearity (correlations) among the input features.
The case study involved classifying individuals as having or not having myocardial infarction (heart attack). The researchers trained several ML models on this task, including logistic regression, decision trees, and random forests. They then applied SHAP and LIME to these models and analyzed the resulting explanations.
The findings indicate that the SHAP and LIME explanations are highly dependent on the specific ML model used, and can be significantly impacted by collinearity among the input features. This suggests that the interpretability of these XAI methods may be limited, and that their outputs should be interpreted with caution.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the use and interpretation of SHAP and LIME, two widely adopted XAI methods. The researchers demonstrate that the explanations provided by these techniques are heavily influenced by the choice of ML model and the presence of collinearity in the input features.
This is a significant limitation, as it suggests that the explanations generated by SHAP and LIME may not accurately reflect the true underlying relationships in the data. Users of these XAI methods should be aware of this potential issue and exercise caution when interpreting the results.
The paper also highlights the need for further research into the development of XAI methods that are more robust to model-specific biases and feature correlations. Advancing the state of the art in XAI is crucial for building trust and transparency in ML systems, particularly in high-stakes domains like healthcare.
Overall, this paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the limitations and best practices for using XAI techniques. It encourages readers to think critically about the strengths and weaknesses of these methods, and to be cautious when relying on their outputs.
Conclusion
This paper examines the performance of two popular XAI methods, SHAP and LIME, in a biomedical case study. The key finding is that the explainability metrics generated by these techniques are heavily influenced by the choice of ML model and the presence of collinearity among the input features.
This raises important concerns about the reliability and interpretability of these XAI methods, and suggests that their outputs should be interpreted with caution. The paper highlights the need for further research into developing XAI techniques that are more robust to model-specific biases and feature correlations, in order to build trust and transparency in ML systems.
Overall, this paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the strengths and limitations of XAI, and encourages readers to think critically about the use of these methods in practical applications.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Unified Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Perturbation Approach
Jacob Dineen, Don Kridel, Daniel Dolk, David Castillo
0
0
A high-velocity paradigm shift towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged in recent years. Highly complex Machine Learning (ML) models have flourished in many tasks of intelligence, and the questions have started to shift away from traditional metrics of validity towards something deeper: What is this model telling me about my data, and how is it arriving at these conclusions? Inconsistencies between XAI and modeling techniques can have the undesirable effect of casting doubt upon the efficacy of these explainability approaches. To address these problems, we propose a systematic, perturbation-based analysis against a popular, model-agnostic method in XAI, SHapley Additive exPlanations (Shap). We devise algorithms to generate relative feature importance in settings of dynamic inference amongst a suite of popular machine learning and deep learning methods, and metrics that allow us to quantify how well explanations generated under the static case hold. We propose a taxonomy for feature importance methodology, measure alignment, and observe quantifiable similarity amongst explanation models across several datasets.
5/31/2024
✨
From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores
Olivier Letoffe, Xuanxiang Huang, Nicholas Asher, Joao Marques-Silva
0
0
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.
5/21/2024
🔄
LLMs for XAI: Future Directions for Explaining Explanations
Alexandra Zytek, Sara Pid`o, Kalyan Veeramachaneni
0
0
In response to the demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), we investigate the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to transform ML explanations into natural, human-readable narratives. Rather than directly explaining ML models using LLMs, we focus on refining explanations computed using existing XAI algorithms. We outline several research directions, including defining evaluation metrics, prompt design, comparing LLM models, exploring further training methods, and integrating external data. Initial experiments and user study suggest that LLMs offer a promising way to enhance the interpretability and usability of XAI.
5/13/2024
💬
Tell Me a Story! Narrative-Driven XAI with Large Language Models
David Martens, James Hinns, Camille Dams, Mark Vergouwen, Theodoros Evgeniou
0
0
In many AI applications today, the predominance of black-box machine learning models, due to their typically higher accuracy, amplifies the need for Explainable AI (XAI). Existing XAI approaches, such as the widely used SHAP values or counterfactual (CF) explanations, are arguably often too technical for users to understand and act upon. To enhance comprehension of explanations of AI decisions and the overall user experience, we introduce XAIstories, which leverage Large Language Models to provide narratives about how AI predictions are made: SHAPstories do so based on SHAP explanations, while CFstories do so for CF explanations. We study the impact of our approach on users' experience and understanding of AI predictions. Our results are striking: over 90% of the surveyed general audience finds the narratives generated by SHAPstories convincing. Data scientists primarily see the value of SHAPstories in communicating explanations to a general audience, with 83% of data scientists indicating they are likely to use SHAPstories for this purpose. In an image classification setting, CFstories are considered more or equally convincing as the users' own crafted stories by more than 75% of the participants. CFstories additionally bring a tenfold speed gain in creating a narrative. We also find that SHAPstories help users to more accurately summarize and understand AI decisions, in a credit scoring setting we test, correctly answering comprehension questions significantly more often than they do when only SHAP values are provided. The results thereby suggest that XAIstories may significantly help explaining and understanding AI predictions, ultimately supporting better decision-making in various applications.
6/14/2024