Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40785706›Full record

ArticleIEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions2024

Effective Pruning for Top-k Feature Search on the Basis of SHAP Values.

Lisa Chabrier, Anton Crombach, Sergio Peignier, Christophe Rigotti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lisa ChabrierInria, Centre de Lyon, 69603 Villeurbanne, France.ORCID 0009-0002-0502-5357
Anton CrombachInria, Centre de Lyon, 69603 Villeurbanne, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2889-5120
Sergio PeignierINSA Lyon, INRAE, BF2I, UMR0203, 69621, Villeurbanne, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9004-3033
Christophe RigottiInria, Centre de Lyon, 69603 Villeurbanne, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1265-1479

Funding

Gene regulatory network control of olfactory cortex cell type specificationR01DC020478 · NIDCD · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI Alexander Fleischmann · 2023 to 2026
$2.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC020478
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the ever-increasing influence of machine learning models, it has become necessary to explain their predictions. The SHAP framework provides a solution to this problem by assigning a score to each feature of a model such that it reflects the feature contribution to the prediction. Although SHAP is widely used, it is hampered by its computational cost when preserving model-agnosticism. This paper proposes a model-agnostic algorithm, TopShap, to efficiently approximate the SHAP values of the top-k most important features. TopShap uses confidence interval bounds of the approximate SHAP values to determine on the fly which features can no longer be part of the top-k and then removes them from the computation, thus saving computational resources. This cost reduction makes TopShap better suited than competing model-agnostic methods for top-k SHAP value computation. The evaluation of TopShap shows that it performs efficient pruning of the feature search space, in turn leading to a substantial reduction in the execution time when compared to the existing most efficient agnostic approach, Kernel SHAP. The experiments presented in this work cover a wide range of numbers of features and instances, using the following public datasets: Concrete, Wine quality, Appliances energy, PBMC gene expression, Mercedes, CT locations, and a synthetic regression. Various models were used to demonstrate model-agnosticism:

Indexed as

Explainable artificial intelligencelocal feature attributionmodel-agnostic methodShapley valuetop-k selection

Identifiers

PMID40785706
PMCPMC12333390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.