TabSHAP

Tabular data is a primary medium for storing real-world information, driving many industrial applications of machine learning. Traditional predictors achieve strong predictive performance but do not provide readable, case-specific explanations essential for decision-making. Large Language Models (LLMs) can naturally bridge this gap by generating predictions alongside explanations. However, dataset-specific patterns, such as feature distributions and interactions, make tabular data difficult for LLMs to understand and reason over, while label-only fine-tuning improves performance at the cost of catastrophic forgetting. To address this problem, we propose Tri-Level Rationale Distillation (TLRD), a framework that converts label-only tabular datasets into structured rationale supervision for LLMs. TLRD uses a high-capacity teacher to synthesize a rationale corpus grounded in three complementary levels of evidence: instance-level feature, dataset-level distributional context, and comparison-level retrieved neighbors, then distills the rationale into student LLMs, enabling zero-overhead prediction and grounded explanation from raw features only. Experiments on multiple domain datasets show that TLRD significantly closes the performance gap between LLMs and state-of-the-art tree ensembles while producing grounded and readable explanations, offering a valuable reference for high-stakes decision-making.

Automated machine learning pipelines increasingly produce models whose predictions must be explained to end users, auditors, and downstream decision systems. The most widely used feature attribution methods (SHAP, Integrated Gradients, LIME) are typically chosen by convention rather than measured fidelity, because rigorous evaluation is impeded by the absence of ground-truth attribution on real data. We propose AGOP-IxG, a fast per-sample attribution method for tabular classifiers that pre-multiplies the per-sample gradient by a top-$K$ rank-truncated Average Gradient Outer Product matrix, and evaluate it against four widely-used baselines on a controlled tabular benchmark designed for AutoML practitioners. In Part 1, we construct three synthetic multi-class tabular tasks (linear, sparse nonlinear, interaction-based) where ground-truth attribution per sample is analytically or numerically derivable, and compare five methods: AGOP-IxG, SHAP (DeepExplainer), Integrated Gradients, InputXGradient, and LIME. AGOP-IxG leads on Spearman rank correlation and noise feature mass on all three synthetic datasets, and on top-$k$ precision on the interaction dataset. Across all settings, AGOP-IxG is approximately $350\times$ to $1{,}650\times$ faster than SHAP. In Part 2, we evaluate global faithfulness on Adult Income and Credit Card Default using the ROAR protocol; the methods cluster within $\sim 1.7\%$ relative AUC, consistent with AGOP-IxG being optimized for per-sample local attribution rather than global feature ranking.

Despite the wide use of explainability techniques to attempt to understand the behavior of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the generated explanations may not always be reliable. An explanation can appear plausible to humans but fail to capture the internal reasoning of a model, particularly when dealing with complex tabular data. This paper studies the trustworthiness of local explainability techniques when applied to complex tabular classification tasks, considering evaluated metrics for three main properties: faithfulness to the model's predictions, robustness to input data variations, and complexity of the explanation itself. A benchmark was performed for Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), Kernel SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), and Feature Ablation techniques, across 32 datasets and different types of machine learning models. Model performance ranges were analyzed to identify two groups: consensus-correct, which are samples that all models predicted correctly, and consensus-wrong, samples that all models predicted incorrectly. The obtained results demonstrate that that the explanations are not always correlated with a model's predictive performance. Instead, dataset complexity and feature distributions seem to be the main factors affecting explanation quality and reliability.