Feature relevance quantification in explainable AI: A causal problem
Open accessAbstract
We discuss promising recent contributions on quantifying feature relevance using Shapley values, where we observed some confusion on which probability distribution is the right one for dropped features. We argue that the confusion is based on not carefully distinguishing between observational and interventional conditional probabilities and try a clarification based on Pearl's seminal work on causality. We conclude that unconditional rather than conditional expectations provide the right notion of dropping features in contradiction to the theoretical justification of the software package SHAP. Parts of SHAP are unaffected because unconditional expectations (which we argue to be conceptually right) are used as approximation for the conditional ones, which encouraged others to `improve' SHAP in a way that we believe to be flawed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A model is causal with respect to its own predictions, and the parents of these predictions are X and possibly Z.
“Either way, whether the model at hand does or does not represent causal relations between variables in the real world, the model is causal w.r.t. its own predictions and the parents of these predictions are 𝑿 and, possibly, 𝒁 , as detailed in the causal explainability literature [23].”
From Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
SHAP meets the completeness axiom, which says that the sum of influence of individual features equals the influence of all features pooled together.
“and SHAP meets the completeness axiom (a.k.a. additivity axiom) [13, 23], which says that the sum of influence of individual features equals to the influence of all features pooled together,”
From Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Prior works suggest making a probabilistic intervention on a feature by replacing it with an independent random variable.
“To measure the influence of a certain feature 𝑊 𝑖 prior works suggest to make a probabilistic intervention on that variable by replacing it with an independent random variable [13, 23, 34].”
From Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learning (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 21 · Cited by 207
- Authors
- Janzing, D., Minorics, L., & Blöbaum, P.
- Affiliations
- Amazon (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 2907-2916
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1910.13413
- OpenAlex
- W2982667388
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Keywords
- Shapley value, SHAP, explainable AI, causal inference
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
