SHAP Feature Attribution

Shapley value-based methods have become foundational in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), offering theoretically grounded feature attributions through cooperative game theory. However, in practice, particularly in vision tasks, the assumption of feature independence breaks down, as features (i.e., pixels) often exhibit strong spatial and semantic dependencies. To address this, modern SHAP implementations now include the Owen value, a hierarchical generalization of the Shapley value that supports group attributions. While the Owen value preserves the foundations of Shapley values, its effectiveness critically depends on how feature groups are defined. We show that commonly used segmentations (e.g., axis-aligned or SLIC) violate key consistency properties, and propose a new segmentation approach that satisfies the $T$-property to ensure semantic alignment across hierarchy levels. This hierarchy enables computational pruning while improving attribution accuracy and interpretability. Experiments on image and tabular datasets demonstrate that O-Shap outperforms baseline SHAP variants in attribution precision, semantic coherence, and runtime efficiency, especially when structure matters.

In this work, we apply and compare two state-of-the-art eXplainability Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods, the Integrated Gradients (IG) and the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), that explain the fault diagnosis decisions of a highly accurate Long Short-Time Memory (LSTM) classifier. The classifier is trained to detect faults in a benchmark non-linear chemical process, the Tennessee Eastman Process (TEP). It is highlighted how XAI methods can help identify the subsystem of the process where the fault occurred. Using our knowledge of the process, we note that in most cases the same features are indicated as the most important for the decision, while insome cases the SHAP method seems to be more informative and closer to the root cause of the fault. Finally, since the used XAI methods are model-agnostic, the proposed approach is not limited to the specific process and can also be used in similar problems.

In geophysics, hydrocarbon prospect risking involves assessing the risks associated with hydrocarbon exploration by integrating data from various sources. Machine learning-based classifiers trained on tabular data have been recently used to make faster decisions on these prospects. The lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of such models has led to the emergence of explainable AI (XAI). LIME and SHAP are two such examples of these XAI methods which try to generate explanations of a particular decision by ranking the input features in terms of importance. However, explanations of the same scenario generated by these two different explanation strategies have shown to disagree or be different, particularly for complex data. This is because the definitions of "importance" and "relevance" differ for different explanation strategies. Thus, grounding these ranked features using theoretically backed causal ideas of necessity and sufficiency can prove to be a more reliable and robust way to improve the trustworthiness of the concerned explanation strategies.We propose a unified framework to generate counterfactuals as well as quantify necessity and sufficiency and use these to perform a robustness evaluation of the explanations provided by LIME and SHAP on high dimensional structured prospect risking data. This robustness test gives us deeper insights into the models capabilities to handle erronous data and which XAI module works best in pair with which model for our dataset for hydorcarbon indication.

The SHAP (short for Shapley additive explanation) framework has become an essential tool for attributing importance to variables in predictive tasks. In model-agnostic settings, SHAP uses the concept of Shapley values from cooperative game theory to fairly allocate credit to the features in a vector $X$ based on their contribution to an outcome $Y$. While the explanations offered by SHAP are local by nature, learners often need global measures of feature importance in order to improve model explainability and perform feature selection. The most common approach for converting these local explanations into global ones is to compute either the mean absolute SHAP or mean squared SHAP. However, despite their ubiquity, there do not exist approaches for performing statistical inference on these quantities. In this paper, we take a semi-parametric approach for calibrating confidence in estimates of the $p$th powers of Shapley additive explanations. We show that, by treating the SHAP curve as a nuisance function that must be estimated from data, one can reliably construct asymptotically normal estimates of the $p$th powers of SHAP. When $p \geq 2$, we show a de-biased estimator that combines U-statistics with Neyman orthogonal scores for functionals of nested regressions is asymptotically normal. When $1 \leq p < 2$ (and the hence target parameter is not twice differentiable), we construct de-biased U-statistics for a smoothed alternative. In particular, we show how to carefully tune the temperature parameter of the smoothing function in order to obtain inference for the true, unsmoothed $p$th power. We complement these results by presenting a Neyman orthogonal loss that can be used to learn the SHAP curve via empirical risk minimization and discussing excess risk guarantees for commonly used function classes.

SHAP explanations are widely used in high-stakes settings to justify decisions, yet they can differ substantially across repeated runs, even when the model, the input instance, and the prediction are held fixed. Prior work has documented disagreement between explanation methods; we show that substantial disagreement arises even within SHAP across reruns of the same estimator on the same trained model and instance. We call this phenomenon explanation multiplicity and develop an evaluation methodology for characterizing it under deployment-realistic computational budgets, combining a dual-seed protocol that compares model-induced and explainer-induced variability, a hierarchy of magnitude-based, rank-based, and set-based metrics, and randomized Dirichlet and Mallows null models that provide reference scales for observed disagreement. Across multiple datasets, models, and sampling strategies, we find that explanation multiplicity is pervasive and persists even for high-confidence predictions. The relative contribution of each source depends on the data regime and model: model-induced disagreement is generally greater on smaller datasets, while explainer-induced disagreement is greater on larger datasets. Commonly used L2 distance can understate this instability, while rank-based metrics reveal substantial changes in top-ranked features, including the leading feature. Improved sampling methods such as CTE do not eliminate rank-level multiplicity, and K-Means reduces run-to-run variation while its compressed-background explanations can diverge from the empirical-distribution reference. Practitioners should treat single-run SHAP outputs as realizations of a distribution rather than as authoritative artifacts.

Originally introduced in game theory, Shapley values have emerged as a central tool in explainable machine learning, where they are used to attribute model predictions to specific input features. However, computing Shapley values exactly is expensive: for a general model with $n$ features, $O(2^n)$ model evaluations are necessary. To address this issue, approximation algorithms are widely used. One of the most popular is the Kernel SHAP algorithm, which is model agnostic and remarkably effective in practice. At the time of our original submission, no strong non-asymptotic complexity guarantees were known for Kernel SHAP. We address this issue by introducing Leverage SHAP, a lightweight modification of Kernel SHAP that provides provably accurate Shapley value estimates with just $O(n\log n)$ model evaluations. Our approach takes advantage of a connection between Shapley value estimation and agnostic active learning by employing leverage score sampling, a powerful regression tool. Beyond theoretical guarantees, we find that Leverage SHAP achieves an approximately $50\%$ reduction in error compared to the highly optimized implementation of Kernel SHAP in the widely used SHAP library [Lundberg & Lee, 2017].