Cited by 0AI and HR TechnologiesExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Online Learning and Analytics

Explainable AI for employee turnover prediction: a SHAP-based intelligent analytics approach

Open access
Jia, Haojie·2026·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Employee turnover prediction is a critical challenge in human resource management. Existing studies emphasise predictive accuracy but generally treat interpretability as an afterthought, and applications of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) in this domain typically stop at single-level feature importance without reporting threshold calibration, subgroup fairness, or external validation. This study develops a four-layer SHAP-based explainable analytic protocol that systematically integrates global feature importance, feature effect, pairwise interaction, and local explanation with cohort analysis, with each layer attached to a specific managerial question, and that augments these four layers with threshold calibration, subgroup fairness audit, and cross-dataset external validation as standard reporting modules. Four machine learning models (XGBoost, Random Forest, LightGBM, Logistic Regression) are trained on the IBM HR Analytics benchmark under a leakage-corrected pipeline that places SMOTE inside cross-validation. XGBoost reaches a test-set ROC-AUC (Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve) of 0.773 (95% confidence interval 0.716 to 0.828); it is not statistically superior to a Logistic Regression baseline and is selected as the SHAP base learner for its TreeSHAP compatibility and interaction-analysis capability rather than for predictive performance. The dummy-aggregated SHAP top 10 places EnvironmentSatisfaction, JobSatisfaction, StockOptionLevel, OverTime, and MonthlyIncome at the top of the ranking. Threshold sweep, fairness audit (which reveals a substantial age-band recall gap), and external validation on the Saudi Employee Attrition dataset show that the protocol transfers as a method while the specific feature rankings, the OverTime × MonthlyIncome interaction, and the dominant subgroup disparity are dataset-specific and require per-deployment validation. The protocol is positioned as a proof-of-concept analytic framework supported by an explicit responsible-AI discussion rather than as a substantive claim about which features drive turnover in general.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-026-60901-3

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Jia, H.
Affiliations
Capital University of Economics and Business (CN)
Corresponding author
Jia, Haojie
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-07-06
Volume
16
Issue
1
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7167510906
Cited by
0
References
2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
employee turnover prediction, explainable AI, SHAP, subgroup fairness, XGBoost, cohort analysis, interaction analysis, responsible AI, human resource management, employee attrition, external validation, SMOTE, data leakage

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