Weighing mainstream and alternative accounts…
Two lenses on the same evidence. Source weight and the primary source ratio show what each rests on.
Deeper threads worth pulling on next.
Investigated
Image: christophm.github.io
SHAP, or SHapley Additive exPlanations, explains an individual machine-learning prediction by assigning each feature a contribution relative to a baseline prediction. It adapts Shapley values from cooperative game theory, averaging a feature’s marginal contribution across feature coalitions. In practice, SHAP uses model-specific or model-agnostic algorithms and masking schemes to estimate these contributions. The resulting values can clarify a model’s behavior, but they are not automatically causal explanations and can mislead about relative importance under some conditions.
Two lenses on the same evidence. Source weight and the primary source ratio show what each rests on.
Critical research argues that SHAP’s mathematical allocation rules do not always track the features that are genuinely relevant to a prediction. In particular, constructed classifiers can receive misleading relative rankings, and correlated features or unrealistic masked inputs can distort results. These critiques do not reject SHAP as a useful diagnostic, but challenge treating its values as definitive feature importance or human-centered explanations.
Deeper threads worth pulling on next.