Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sampling Permutations for Shapley Value Estimation

Mitchell, Rory, Cooper, Joshua, Frank, Eibe, Holmes, Geoffrey·2021·arXiv

Abstract

Game-theoretic attribution techniques based on Shapley values are used to interpret black-box machine learning models, but their exact calculation is generally NP-hard, requiring approximation methods for non-trivial models. As the computation of Shapley values can be expressed as a summation over a set of permutations, a common approach is to sample a subset of these permutations for approximation. Unfortunately, standard Monte Carlo sampling methods can exhibit slow convergence, and more sophisticated quasi-Monte Carlo methods have not yet been applied to the space of permutations. To address this, we investigate new approaches based on two classes of approximation methods and compare them empirically. First, we demonstrate quadrature techniques in a RKHS containing functions of permutations, using the Mallows kernel in combination with kernel herding and sequential Bayesian quadrature. The RKHS perspective also leads to quasi-Monte Carlo type error bounds, with a tractable discrepancy measure defined on permutations. Second, we exploit connections between the hypersphere $\mathbb{S}^{d-2}$ and permutations to create practical algorithms for generating permutation samples with good properties. Experiments show the above techniques provide significant improvements for Shapley value estimates over existing methods, converging to a smaller RMSE in the same number of model evaluations.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2104.12199

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Cayley Graph of d = 3
Figure 1 Cayley Graph of d = 3CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Cayley Graph of d = 4
Figure 2 Cayley Graph of d = 4CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Orthogonal spherical codes: The permutations associated with each orthogonal vector on the n-sphere must be separated by a certain graph distance.
Figure 4 Orthogonal spherical codes: The permutations associated with each orthogonal vector on the n-sphere must be separated by a certain graph distance.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 6 The dot product of two points on S d -2 is closely related to the graph distance K τ ( I, σ ) between the associated permutations.
Figure 6 The dot product of two points on S d -2 is closely related to the graph distance K τ ( I, σ ) between the associated permutations.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 7
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 8 Sobol permutations
Figure 8 Sobol permutationsCC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 9 Existing algorithms - Tabular data, GBDT models
Figure 9 Existing algorithms - Tabular data, GBDT modelsCC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 10 Proposed algorithms - Tabular data, GBDT models
Figure 10 Proposed algorithms - Tabular data, GBDT modelsCC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 11 Proposed algorithms - Tabular data, MLP models
Figure 11 Proposed algorithms - Tabular data, MLP modelsCC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 12 MSE estimates for 100 permutation samples applied to image classifications made by ResNet50
Figure 12 MSE estimates for 100 permutation samples applied to image classifications made by ResNet50CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 12 (Cont.): MSE estimates for 100 permutation samples applied to image classifications made by ResNet50
Figure 12 (Cont.): MSE estimates for 100 permutation samples applied to image classifications made by ResNet50CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 13 Varying λ for 100 herding samples - Tabular data and GBDT models. Selection of a consistently effective λ value is unclear.
Figure 13 Varying λ for 100 herding samples - Tabular data and GBDT models. Selection of a consistently effective λ value is unclear.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 14 Varying λ for 100 herding samples - Tabular data and MLP models. Selection of a consistently effective λ value is unclear.
Figure 14 Varying λ for 100 herding samples - Tabular data and MLP models. Selection of a consistently effective λ value is unclear.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 15 Varying λ for 100 herding samples - Image data and ResNet50 model. Varying the λ parameter for our 256 dimensional image data has little impact on average.
Figure 15 Varying λ for 100 herding samples - Image data and ResNet50 model. Varying the λ parameter for our 256 dimensional image data has little impact on average.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 16 Varying argmax samples for herding algorithm ( λ = 4) - Tabular datasets and GBDT models. Increasing the number of trials improves accuracy with diminishing returns. We choose 25 trials, compromising between accuracy and runtime.
Figure 16 Varying argmax samples for herding algorithm ( λ = 4) - Tabular datasets and GBDT models. Increasing the number of trials improves accuracy with diminishing returns. We choose 25 trials, compromising between accuracy and runtime.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 17 Comparing permutation kernels for kernel herding using tabular data and GBDT models. The Mallows kernel performs at least as well as the other (non-universal) kernels, and often better.
Figure 17 Comparing permutation kernels for kernel herding using tabular data and GBDT models. The Mallows kernel performs at least as well as the other (non-universal) kernels, and often better.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel P.W. Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. The million song dataset. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR 2011), 2011.
  2. LE Blumenson. A derivation of n-dimensional spherical coordinates. The American Math- ematical Monthly, 67(1):63-66, 1960.
  3. Johann S Brauchart and Josef Dick. Quasi-Monte Carlo rules for numerical integration over the unit sphere S 2 . Numerische Mathematik, 121(3):473-502, 2012.
  4. Javier Castro, Daniel Gómez, Elisenda Molina, and Juan Tejada. Improving polynomial estimation of the shapley value by stratified random sampling with optimum alloca- tion. Computers & Operations Research, 82:180-188, 2017. ISSN 0305-0548. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2017.01.019. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S030505481730028X. · DOI
  5. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In KDD, pages 785-794. ACM, 2016.
  6. Yutian Chen, Max Welling, and Alex Smola. Super-samples from kernel herding. In Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'10, page 109-116, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 2010. AUAI Press. ISBN 9780974903965.
  7. Krzysztof Choromanski, Mark Rowland, Wenyu Chen, and Adrian Weller. Unifying or- thogonal Monte Carlo methods. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1203-1212. PMLR, 2019.
  8. J. H. Conway, N. J. A. Sloane, and E. Bannai. Sphere-Packings, Lattices, and Groups. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1987. ISBN 038796617X.
  9. Ian Covert, Scott Lundberg, and Su-In Lee. Explaining by removing: A unified framework for model explanation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.14878, 2020. · arXiv
  10. Xiaotie Deng and Christos H Papadimitriou. On the complexity of cooperative solution concepts. Mathematics of operations research, 19(2):257-266, 1994.
  11. Josef Dick and Friedrich Pillichshammer. Digital nets and sequences: discrepancy theory and quasi-Monte Carlo integration. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  12. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770-778, 2016.
  13. Fred J. Hickernell. What affects the accuracy of quasi-Monte Carlo quadrature? In Harald Niederreiter and Jerome Spanier, editors, Monte-Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 1998, pages 16-55, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3- 642-59657-5.
  14. Edmund Hlawka. Funktionen von beschränkter variatiou in der theorie der gleichverteilung. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 54(1):325-333, 1961.
  15. Ferenc Huszár and David Duvenaud. Optimally-weighted herding is bayesian quadra- ture. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial In- telligence, UAI'12, page 377-386, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 2012. AUAI Press. ISBN 9780974903989.
  16. Yunlong Jiao and Jean-Philippe Vert. The kendall and mallows kernels for permutations. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on International Conference on Ma- chine Learning -Volume 37, ICML'15, page 1935-1944. JMLR.org, 2015.
  17. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. · arXiv
  18. William R. Knight. A computer method for calculating kendall's tau with ungrouped data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61(314):436-439, 1966. ISSN 01621459. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2282833.
  19. Donald E. Knuth. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2 (3rd Ed.): Seminu- merical Algorithms. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA, 1997. ISBN 0201896842.
  20. Ron Kohavi. Scaling up the accuracy of naive-bayes classifiers: A decision-tree hybrid. In KDD, pages 202-207. AAAI Press, 1996.
  21. Maria Lomeli, Mark Rowland, Arthur Gretton, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Antithetic and Monte Carlo kernel estimators for partial rankings. Statistics and Computing, 29(5): 1127-1147, 2019.
  22. Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model predic- tions. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vish- wanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, pages 4765-4774.
  23. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URL http://papers.nips.cc/ paper/7062-a-unified-approach-to-interpreting-model-predictions.pdf.
  24. Sasan Maleki. Addressing the computational issues of the Shapley value with applications in the smart grid. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 2015.
  25. Horia Mania, Aaditya Ramdas, Martin J Wainwright, Michael I Jordan, and Benjamin Recht. On kernel methods for covariates that are rankings. Electronic Journal of Statis- tics, 12:2537-2577, 2018.
  26. Francesco Mezzadri. How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups. arXiv preprint math-ph/0609050, 2006. · arXiv
  27. Thomas Muir. On a simple term of a determinant. In Proc. Royal Society Edinburg, volume 21, pages 441-477, 1898.
  28. Jerzy Neyman. On the two different aspects of the representative method: The method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97(4):558-625, 1934. ISSN 09528385. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 2342192.
  29. A. O'Hagan. Bayes-hermite quadrature. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 29 (3):245-260, 1991. ISSN 0378-3758. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3758(91)90002-V. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037837589190002V. · DOI
  30. Ramin Okhrati and Aldo Lipani. A multilinear sampling algorithm to estimate shapley values. In Proc. of ICPR, ICPR, 2020.
  31. Guillermo Owen. Multilinear extensions of games. Management Science, 18(5):P64-P79, 1972. ISSN 00251909, 15265501. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2661445.
  32. R Kelley Pace and Ronald Barry. Sparse spatial autoregressions. Statistics & Probability Letters, 33(3):291-297, 1997.
  33. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blon- del, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825-2830, 2011.
  34. S. M. Plis, T. Lane, and V. D. Calhoun. Permutations as angular data: Efficient inference in factorial spaces. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pages 403-410, 2010. doi: 10.1109/ICDM.2010.122. · DOI
  35. William H. Press, Saul A. Teukolsky, William T. Vetterling, and Brian P. Flannery. Numer- ical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, USA, 3 edition, 2007. ISBN 0521880688.
  36. Carl Edward Rasmussen and Zoubin Ghahramani. Bayesian Monte Carlo. Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 505-512, 2003.
  37. Reuven Y Rubinstein and Dirk P Kroese. Simulation and the Monte Carlo method, vol- ume 10. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
  38. Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhi- heng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision, 115(3):211- 252, 2015.

Cited by

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Mitchell, R., Cooper, J., Frank, E., & Holmes, G.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
References
7
Type
Preprint

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sampling Permutations for Shapley Value Estimation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2104.12199
The paper
Mitchell, R., Cooper, J., Frank, E., & Holmes, G. (2021). Sampling Permutations for Shapley Value Estimation. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2104.12199

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.