SHAP explanations are a popular feature-attribution mechanism for explainable AI. They use game-theoretic notions to measure the influence of individual features on the prediction of a machine learning model. Despite a lot of recent interest from both academia and industry, it is not known whether SHAP explanations of common machine learning models can be computed efficiently. In this paper, we establish the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation in three important settings. First, we consider fully-factorized data distributions, and show that the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation is the same as the complexity of computing the expected value of the model. This fully-factorized setting is often used to simplify the SHAP computation, yet our results show that the computation can be intractable for commonly used models such as logistic regression. Going beyond fully-factorized distributions, we show that computing SHAP explanations is already intractable for a very simple setting: computing SHAP explanations of trivial classifiers over naive Bayes distributions. Finally, we show that even computing SHAP over the empirical distribution is #P-hard.
more »
« less
Towards Unifying Feature Attribution and Counterfactual Explanations: Different Means to the Same End
Feature attributions and counterfactual explanations are popular approaches to explain a ML model. The former assigns an importance score to each input feature, while the latter provides input examples with minimal changes to alter the model's predictions. To unify these approaches, we provide an interpretation based on the actual causality framework and present two key results in terms of their use. First, we present a method to generate feature attribution explanations from a set of counterfactual examples. These feature attributions convey how important a feature is to changing the classification outcome of a model, especially on whether a subset of features is necessary and/or sufficient for that change, which attribution-based methods are unable to provide. Second, we show how counterfactual examples can be used to evaluate the goodness of an attribution-based explanation in terms of its necessity and sufficiency. As a result, we highlight the complimentary of these two approaches. Our evaluation on three benchmark datasets --- Adult-Income, LendingClub, and German-Credit --- confirms the complimentary. Feature attribution methods like LIME and SHAP and counterfactual explanation methods like Wachter et al. and DiCE often do not agree on feature importance rankings. In addition, by restricting the features that can be modified for generating counterfactual examples, we find that the top-k features from LIME or SHAP are often neither necessary nor sufficient explanations of a model's prediction. Finally, we present a case study of different explanation methods on a real-world hospital triage problem.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2125116
- PAR ID:
- 10297698
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 652 to 663
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)SHAP explanations are a popular feature-attribution mechanism for explainable AI. They use game-theoretic notions to measure the influence of individual features on the prediction of a machine learning model. Despite a lot of recent interest from both academia and industry, it is not known whether SHAP explanations of common machine learning models can be computed efficiently. In this paper, we establish the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation in three important settings. First, we consider fully-factorized data distributions, and show that the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation is the same as the complexity of computing the expected value of the model. This fully-factorized setting is often used to simplify the SHAP computation, yet our results show that the computation can be intractable for commonly used models such as logistic regression. Going beyond fully-factorized distributions, we show that computing SHAP explanations is already intractable for a very simple setting: computing SHAP explanations of trivial classifiers over naive Bayes distributions. Finally, we show that even computing SHAP over the empirical distribution is #P-hard.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)SHAP explanations are a popular feature-attribution mechanism for explainable AI. They use game-theoretic notions to measure the influence of individual features on the prediction of a machine learning model. Despite a lot of recent interest from both academia and industry, it is not known whether SHAP explanations of common machine learning models can be computed efficiently. In this paper, we establish the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation in three important settings. First, we consider fully-factorized data distributions, and show that the complexity of computing the SHAP explanation is the same as the complexity of computing the expected value of the model. This fully-factorized setting is often used to simplify the SHAP computation, yet our results show that the computation can be intractable for commonly used models such as logistic regression. Going beyond fully-factorized distributions, we show that computing SHAP explanations is already intractable for a very simple setting: computing SHAP explanations of trivial classifiers over naive Bayes distributions. Finally, we show that even computing SHAP over the empirical distribution is #P-hard.more » « less
-
As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in domains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there is growing emphasis on building tools and techniques for explaining these black boxes in an interpretable manner. Such explanations are being leveraged by domain experts to diagnose systematic errors and underlying biases of black boxes. In this paper, we demonstrate that post hoc explanations techniques that rely on input perturbations, such as LIME and SHAP, are not reliable. Specifically, we propose a novel scaffolding technique that effectively hides the biases of any given classifier by allowing an adversarial entity to craft an arbitrary desired explanation. Our approach can be used to scaffold any biased classifier in such a way that its predictions on the input data distribution still remain biased, but the post hoc explanations of the scaffolded classifier look innocuous. Using extensive evaluation with multiple real world datasets (including COMPAS), we demonstrate how extremely biased (racist) classifiers crafted by our framework can easily fool popular explanation techniques such as LIME and SHAP into generating innocuous explanations which do not reflect the underlying biases.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract With increasing interest in explaining machine learning (ML) models, this paper synthesizes many topics related to ML explainability. We distinguish explainability from interpretability, local from global explainability, and feature importance versus feature relevance. We demonstrate and visualize different explanation methods, how to interpret them, and provide a complete Python package (scikit-explain) to allow future researchers and model developers to explore these explainability methods. The explainability methods include Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), Shapley additive global explanation (SAGE), and accumulated local effects (ALE). Our focus is primarily on Shapley-based techniques, which serve as a unifying framework for various existing methods to enhance model explainability. For example, SHAP unifies methods like local interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) and tree interpreter for local explainability, while SAGE unifies the different variations of permutation importance for global explainability. We provide a short tutorial for explaining ML models using three disparate datasets: a convection-allowing model dataset for severe weather prediction, a nowcasting dataset for subfreezing road surface prediction, and satellite-based data for lightning prediction. In addition, we showcase the adverse effects that correlated features can have on the explainability of a model. Finally, we demonstrate the notion of evaluating model impacts of feature groups instead of individual features. Evaluating the feature groups mitigates the impacts of feature correlations and can provide a more holistic understanding of the model. All code, models, and data used in this study are freely available to accelerate the adoption of machine learning explainability in the atmospheric and other environmental sciences.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462597
