A Perspective on Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods: SHAP and LIME
Open accessAbstract
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 in 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, the way the explainability metrics of these two methods are generated is discussed and a framework for the interpretation of their outputs, highlighting their weaknesses and strengths is proposed. Specifically, 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) are discussed. 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Stakeholders and grid operators are often reluctant to trust automated decisions such as load shedding or battery dispatch if the underlying reasoning cannot be audited or explained.
“Stakeholders and grid operators are often reluctant to trust automated decisions-such as load shedding or battery dispatch-if the underlying reasoning cannot be audited or explained [7].”
From Explainable AI and Multi-Agent Systems for Energy Management in IoT-Edge Environments: A State of the Art Review (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Perturbing one time-step without adjusting its neighbors creates unrealistic input sequences that the model never encountered during training, leading to unreliable attribution scores.
“Perturbing one time-step without adjusting its neighbors creates unrealistic input sequences (out-of-distribution samples) that the model never encountered during training, leading to unreliable attribution scores [5,7].”
From Explainable AI and Multi-Agent Systems for Energy Management in IoT-Edge Environments: A State of the Art Review (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Cites
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707 · see citing works
Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762 · cited 1× · see citing works
“XAI is indispensable to increase the model transparency and the trust of end-users in the model outcome [6] [7].”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A survey on LLM-based multi-agent systems: Workflow, infrastructure, and challenges
Li, X., Wang, S., Zeng, S., Wu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2024) · Vicinagearth · doi:10.1007/s44336-024-00009-2 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Álvarez-López, C., González-Briones, A., & Li, T. (2026) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics15020385 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Videofluoroscopy Swallow Study Analysis: A Comprehensive Review
Sanjeevi, G., Gopalakrishnan, U., Pathinarupothi, R. K., & Iyer, K. S. (2025) · Dysphagia · doi:10.1007/s00455-025-10812-8 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Van Dort, B. A., Engelsma, T., Sneekes, P., Peute, L., & Medlock, S. (2026) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001417 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“Another commonly used method is Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME), which approximates the predictions of a complex model locally using a simpler, interpretable model to explain individual predictions [9].”
InfluentialExplainability in AI: Comparing Human-Like and System-Like Trust Repair Strategies
Konopka, B., & Wiesche, M. (2026) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-026-10751-1 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Salih, A. M., Raisi‐Estabragh, Z., Galazzo, I. B., Radeva, P., Petersen, S. E., Lekadir, K., & Menegaz, G.
- Affiliations
- St Bartholomew's Hospital (GB)
- University of Verona (IT)
- Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Salih, Ahmed M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Advanced Intelligent Systems
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-06-27
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2640-4567 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4400135851
- Cited by
- 897
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 490 · 2025: 373 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 132.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Advanced Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- British Heart Foundation (PG/21/10619)
- National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Keywords
- explainable AI, SHAP, lime, model-agnostic explanation, model dependencies, tabular data, myocardial infarction classification, biomedical classification, interpretability metrics, model transparency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review