Cited by 897Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Software Testing and Debugging TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

A Perspective on Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods: SHAP and LIME

Open access
Salih, Ahmed M., Raisi‐Estabragh, Zahra, Galazzo, Ilaria Boscolo, Radeva, Petia, Petersen, Steffen E., Lekadir, Karim, Menegaz, Gloria·2025·Advanced Intelligent Systems

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 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

Crossref · 10.1002/aisy.202400304

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”
  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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.
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
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